Kerala Court January 1983 Judgments
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. H.H. Sethu Parvathi Bai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-1983
Reported in: [1984]145ITR124(Ker)
Subramonian Poti, Actg. C.J. 1. Pursuant to the order of this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of Section 6 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that for the gift of the shares made by the asses-see on March 25, 1971, the value fixed in the balance-sheet of the company as on March 31, 1970, should be taken as the proper value '2. The question arises in connection with an assessment to gift-tax during the assessment year 1971-72 for which the accounting year is that ending on March 31, 1971. During that period the assessee gifted some properties and the dispute here concerns only gift concerning 1,000 shares in Nirlon Synthetic Fibres & Chemicals Ltd. These shares were gifted by the assessee on March 25, 1971, and this gift was returned for the year 1971-72 showing the value of each...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-1983
Reported in: (1983)ILLJ444Ker
Bhaskaran, J.1. The point for decision in this writ petition is whether it is the date of the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority or the date of disposal of the appeal therefrom provided under the contract of employment by the Appellate Authority that has to be considered to be the starting point for reckoning the time within which an appeal is required to be filed under Section 18(2) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 (Act 34 of 1960), for short the Act, read with rule 3 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Rules, 1961, for short the Rules. Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act lays down the conditions without the compliance of which no employer could dispense with the services of an employee employed continuously for a period of not less than six months. Sub-section (2) of that section reads:Any employee whose services an dispensed with may appeal to such authority and within such time as may be prescribed either on the gro...
Tag this Judgment!A.X. Varghese Vs. Vayar Ravi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ579
ORDERM.P. Menon, J.1. The petitioner, seemingly a public-spirited journalist, has been coming to this Court frequently; this is his fourth approach within a month or so, to my knowledge. The first was for contempt of court against the Chief Minister of Kerala. The second also was for contempt, against the Home Minister and the Irrigation Minister. The third was for directing the President of India to impose President's rule in the State. Undaunted by the results, he has now come to see whether the Home Minister, the Chief Minister and the Director General of police (respondents 1 to 31 could be prosecuted at the instance of this Court, for certain offences said to have been committed by them,2. The allegations are these : The police opened fire on unsocial elements and hooligans when the Muslims of Alleppey were observing Miladi Sherief on 29th December, 1982. A protest hartal was organised the next day at Trivandrum. Fully knowing that the hooligans and unsocial elements of that city ...
Tag this Judgment!S.N.D.P. Yogam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-11-1983
Reported in: [1985]154ITR624(Ker)
Sivaraman Nair, J.1. The question that arises in these references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act is as to whether the membership fee received by the assessee, the S.N.D.P. Yogam, from its members is income for the purpose of taxation. The facts which are relevant are the following: 2. The assessee, S.N.D.P. Yogam, is an association of persons initially registered under the Societies Registration Act and later under the Indian Companies Act. According to Clause 4 of the articles of association of the Yogam, the membership fee is Rs. 5 per member. Clause 9 of the articles provides that the subscriptions are to be remitted to the head office and the head office is enabled to pay back such amounts to the branches for utilising the same for permanent institutions. Every year the Yogam enrols members, from each of whom, a prescribed fee of Rs. 5 is collected as membership fee. Clause 56 of the bye-laws framed by the Yogam indicating the sources of income mentions the receipts fro...
Tag this Judgment!Thilothama Vs. Kunjappan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ273
ORDERU.L. Bhat, J.1. In Crl. M. C. 46 of 1972, the petitioner obtained an order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') directing the respondent, her hushand, to pay maintenance to her and her child at the rate of Rs. 25/- and Rs. 10 per month respectively. The maintenance amounts were increased to Rs. 50 and Rs. 25 per month, respectively in M.C. 61 of 1975 filed by the petitioner. The respondent filed G.P. 2l of 1975 under Section 14 of the Cochin Marumakkathayam Thiyya Act, 1115 for dissolution of the marriage. The trial Court passed an order on 28-7-197(5 dissolving the marriage and directing the respondent to pay compensation of Rupees 1,000 to the petitioner under Sections 14 and 15 of that Act, In appeal, as seen in Ext. P1 judgment, the first Appellate Court increased the quantum of compensation to Rs. 2,000 on 9-6-1978 It appears, the amount due was paid on 14-3-1979. Thereafter, the respondent filed M.C. 14 of 1980 under Section 127(3)(b)(ii...
Tag this Judgment!N.P. UnnimoyIn Kutty Vs. the Asstt. Educational Officer, Kondotty and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ker124
K. Bhaskaran, J. 1. The petitioner. Sri N. P. Unnimoyin Kutty, is the Manager of P.M.S.A.P.T.M.A.M.L.P. School, Chevit-tanikunnu. Ext. P-7 order dt. 20-11-1980 the petitioner was told by respondent 1, the Assistant Educational Officer, Kon-dotty, that Ext. P-5 order dt. 19-5-1980 whereunder it was declared that the school in question was a minority institution as defined in Section 2, Clause (5), Kerala Education Act, entitled to the benefits of Article 30(1) of the Constitution was null and void as according to him it was not supported by any provisions in the Kerala Education Rules as stated by the District Educational Officer in her letter No. 8290/80 dt. 30-10-1980.2. Sri P. K. Shamsuddin, the counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is a Muslim. He started the school utilising his own funds. He had sought permission for starting a Mappila School. The school is founded in memory of a spiritual leader Pookoya Thangel. The counter affidavit filed by the State shows t...
Tag this Judgment!R. Thankappan and ors. Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-04-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Ker96
ORDERG. Balagangadharan Nair, J.1. By the notice Ext. P2 dated 29-1-1980 the 1st respondent, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Alleppey told the five petitioners and one V. K. Sukumaran that it had been noticed that they were disqualified to be members of the Board of Directors of the Kalavoor Co-operative Society Ltd. under the Co-operative Societies Rules and bye-laws of the Society and hence ceased to be members of the Board of Directors under Rule 44 (1) (c) (i) with effect from the date of acquiring the said disqualification and that it was proposed to declare them disqualified to continue on the Committee under Rule 44 (3). As part of the details of the disqualification furnished in the notice it was stated that on 15-1-1980 when the Society was inspected the 1st petitioner was found indebted to the Society as a principal debtor, the 2nd petitioner as a surety the 3rd petitioner also as a surety, the 4th petitioner as a principal debtor and the 5th petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Puthanpurayil Pullotichi Mariyam Vs. Valia Peedikavil Tharamballi Moos ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-04-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Ker87
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant. The suit is for recovery of possession of an item of property on the strength of the plaintiffs' title. The plaintiffs are the karnavan and the senior ananthiravan of a Mappila Marumakkathayam tavazhi tarwad. The suit is contested by the first defendant. She admits the plaintiffs' title to the suit property. Her only defence is that she had an oral lease of the property from a previous karnavan, Sooppy, and the oral lease was renewed as per Ext. A-1 dated 10-7-1964 and she is in possession of the property as a tenant under the plaintiffs' tavazhi. Both the courts below have concurrently found against the oral lease alleged. Ext. A-1 purports to be a renewal of the prior oral lease. It is granted by Anthraman, a Karnavan of plaintiffs' tavazhi. He was none other than the husband of the first defendant. The appellate court has also found that Ext. A-1 was never intended to be acted upon. On these findings the suit was dec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›