Kerala Court February 1986 Judgments
M. Kunhayisu and ors. Vs. P. Kallyani and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ125
ORDERK. Shreedharan, J.1. Petitioners 3 in number are the accused in C.C. No. 162/1985 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Badagara. They seek to quash all proceedings in the said case. The grounds alleged by the petitioners for quashing the proceedings before the court below are:(i) Violation of the provisions contained in Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and(ii) The complaint does not make out an offence.2. The ground on which the petitioners contend that there is violation of the provisions contained in Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance of the complaint has not stated whether any witness was present or not. According to counsel, if any witness was present in court the Magistrate should have examined him and the substance of such examination should have been reduced to writing. The learned Magistrate thereupon ought to have considered the said evidence of the witness and then only ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Sreekumaran Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1591
K. Sreedharan, J.1. In this Criminal Revision Petition the accused challenges the conviction and sentence passed against him by the Courts below for the offence under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence imposed is only a fine of Rs. 1000/-.2. The prosecution version of the incident is as follows :- The accused drove goods vehicle bearing registration No. KLO 3001 along the Poonthura-Beema Pally public road from south to north in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life. When it reached near Valiyavilakom Veedu, the lorry hit one Barnabas, who was walking along the western foot path of the road from north to south. On account of the lorry hitting Barnabas, he fell on the road and the vehicle ran over him causing his instantaneous death. The accused did not stop vehicle there nor did he care to render medical aid to the injured. The accused made his escape from the place in the said lorry itself. PW 1 who was walking along with the deceased immedi...
Tag this Judgment!C. Bhaskaran Nair Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ170
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. One of us (Padmanabhan, J.) referred this revision to the Division Bench doubting the correctness of the single Bench decision of this Court in David v. State of Kerala 1984 Ker LT 849.2. A synopsis of the relevant facts could be given thus. In relation to an incident that took place at 9 p.m. on 12-11-1983 a case was registered, investigated and charge-sheeted against the third respondent for offences punishable Under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 89(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The accused surrendered before Court on 21-11-1983 and he was enlarged on bail. The case is one triable by the Magistrate as a summons case. It is said that investigation was completed within the crucial period on 24-4-1984, but filing the charge-sheet before Court on 4-6-1984 alone was beyond the period provided Under Section 167(5). After taking cognizance the accused filed a petition to drop the proceedings. He placed reliance pn Section...
Tag this Judgment!Rahima Beevi Vs. Kerala Financial Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker126
Thomas, J.1. The Kerala Financial Corporation (for short 'the Corporation) has filed an application before the Additional District Judge, Mavelikkara for an order of sale of certain items of properties in realisation of a sum of about 2 1/2 lakhs of rupees due from the appellant and another person. The properties include 43 cents of land and the building thereon which have been mortgaged, by the appellant with the Corporation as security for the loan granted to an industrial concern. These mortgaged properties are attached by the lower Court as per an order passed on I.A. No. 468 of 1979. The main application was resisted by the appellant on many grounds of which the relevant one is that the mortgaged properties are not liable to be attached and sold in realisation of the loan amount. The basis for the said contention is that, according to the appellant, she is an agriculturist as envisaged in Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code'). All the contentions of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. St. George Motors
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(Ker)249; [1986]161ITR444(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question for the decision of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act: ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Rs. 17,092 being the amount paid by the assessee by way of arrears of tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers & Goods) Act, 1963, relating to earlier years is to be allowed as a deduction in computing the assessee's income for the assessment year 1975-76 '2. The assessee is a firm carrying on business of passenger transport. The firm was constituted as per a deed of partnership dated November 1, 1959. Clause 11 of the partnership deed provides for the accounts of the firm to be maintained on mercantile basis and its accounts are maintained accordingly.3. The firm filed a return for the assessment year 1975-76 disclosing an income of Rs. 77,930. It had claimed deduction of Rs. 33,672 being the tax paid under the Kerala ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajmohan Cashews (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-1986
Reported in: [1990]185ITR472(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, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was an industrial company within the meaning of Section 2(6)(c) of the Finance Act, 1972 ?'2. Section 2(6)(c) of the Finance Act, 1972, provides : ... (6) For the purposes of this section and the First Schedule,--...(c) 'industrial company1 means a company which is mainly engaged in the business of generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power or in the construction of ships or in the manufacture or processing of goods or in mining.3. The Income-tax Officer, by his order dated November 16, 1976, for the assessment year 1972-73, found that the assessee was liable to be taxed at 65 per cent. and not at the lower rate applicable to an industrial company as defined under the aforesaid provision. In the ...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Central Goods Transport C ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-1986
Reported in: 2(1986)ACC36
P.C. Balakrihna Menon, J.1. C.M.A. No. 81 of 1980 is against the decision of the lower court on Issue No. i that the court at Cochin has no jurisdiction to try the suit and directing the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court.2. C.M.A. No. 40 of 1980 is against the consequential order of return of the plaint. The suit is for recovery of damages for short delivery of goods entrusted to the 1st defendant a common carrier for transportation from Calcutta to Cochin. The 2nd defendant is said to be the agent of the 1st defendant. The 2nd plaintiff is the consignee. It is averred that the goods were covered by an open policy of insurance issued by the 1st plaintiff. The plaintiffs claim that the loss on short delivery was satisfied by the 1st plaintiff the insurer and relief in the suit is claimed on behalf of the 1st plaintiff.3. The 2nd defendant raised a contention that Clause 17 in the consignment notes issued by the 1st defendant, common carrier evidences a special co...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ceanattu Firms
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(Ker)143; [1986]160ITR588(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following questions of law to this court, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (' the Act' for short).'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer could not havelevied any penalty In the present case under the provisions of Section 140A(1) as it stood on June 24, 1975, i.e., after the amendment on April 1, 1971, but before the amendment on April 1, 1976, and consequently whether the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty imposed of Rs. 5,000 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amended provision of Section 140A(3) which came into effect on April I, 1976, could not be invoked in the present case and consequently whether the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 140A(3) of Rs. 8,868 ' 2. The...
Tag this Judgment!Joy Varghese Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1986
Reported in: [1986]62STC227(Ker)
V.S. Malimath, C.J.1. The learned single Judge has referred this case to the Division Bench as it involves an important question of law. The question of law that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether a dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) incurs liability to pay penalty under Sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Act on his failure to pay the tax amount on the basis of the return filed by him under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules (hereinafter referred as the Rules).2. Sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Act which is relevant for our consideration, may be extracted as follows :If the tax assessed or any other amount due under this Act, or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or other person within the time specified therefor in the notice of demand or in the order permitting payment in instalments or within the time allowed for its payment by the appellate or revising authority or wi...
Tag this Judgment!Kallarackal Agencies Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1986
Reported in: [1987]65STC281(Ker)
V.S. Malimath, C.J.1. The levy of penal interest under Sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act on the ground that the petitioner has not paid the tax in accordance with the return submitted by him under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 is challenged by the petitioner in this original petition. It is not disputed that no notice of demand as required by Sub-rule (3) of Rule 18 in form No. 14 has been issued in his case. We have ruled in 0.P. No. 7804 of 1984-M [Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker)] that liability to pay penal interest in such circumstances accrues only where there is a failure to pay the amount of tax demanded as per the notice of demand issued in accordance with Sub-rule (3) of Rule 18 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules and form No. 14. As no notice of demand has been issued as required, the levy of penal interest by the assessing authority on the petitioner and the notice of demand for penal interest under exhibit P3 and the order...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »