Kerala Court January 1987 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kallara Sukumaran Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-30-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Ker212
Malimath, C.J.1. This two matters arise out of a common reference order made by a learned single Judge in two writ petitions under the following circumstances.2. Shri R. Balakrishna Pillai was sworn in as a Minister of the Cabinet headed by Shri K. Karunakaran in 1982. At the function of the Kerala Congress held at Ernakulam, on the 25th May, 1985, the Minister made a speech which gave rise to four writ petitions, two of which have been disposed of in the year 1985.3. It is alleged that the speech of the Minister was 'intended to bring out hatred, contempt or disaffection and was an attempt to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India' and an assault on the unity and integrity of India and thus he committed a breach of his oath. The Chief Minister sought clarification from the Minister and did not precipitate any action. Shri K. C. Chandy, claiming to be a citizen, filed a writ petition in this Court as O.P. No. 5360 of 1985 for the issuance of a writ of qu...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kalpetta Estates Ltd. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-30-1987
Reported in: (1987)66CTR(Ker)182; [1987]167ITR666(Ker)
T. KOCHU THOMMEN J. - The following question has been, at the instance of the Revenue, referred to us, in each of these two cases, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the method of valuation of rubber trees adopted by the Tribunal for the purpose of computation of capital gains is factually and legally correct ?'The assessment year in question in either case is 1973-74. The assessee, in either case, sold rubber trees in the relevant accounting year. The question arose whether capital gains had been attracted as a result of the sale. In ITR No. 111 of 1981, the Income-tax Officer determined the market value of a fully grown yielding rubber tree as on January 1, 1954, at Rs. 14. This sum he arrived at on the basis of the market value of an acre of rubber estate which he determined at Rs. 1,900 on January 1, 1954. Excluding the value of land, Rs. 1,400 was determined as the cost of the standing trees. Taking into...
V.K. Thampi Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-29-1987
Reported in: 1995(76)ELT255(Ker)
Paripoornan, J. 1. Petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Vitco Rubber Industries. He is engaged in the manufacture of Tread Rubber. This commodity is excisable. There was a surprise visit of the petitioner's factory by the officers of the Central Excise Department on 3-8-1985. Subsequently, by Ext. P-l. notice dated 29-1-1986, the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why a duty of Rs. 17,47,091.53 should not be levied besides penalty under Rule 52A (5) of the Central Excise Rules. Finally, by Ext. P5 order dated 19-6-1986, the first respondent demanded duty of Rs. 17,47,091.53 besides penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, Appellate Tribunal, evidenced by Ext. P7. He also filed Ext. P8 application along with an affidavit, Ext. P9, for stay of recovery of the entire amount levied by way of excise duty, penalty, etc. By Ext. P10 order dated 27-10-1986, the Appellate Tribunal directed the petitioner to make a deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- on or...
Thobias Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-29-1987
Reported in: (1987)IILLJ301Ker
Thomas, J.1. A Sub-Inspector of Police who claims to have reaped several laurels to his credit (12 money rewards and 7 good service entries for meritorious service) has approached this Court with a prayer to quash an order by which his increment for two years have been withheld with cumulative effect. That order (Ext. P2) has been passed by the D.I.G. (Central Range). The 5 appeal filed before the Director General of Police did not yield any favourable result. Hence the Sub-Inspector filed this Original Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. While the petitioner was Sub-Inspector of Peramangalam Police Station, a bailable warrant of arrest was issued by a Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class for the arrest of one Sukumaran who was involved in a bailable offence. The Circle Inspector of Police, Trichur (Rural) tried to arrest that person on the strength of the said warrant, but failed in that endeavour. In the meanwhile, Sukumaran approached the Sessions Court, Trich...
The Kerala Wakf Board, Ernakulam Vs. Alam Aboobacker Sait and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Ker176
Malimath, C.J.1. This appeal is against the judgment of the learned single Judge in O. P. No. 4168 of 1979, by the Kerala Wakf Board. A Wakf has been created under the Will dt. 25-2-1099, Ext. PI, executed by Abdul Sathar Haji Moosa Sait. The stipulation regarding appointment of Mutawalli described as the managing trustee is that the grand-son of the testator Moosa shall be entitled to be the Mutawalli and after him, his male children and in the absence of such children of the testator's daughters and grand-daughters, being the sisters of the said Moosa. There is also a stipulation to the effect that the person to be appointed as Mutawalli should be a person of maturity and ability. Consequent upon the occurrence of the vacancy the petitioner in the original petition Adam Aboobacker Sait was appointed as the managing trustee at the meeting of the Board of Trustees held on 11-2-1978. In pursuance of the said order he has been functioning as the managing trustee. When such was the positi...
V. Sarada and ors. Vs. K.V. Narayana Menon and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Ker155
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. S.A. No. 765 of 1980 : This appeal is by the plaintiffs. The suit was one for partition. Plaintiffs claim 3/12 shared The contesting defendants resist the claim. They say that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share. This defence is based on a will Ext. B13. The trial court upheld the contention of the defendants. It dismissed the suit as against the plaintiffs; nevertheless it passed 'a preliminary decree decreeing shares to second defendant and defendants 3 to 5. The defeated plaintiffs filed an appeal. The appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. Now the plaintiffs appeal.S.A. No. 638 of 1980 :2. This appeal is by defendants 1 and 3 to 5. In this appeal, the appellant maintains that the second defendant is not entitled to the share now given, namely 3/9 share in the property. This contention of defendants 1 and 3 to 5 was not accepted by the trial court. The appellate court also agreed with the findin...
Jaya Spray Painting Works Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-1987
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ559Ker
Bhaskaran Namhiar, J.1. The Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, Act 19 of 1952, applies to every establishment which is a factory engaged in 'Automobile repairing and servicing industry'. The appellant, The Jaya Spray Painting Works' is engaged in spray painting of automobiles and disputed his liability to be covered under the Act. The Central Government was therefore moved under Section 19A of the Act and an order dated 24.6.1982 (Ext.P6) was passed rejecting the appellant's contentions and upholding the department's stand that the appellant s factory was liable to be covered under the Act. The reasons given by the Government alone require examination. They are these:-'The dictionary meaning of the word 'repair' is to mend, to restore, refresh and revivify, restoration after injury or decay. Spray painting is one of the operations involved in repairing automobiles which are worn out by age or are damaged by accidents. Therefore, I hold that the activity o...
Ayyapan Vs. Vasantha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker314
Pillay, J.1. Petitioner filed O.P. (H.M.A.) 71 of 1984 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the allegation that his wife (respondent) had left his house without his consent and knowledge on 15-12-1979, and that when he questioned Act about it she started ill treating him. It is also alleged that she had developed illegal intimacy with Prabhakaran Nair who is working in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Tele-Communications. Trivandrum. The District Judge did not accept the case of ill treatment alleged in the petition. It was also found that the petition is nut maintainable as the alleged adulterer was not made a party to the proceedings.2. Under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act adultery is a ground for divorce. Section 21 of the Act empowers the High Court to make rules to regulate all proceedings under the Act. The High Court has made Rules and published the same on 24-7-1963. Rule 11 provides that in every petition for divorce or judicial separation on the g...
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. K ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-1987
Reported in: [1987]66STC100(Ker)
T.K. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The question which arises in this case is whether rafters, beams, planks and the like are articles different from timber logs. Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, says:5A. Levy of purchase tax.-(1) Every dealer who, in the course of his business, purchases from a registered dealer or from any other person any goods, the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax under this Act, in circumstances in which no tax is payable under Section 5 and either-(a) consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise; or(b)...(c)...shall, whatever be the quantum of the turnover relating to such purchase for a year, pay tax on the taxable turnover relating to such purchase for the year at the rates mentioned in Section 5.(2)...(3)...If Clause (a) is not satisfied, that is, if the goods are not consumed in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise, they are not liable to be charged under Section 5A. The contention of the Reve...
Dominic Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-1987
Reported in: 1987CriLJ2033
ORDERP.K. Shamsuddin, J.1. The 'B' party in M.C No. 90/86, on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Palghat, is the petitioner in the above Criminal M.C. The order under challenge is one passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 145(1) of the Cr. P. C. It is alleged in the Memorandum of Cri. M.C, that the proceedings were initiated at the behest of respondents 2 and 3. According to 'B' party, the properties in question along with other properties were acquired by the petitioner and the father of the 2nd respondent and the 3rd respondent in the name of M/s. United Planters, which was a partnership firm. In the year 1979, there was an oral partition of the assets of the above said firm and thereafter a registered partition deed was executed on 9-10-1984. 'A' schedule was set apart to the petitioner, 'B' schedule was set apart to the 3rd respondent and 'C schedule was set apart to the father of the 2nd respondent in the said partition deed. According to 'B' party there are clear...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »