Kerala Court December 1985 Judgments
Thomas V. Pulikkal and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1709
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. These are two applications under Section 407 of the Cr. P.C. for transfer of two criminal cases - C.C. 19 of 1983 and C.C. 4 of 1984, now pending before the Special Court (Mark List Cases), to any other competent court. The prayer was seriously opposed by the Director of Public Prosecution. Petitioners are the first accused in the respective cases and they are brothers. Second accused in both the cases is common and he is the father of the first accused in both the cases. There was another case before the same court - C.C. 11 of 1983 - in which also second accused was the same person and first accused was another son of his. All these cases are for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 467, 468, 471 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in relation to tampering of mark lists and securing admission in professional colleges. It is said that there are ten other cases also of the same nature in which second accused and other members of his famil...
Tag this Judgment!T.M. Kesavan Vs. Addl. Dist. Magistrate
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker248
ORDERK.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. The petitioner is a resident in Chavakkad Taluk. The third respondent is residing just on the northern side of the compound of the petitioner's property. The attack in this O. P. is against Ext. P 5 order passed by the 1st respondent dt. 27-11-1985. The second respondent-Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Chavakkad set in motion Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 51 of the Electricity Act before the 1st respondent. That was to supply electrical energy to House No. 7/369 in Sy. No. 3/3D, Orumanayur Village, the residence of the 3rd respondent. After considering the objections the first respondent held that the objections raised by the petitioner are unsustainable. The Board was permitted to draw the electric line as proposed. The petitioner assails Ext. P 5 order.2. I heard counsel for the petitioner. It was contended that the first respondent has not considered the objections raised by the petitioner in a proper ...
Tag this Judgment!Popular Workshops Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-1985
Reported in: [1987]166ITR348(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The following question has been, at the instance of the assessee, referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the closing stock should be valued at the market value as claimed by the Department or at cost as claimed by the assessee for the purpose of determining its income for the assessment year under consideration?'2. The assessee was a firm which was dissolved on June 30, 1971, when two of the five partners retired. The retiring partners were allowed to withdraw the closing stock valued at Rs. 94,390.75. Their accounts were duly debited. On the next day, the remaining partners entered into a fresh partnership deed to carry on the same business as that of the dissolved firm. For the assessment year 1972-73, which is the year in question, assessment was completed on the basis that the total income of the assessee-firm was Rs. 1,04,770. This was on the basis that the closing stock...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indo Marine Agencies (Kerala) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-1985
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Ker)189; [1986]158ITR604(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. Pursuant to the judgment of this court in O. P. Nos. 2442 and 2443 of 1977, the following two questions have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that expenses incurred by the assessee towards storage and duty are entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there are materials for the Tribunal to hold that expenses towards storage and duty are incurred after the carriage of goods to the destination and is not the above finding of the Tribunal wrong and unsustainable in law and fact ' 2. The assessee's claim for weighted deduction under Section 35B(1)(a) and (b)(iii) for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1971-72 was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. It was allowed on appeal by the Appellate AssistantCommissioner. The Revenue appe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. K.K. Yeshodhara
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-1985
Reported in: [1987]166ITR354(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The following question has been, at the instance of the Revenue, referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin. Bench :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, read with Rule 2 of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the current account balances of the partners of the firm, amounting to Rs. 2,31,482 is to be treated as capital only, that there is no element of advance in it and that, therefore, the computation of the interest of the partners in the firm has to be enhanced by this amount for the purposes of exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957?'2. It is admitted by the assessee that the amount in question, namely, current account balance, represents accumulated undrawn profit. This amount constitutes the assets of the partners and assessable in their hands in proportion to their r...
Tag this Judgment!The Collector of Central Excise and Customs and ors. Vs. C. Rajagopala ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-12-1985
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC348
V.S. Malimath, C.J.1. These appeals are by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, the Central Board of Excise and Customs and the Special Secretary to the Government of India and the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, the Gold (Control) Administrator of Gold Control Appeals and Special Secretary to the to the Government of India, respectively, challenging the judgments rendered by the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 3055 of 1978 and 493 of 1979 respectively. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of these two appeals may briefly be stated as follows: At about 1-30 AM on 9th July, 1970 two persons, namely, Mohammedkutty and Saidali, came to Calicut from Kasaragod. On suspicion, their persons were searched, whereupon it was found that they were carrying in a concealed manner 100 and 98 slabs of gold, on their respective persons. The total weight of the gold thus carried by the two persons was of the order of 93,092 grams of 99.9% purity. The gold was seized and ultimately...
Tag this Judgment!West Coast Fibre Industries and Etc. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker230
ORDERV. Sivaraman Nair, J.1. The three petitioners are conducting coconut husk decortication industries which were licensed earlier than the promulgation of the Kerala Coconut Husks Control Order. All three are members of the Decorticated Fibre Producers Association, Unnikkulam Amson, Kozhikode. Their complaint is against the attempts of the State and its subordinate officers in mobilising procurement of green husks for retting for use in the traditional coir industry, which is organised mainly on co-operative basis, and the allotment of only dry coconut husks to the mechanised sector of the industry. This is sought to be done by issue of permits enabling the mechanised industrial sector to purchase only dry (brown) coconut husks. Petitioners submit that their industries were started at a time when there was no restriction at all in the procurement of husks, and therefore the machineries in the industrial units were so devised and fabricated as to consume green husks for manufacture of...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Sheriff and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker67
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. This is an appeal by the claimants in a land acquisition reference under Section 20 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation for their land acquired by the Government. Pending appeal the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984 (Act 68 of 1984) amending the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 came into force on 24th Sept, 1984. The appellants therefore claim also the benefits of the amendments relating to the enhancement of solatium and interest payable on the compensation to be awarded to them.2. An extent of 1.43 acres of land in Sy. Nos.43/31A, 43/33A and 44/5A of Changanacherry village was acquired by the Government for the establishment of a Fire Station and residential quarters for the staff attached to the Fire Station. The preliminary notification under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette dated 25-12-1973, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette dated 1-10-1974 and an...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ajit Spices. (income-tax Reference No. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-1985
Reported in: (1987)52CTR(Ker)162; [1987]165ITR755(Ker)
T. KOCHU THOMMEN J. - The following common question has been at the instance of the Revenue, referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that forward contract for sales has to be treated as hedging contract and the loss, if any, arising on such forward contract for sales has to be set off as hedging loss against other income of the assessee ?'The Tribunal upheld the contention of the assessee that the losses which it claimed to set off arose from sales in the nature of forward contracts. The losses arose, the Tribunal found, on account of holding stock, the value of which went down. The Tribunal accepted the assessees contention that the circular issued by the Central Board of Revenue under the repealed Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, governed the transactions in question and enabled the assessee to claim the set-off in terms of section 71 and 72...
Tag this Judgment!Gopinath Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-05-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1742
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. The two questions arising for consideration in this application filed under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. are (1) Whether the rejection of an application under Section 438 by the Sessions Judge is a bar to a second application being filed before the High Court, and (2) If there is no such bar whether this is a fit case for anticipatory bail.2. One Sahadevan wanted his son to be admitted in the Dental College, Manipal. He approached the petitioner who offered to secure admission if Rs. 14,000/- is paid. The amount was paid. Son of Sahadevan got admission. But Sahadevan moved the police alleging that petitioner cheated him and he secured admission for his son through some other source. Petitioner apprehends that he may be arrested on an accusation of cheating. The application was not opposed-on the ground that the apprehension is not correct. That means the petitioner is likely to be arrested on the above Accusation.3. An application filed by the petitioner under ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »