Kerala Court August 1983 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Western India Plywoods Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-30-1983
Reported in: [1984]150ITR218(Ker)
Paripoornan, J. 1. These three references are at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala-II, Ernakulam. The assessee, a public limited company, is the respondent in all the three references. The three assessment years concerned are 1963-64, 1966-67 and 1970-71. We are concerned in these cases with the interpretation of the provisions of the Super Profits Tax Act for the year 1963-64 and with the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the years 1966-67 and 1970-71. The questions referred to this court for the three assessment years, wherein the broad principles, to be considered are similar, are as follows :' 1. Assessment year 1963-64 :--Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the various amounts shown in the balance-sheet of the assessee-company as reserves for repayment of loans are to be treated as reserves created by the company and that they are to be taken into account for comp...
Tag this Judgment!P.T. Abdul Sattar Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-30-1983
Reported in: [1984]150ITR207(Ker)
Sukumaran, J. 1. 'The Cannanore Shop' was a prominent business concern, situate as it was, according to the finding of the Tribunal 'at an important and ideal locality' engaged in business 'over many years' and 'with long standing business traditions'. P. Abdurahimankutty was one of the partners from early times. He was a partner of the firm constituted under the deed of July 1, 1967. At the age of 84, he continued to be a partner, the first partner, of the firm, as reconstituted under annexure 'A', partnership agreement dated August 2, 1968. He was the managing partner with extensive powers in the matter of administration of the firm and his share in the capital was 40%. The partnership was one at will. The deed contained many of the provisions usually seen in a partnership deed. The managing partner had even an unusual power 'to expel any of the remaining partners if, in his opinion, the continuation of the partner is detrimental to the partnership business' (clause 16). Clause I 5 o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.P. Parukutty Mooppilamma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-30-1983
Reported in: (1984)38CTR(Ker)354; [1984]149ITR131(Ker)
Paripoornan, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala II, Ernakulam, the following two questions of law have been referred to this court under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessment years concerned are 1969-70 and 1970-71 and the same assessee is the respondent in both the referred cases. The questions referred to this court are the following :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of the partition deed No. 1283 of 1957 and the agreements subsequent to that, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in fixing the status of the assessee as individuals and not as a Hindu undivided family or an association of persons or a body of individuals for the purpose of assessment of the capital gains that arose from the sale of forest trees in the malavaram properties ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law and had any material befo...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Chellappan George and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-19-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1780
ORDERU.L. Bhat, J.1. Respondents herein were tried by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Neyyattinkara in C. C. 133 of 1981 on charge for offences under Sections 341 324 and 326 I. P. C read with Section 34 I.P.C. and convicted and each sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 326 read with Section 34 I P.C. and simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 341 I.P.C. No separate sentence has been imposed under Section 324 I.P.C. The two sentences were directed to run concurrently. In appeal the learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Trivandrum, reduced the conviction, under Section 326 I.P.C. to one under Section 325 I.P.C. maintained the conviction on the other counts, set aside the sentences imposed and remanded the case for consideration of application of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code'). When the calendar was received by this Court, it was felt that the provisions of Section 360 of the Code may not be applicab...
Tag this Judgment!Peter Thompson Vs. Mrs. Tresa Xavier and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ker35
Bhaskaran Nambiar, J. 1. This appeal under Section 83 of the Lunacy Act (Central Act IV of 1912) is directed against the order of the District Court, Ernakulam, declaring Sri Manayath Thommen Antony as a person of unsound mind incapable of managing his affairs and appointing his brother's widow Mrs. Tresa Xavier as his Custodian and Manager of his properties.2. Mrs. Tresa Xavier -- to be referred hereafter as the petitioner -- filed an application under Sections 62 and 63 of the Act alleging that the second respondent herein, Manayath Thommen Antony, has been insane for several years, that his brother was appointed as a guardian in an earlier lunacy proceeding, Lunacy Order P. No. 1 of 1962, that he was under the care of his brother till he died on 12-1-1979 and thereafter the second respondent has been under the custody and care of the petitioner. It was, therefore, necessary to appoint a guardian for him to manage his person and his properties. The petition also stated that there wer...
Tag this Judgment!Parekh Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-1983
Reported in: (1983)36CTR(Ker)372; [1984]150ITR105(Ker)
Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee to income-tax borne on the files of the 3rd respondent, the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Circle I, Calicut. In this Original Petition, exts. P-1, P-3 and P-5, orders of respondents Nos. 3, 2 and 1, respectively, are challenged. The 1st respondent is the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala II, Ernakulam, the 2nd respondent is the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Calicut Range, Calicut, and the 3rd respondent is the Income-tax Officer, A Ward, Circle I, Calicut. The final order is the one passed by the 1st respondent, evidenced by ext. P-5, dated May 5, 1978. The short question that arises for consideration is the scope of the revisional power of the first respondent under Section 264 of the I.T. Act, 1961.2. This original petition is coming up before us on a reference made by our learned brother, P.C. Balakrishna Menon, Judge, by his order of reference dated December 15, 1981.3. The short facts necessary to adjudicate the cont...
Tag this Judgment!E. Kunhiraman Nair Vs. Superintendent of Post Offices and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-16-1983
Reported in: (1984)ILLJ135Ker
P. Subramonian Poti, C.J.1. The petitioner was provisionally appointed as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master at Kunnathur Branch Office within the Cannanore Division. The appointment originally was for a period of four months. But he was again appointed provisionally as Extra Departmental Post Master for another period of three months in continuation of the earlier appointment. There was yet and her appointment in continuation of the first two appointments for a period of three months. Such services started from 9th January, 1978. While the petitioner was so functioning as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master he was served with a memo dated 23rd September, 1978 informing him that under Rule 6 of the Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 the services of the petitioner was being terminated with immediate effect. Ext. P2 is the copy of that order dated 23rd September, 1973. In the same order it was mentioned that the 3rd respondent was being selected and appointe...
Tag this Judgment!Kollatra Abbas Haji Vs. Government of India and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-1983
Reported in: 1991LC131(Kerala); 1984(15)ELT129(Ker)
Kochu Thommen, T., J.1. The petitioner challenges Exts. P6 dated 4-2-1976, P9 dated February, 1980 and P10 dated September, 1980. By Ext. P6 a penalty in the sum of Rs. One lakh was imposed upon the petitioner by the Additional Collector of Customs under Section 112(h)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. This order was confirmed in appeal by the 2nd respondent the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi by Ex. P9 and by the 1st respondent-The Government of India by Ex. P10,2. On 10-2-1974 fifteen gunny bundles of foreign fabrics were recovered from the premises of B.M. Abdul Khader and C.M. Abdalla, Twelve of them were recovered from the premises of the former and three from that of the latter. Neither Abdul Khader nor Abdulla was present at the time of the recovery. During the course of investigation, officers of the Customs took statements of six persons. They are M.M, Abdulla Kunhi, (recorded on 19-2-1974), M-M. Tajuddin (recorded on 19-2-1974). Mamnied (recorded on 25-6-1974), Thor...
Tag this Judgment!ittoochalil Meethal Moossa Vs. Pachiparambath Meethal Fathimas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Ker283
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J. 1. These second appeals arise out of two connected suits, one for dissolution of a Muslim marriage and the other for restitution of conjugal rights. As against the unbridled and arbitrary power of divorce a Muslim male enjoys to what extent the Muslim law concedes a right of divorce to the woman is the point for determination in these second appeals.2. Both the suits were tried together and common judgments were pronounced by both the courts below. The courts below have concurrently found that a ground under Clause (ii) of Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 has been made out by the wife against the husband. Under Clause (ii) of Section 2 a woman married under Muslim Law shall be entitled to obtain a decree for the dissolution of her marriage on the ground 'that the husband has neglected or has failed to provide for her maintenance for a period of two years'. On the finding that the husband has neglected or failed to provide for the mai...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. R. Sudarsan Babu and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ker1
Subramonian Poti, C.J. 1. In view of the importance of the question arising for decision in this appeal a Division Bench of this Court before which the Writ Appeal came up for hearing earlier referred the case to a Full Bench and that is how the matter has come up before us now.2. The Writ Appeal is by the State of Kerala against an order of a learned single Judge of this Court finding no ground for review of an order directing issue of notice to the respondents in the Original Petition including respondents 2 and 3, the Speaker, Kerala Legislative Assembly and the Secretary, Kerala Legislative Assembly respectively. Whenthe Original Petition came up for admission before the learned single Judge notice was directed to be issued to the respondents. It was then that the 1st respondent, the State, appeared in the case and filed a statement. The State made no motion as such. The learned Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that the Court must cancel its order directing issue ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »