Kerala Court October 1986 Judgments
N.J. Jose Vs. Thavarakkattil Chandri and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-31-1986
Reported in: [1988]170ITR210(Ker)
V. Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.1. Has the civil court jurisdiction to summon assessment orders made under the Income-tax Act for the years 1974-75 and 1975-76 This, is the main question that arises for determination in this civil revision petition under Section 115, CPC. Short facts alone are required.2. The defendant in a suit on accounts is the revision petitioner. The plaintiff alleged that a partnership business was conducted with the defendant, that the defendant did not account for the profits he earned and thus did not pay the plaintiff his share. The suit was, therefore, laid to direct the defendant to render accounts and to pay the plaintiff his half share of the profits and for consequential relief. The defendant refuted his liability, filed his written statement and then moved an independent application to summon the Income-tax Officer to produce the assessment orders of the plaintiff for the years 1974-75 and 1975-76. He stated that it was difficult for him to obtain the certified...
Tag this Judgment!Kochappan Vs. Krishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-31-1986
Reported in: (1987)IILLJ174Ker
Kochu Thommen, J.1. This appeal is brought from the order or the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in W.C.C. No. 10 of 1980 ordering that a sum of Rs. 10,080/-be paid by the appellant to the respondent as compensation for the injury sustained by him in an accident which occurred on 20th March 1977 in the course of his employment under the appellant. The accident occurred while the respondent was climbing a coconut tree in the property of the appellant. He fell down and suffered injuries. He contended that he was an employee in the service of the appellant at the time of the accident. Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 says:Employer's liability for compensation:- If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter....The question is whether the accident by which the injury was caused arose out of and in the course o...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Ocean Wealth and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-24-1986
Reported in: [1987]65STC16(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. These 8 tax revision cases are filed by the Revenue. The respondents are assessees under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Most of them are dealers in prawns, etc. They purchased baskets and other consumable stores like packing materials from unregistered dealers for stocking and transporting the prawns purchased, through lorries to their factories. The assessing officers included the turnover relating to these items in the taxable turnover by placing reliance on Section 5A(1)(b) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The Appellate Tribunal took the view that the turnover related to the above goods is not exigible to purchase tax under Section 5A(1)(b) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The Revenue has come up in revisions from the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal.2. Since a common question of law centering round the interpretation to be placed on Section 5A(1)(b) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act alone arises for consideration, these revisions were hear...
Tag this Judgment!Gnanamony Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-24-1986
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ277Ker
Paripoornan, J.1. The appellant in this Writ Appeal is the petitioner in O.P. No. 91 of 1982-J. The petitioner as well as the second respondent were Legal Assistants Gr. II and were advised for appointment on 5th November 1966 and 7th December 1966 respectively. The second respondent was junior to the petitioner. While serving as Legal Assistant Gr. II the petitioner took 50 days' medical leave. Declaration of satisfactory completion of his probation was postponed. The petitioner's probation was declared with effect from 9th January 1969. The second respondent was so declared with effect from 7th December 1968. The second respondent was promoted as Legal Assistant Gr. I earlier, from 7th December 1968 and the petitioner was promoted to that cadre with effect from 9th January 1969. On representations filed by aggrieved persons, the Government passed Ext. P 10 order dated 30th September 1981 placing the petitioner below the second respondent and one E.K. Reghuramachandran. In the O.P. th...
Tag this Judgment!Varghese Etc. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-24-1986
Reported in: (1988)IILLJ327Ker
Malimath, C.J.1. The relevant facts pertaining to all these cases being the same and the relief claimed by the petitioners in all these cases being the same viz., for quashing Exts. P. 1 and P. 2 in O.P. No. 3363/82 and for consequential reliefs these cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience we shall advert to the ranks and exhibits as in O.P. No. 3363/82.2. The petitioners in all these cases commenced their career as Lower Division Clerks under the respective Municipalities. In due course the petitioners were promoted to the next higher cadre of Upper Division Clerks, they having earned eligibility by passing the prescribed test. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4, viz., B. Amminikutty Amma and R. Bhaskaran Nair though seniors to the petitioners in the cadre of Lower Division Clerks were not considered for promotion to the cadre of Upper Division Clerks when the petitioners were promoted, for the reason that they had not earned eli...
Tag this Judgment!Bappu Pareed Vs. the Kerala Financial Corporation and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-21-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker122
Paripoornan, J. 1. The matter arises in execution. The appellant herein as petitioner filed E.A. No. 201 of 1984 in E.P. No. 125 of 1982 in S.F.C.O.P. No. 498 of 1980 under Order XXI, Rule 89, C.P.C. to set aside the sale on deposit. The appellant-petitioner before the lower Court claims to have obtained the possession of the property, item No. 11 of Schedule 'B' of the sale proclamation, 1 acre 29.125 cents in Sy. No. 13/2C/2/2 of Vaduthala Mattathi-bhagom Village in Shertallai Taluk. The first respondent is the decree-holder in S.F.CO.P. No. 498 of 1980. Respondents 2 to 6 are the judgment-debtors. The 7th respondent is the Court auction-purchaser of the property in which the appellant is interested. All the 4 items of properties sold by Court on 3-12-1984, are equally liable for the decree debt. Two items of properties were purchased by the decree-holder for a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/-. The 7th respondent purchased another item of property for a sum of Rs. 1,00,100/-. The instant item w...
Tag this Judgment!K.C. Bhaskaran Nair Vs. Carona Shoe Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-21-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker132
S. Padmanabhan, J. 1. The three substantial questions of law on which notice was issued in this second appeal are : 1) Whether under Section 76(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, a tenancy created by the mortgagee in possession of an urban immovable property would be binding on the mortgagor after redemption of the mortgage, assuming that the tenancy is such as a prudent owner of property would have granted in the usual course of management. 2) Whether a tenancy created in exercise of a general power to grant a lease expressly or impliedly conferred on the mortgagee would survive the redemption of the mortgage in view of Section 111(c) of the Transfer of Property Act. and 3) Whether a tenant inducted on the property by a mortgagee with possession, would after redemption of the mortgage be protected under the provisions of Section 11(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. 2. First plaintiff in a suit for redemption of a mortgage is the appellant. The mortgage ...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Shanmukhan Vs. Vachali Jayalakshmi and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-21-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC334(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The first defendant in O. S. No. 9 of 1977, Sub Court, Tellicherry, is the appellant in this appeal. The plaintiff and the second defendant in the suit are the respondents herein. The suit was filed for dissolution of partnership and settlement of accounts of the firm 'PLASTO'. The plaintiff averred that the shop building is in her actual possession on the strength of a possessory mortgage, dated 24th November, 1970, and that she has contributed the entire capital of the firm. There is an understanding that 15 per cent of the profits will be given to the first defendant and 10 per cent to the second defendant. The defendants have not made any investment. There is no deed evidencing the partnership. The first defendant was managing the business. He has not rendered accounts. He is making preparations to make the business his own. Hence the suit was filed for dissolution of partnership and for settlement of accounts.2. The first defendant was the main contesting de...
Tag this Judgment!C.K. Xavier Vs. Bhagaraj Singh and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker145
Viswanathaiyer, J.1. This appeal by the defendant came up for hearing before us under Order 41, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. We sentfor the records of the case from the lower court, and we are disposing of the appeal after hearing counsel for the appellant and after perusing the records in the case.2. Defendant is the appellant. He obtained a decree against the respondents-plaintiffs in O.S. No. 64 of 1978, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thodupuzha, for recovery of the amount due to him from the respondents, namely Rs. 10,000/- and interest thereon due on hypothecation of their cardamom estate. The suit was decreed for an amount of Rs. 24,100/-. While so, respondents were invited for the marriage of the appellant's son. The respondents then sought a settlement of this claim from the appellant and ultimately the matter was settled between the parties by the appellant receiving an amount of Rs. 18,000/- on 30-7-1980, and executing Ext. A1 receipt in acknowledgment thereof. Despite receip...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. S ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-17-1986
Reported in: [1990]79STC68(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. These three tax revision cases are filed by the Revenue. The same assessee is the respondent in all these revisions. The respondent-assessee was provisionally assessed under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, for the months of May, June and July, 1984. In the appeals filed by the assessee, the assessments were confirmed. In the second appeals filed by the assessee, the Revenue took up the plea that the appeals were incompetent. The assessee took up the plea that the assessments were made without affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to state its objections. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the plea of the assessee that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to put forth its objections and so the assessments are bad in law. Regarding the non-maintainability of the appeals, the Appellate Tribunal held that on a perusal of Section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, read with Section 39 and Section 2 (xvi-a) of the K...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »