Kerala Court November 1985 Judgments
Pullangode Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Agricultura ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-28-1985
Reported in: [1986]160ITR339(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, Actg. C.J.1. The following two questions have been referred to us by the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in disallowing the expenditure for levelling of the football ground and the tractor charges which is incidental to the purpose of deriving agricultural income ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the expenses of Rs. 3,035.31 relating to cash in transit insurance and cash in safe insurance as items deductible under Section 5(j) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 ?' 2. Question No. 2 which has been referred at the instance of the Revenue has, in the light of the decision in I.T.R. No. 236 of 1979 dated July 24, 1984, (see p. 337 supra) to be answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We do so.3. Question N...
Tag this Judgment!Shreedharan Peethambaran Vs. Krishnan Sanku
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker235; (1986)IILLJ519Ker
ORDERM.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Revision-petitioner is the judgment-debtor in E. A. 727/85 in E.P. 290/84 in O. S. 827/79 of the Munsiff Court, Sherthailai. The E. A. was filed for attaching the bonus due to the judgment-debtor. Judgment-debtor contended that the bonusdue to him is not liable to attachment. The executing Court overruled the objections and made absolute the order of attachment.2. The short question that falls for decision in this revision petition is as to whether the bonus due to the revision-petitioner a salaried employee is attachable or not. The contention of the revision-petitioner is that the bonus due to a skilled worker like him is not attachable. Revision-petitioner is a driver of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (K.S.R.T.C.). Counsel for the respondent contends that the revision-petitioner gets monthly salary from the K.S.R.T.C. and so the bonus due to him is liable to attachment.3. Under Section 60(1)(h), C.P.C. the wages of labourers and domestic se...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ancherry Pavoo Kakku
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-1985
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(Ker)240; [1986]160ITR88(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. Pursuant to the directions issued by this court in O. P. No. 4216 of 1976-B, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, for short 'the Appellate Tribunal', has referred the following questions for our opinion :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the onus is on the Income-tax Officer to prove that the refund obtained by the assessee had been allowed as a deduction in the earlier years ?2. If the answer to the above question is in the negative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer has not discharged the onus of proof ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in interfering with the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who only directed the Income-tax Officer to examine the assess...
Tag this Judgment!Deepa and ors. Vs. S.i. of Police, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1120
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. Some of the petitioners are Cabaret dancers and others are managers of restaurants. Against them various cases were registered, investigated and charge-sheeted in different Courts by different investigating agencies for offences punishable under Sections 294(a) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The general allegation in all the cases is that inside posh hotels nude and obscene dances and other cabaret performances were conducted. All these petitions are to quash those proceedings invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. I have heard counsel for petitioners and the Director of Public Prosecutions.2. Courts holding inquiry or trial under the Criminal Procedure Code are invested with ample powers to dispense with the ordeal of full trial in appropriate cases. A Magistrate conducting an inquiry into a complaint under Section 202 can dismiss the complaint at the inquiry stage itself if he is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. The...
Tag this Judgment!Thankamma and anr. Vs. N. Kunjamma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker134
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs. They filed the suit for partition. Plaint B schedule property originally belonged to one Chadayan Pathiru. Pathiru died leaving a son, Paulose, and two daughters Rajamma and Thankamma. Plaintiffs contended that no streedhanam was given by Pathiru to his daughters. The case is that the properties of Pathiru devolved on all his three children. Plaintiffs submitted that the Travancore Christian Succession Act (Regulation II of 1092), for short the Act, is not applicable to Pathiru and his children being Protestant Christians of Neyyattinkara Taluk and that by virtue of a customary usage prevalent among the community, all the children both male and female are entitled to equal shares in the properties of their parents. The plaintiffs are assignees of the rights of Rajamma and Thankamma.2. The contesting respondents submitted that the Act is applicable to Rajamma and Thankamma and as such they have no share in the properties of th...
Tag this Judgment!Hameed Vs. Ameena
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1805
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. In a proceeding under Section 125 of. the Cr. P.C. the trial Court and the revisional Court concurrently found that the petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to the respondent, his divorced wife. Trial Court fixed the rate at Rs. 100/- per month but the Sessions Judge, in revision by the petitioner, reduced it to Rs. 70/-. Parties are muslims and are admittedly divorced. Petitioner challenged the marriage itself as void on the allegation that it took place when the respondent had her former husband living and the marriage subsisting. That contention was found against and given up also. The second revision was admitted to the limited extent of considering the quantum of maintenance awarded,2. I am of the view that the revision itself is not maintainable. Though the revision petitioner in this respect sought support from the Full Bench decision in Sivan Pillai v. Rajamohan 1-978 Ker LT 223 : 1978 Cri LJ 743. I do not think that the decision has anything to do ...
Tag this Judgment!Hameed Vs. Jayabharat Credit and Investment Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-21-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker206
ORDERM.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Revision petitioner is the petitioner-plaintiff in I.A. 4177/85 in O.S. 1017/85 of the H Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. The suit has been filed for declaration that defendants 1 to 3 have no right, title or authority to take possession of the bus bearing Registration No. K.E.E. 4998 from the plaintiff and for permanent injunction restraining them from taking possession of the bus from him.2. From the 4th defendant, plaintiff purchased the bus over which the former had entered into hire purchase agreement with the first defendant. According to the plaintiff, the principal amount due from the 4th defendant to the 1st defendant was Rs. 1,84,982.40. Plaintiff purchased the bus on 3-5-1983 undertaking to pay the amount due to the 1st defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that Rs. 2,30,784/- has been paid towards the loan and the balance amount due from him to the 1st defendant is only Rs. 64,630/-.Contention of the plaintiff is that the transaction b...
Tag this Judgment!Sreedharan Peethambaran Vs. Krishnan Sanku and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker195
ORDERM.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Revision petitioner is the judgment-debtor in E.P. 290/84 in O.S. 827/79 of the Munsiff Court, Sherthallai. Respondents (Plaintiffs) filed the E.P. to attach the salary of the judgment-debtor at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month. Revision petitioner filed objections stating that no amount of salary is attachable. He produced his salary certificate. On going through it the learned Munsiff found that salary of the revision petitioner is liable to attachment at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month.2. Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the Court below was not at all justified in holding that Rs. 70/- can be attached. It is pointed out that under Section 60(1)(kb) of the C.P.C. all moneys payable under a policy of insurance on the life of the judgment-debtor are not liable to be attached and the Court below patently overlooked the above provision. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that what has been exempted from attachment is only the amount...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Reference by District and Sessions Judge
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1966
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. In the Sessions Division, Tellicherry, there are three District and Sessions Judges. Sri. P. Ramachandran Nair was the Second Additional District and Sessions Judge. Till 29-9-1985 he was attending Court and discharging his duties. On the early morning of 30-9-1985 he suddenly fell ill and had to be hospitalised. Thereafter he was removed to the Medical College Hospital, Calicut for expert treatment. All the records available with him at his residence were got back by the District and Sessions Judge on 5-10-1980.2. Crl. Revision Petitions Nos. 42 of 1984,64 of 1984 and 26 of 1985 were heard by Mr. P. Ramachandran Nair at a time when he was attending Courts. Orders were not pronounced in those cases till he was laid up. On 14-10-1985 the Bench Clerk of the Second Additional District and Sessions Court handed over to the District and Sessions Judge a cover containing the orders in the above three cases signed by Mr. P. Ramachandran Nair on 30-9-1985. In the proc...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ratilal Doongarsey and Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-1985
Reported in: [1987]164ITR341(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, Actg. C.J.1. The following question has, at the instance of the Revenue, been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the Shubh Laga Collections made by the assessee-firm is not income of the assessee '2. In respect of the assessment year 1971-72, the previous year ending on October 30, 1970, the assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 8,627 as money collected not as part of its income and, therefore, not liable to be taxed. The claim was disallowed and the amount was added. The contention of the assessee was that this sum was collected from its customers for the purpose of a charity called 'Shri Shubh Laga'. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the assessee's appeal stating:'I have recorded in my order for the earlier year that the appellant was under no obligation, legal or practical, to hand over any part of its collections t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »