Kerala Court October 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.
Hotel Elite and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-23-1987
Reported in: [1988]69STC119(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. This batch of writ petitions is by the owners of hotels and restaurants, some of them bar attached and others classified as 'star hotels' having above two stars. The petitioners challenge the validity of the Kerala Finance Act 18 of 1987 in so far as it relates to the imposition of sales tax on item 67 of the First Schedule and item 4 of the Fifth Schedule of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act ('the Act' for short). Section 2(2) of the Finance Act amends Section 6(1) substituting Clauses (ii) and (iii) by Clauses (ii) to (v) introduced by the amendment. The Schedules to the Act are also amended and the Fifth Schedule is introduced by amending Sub-section (1) of Section 6. The Finance Act 18 of 1987 received the assent of the Governor of Kerala on the 20th of August, 1987 and was published in the Gazette on the same day. As per Sub-section (2) of Section 1, the Finance Act, 1987 shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of July, 1987. The Act as i...
Ramachandran Kadanappalli Vs. K.P. Noordeen
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-22-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker141
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. In the general election to the Kerala assembly held in March 1987, petitioner, respondent and 11 others contested for the Peravoor No. 15 seat. Real contest was between the petitioner and respondent. Petitioner representedCongress (S) an ally of the L.D.F, and the respondent was the Candidate of Congress (I), an ally of the U.D.F. Respondent was declared elected by a mojority of 1,805 votes. In his favour 47,817 valid votes were polled while petitioner secured only 46,012. Prayer is to declare the election of the respondent void.2. The grounds alleged by the petitioner in support of his prayer are those coming under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) and 100(1)(b) as defined In the various provisions of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act (for short, 'the Act'). The allegations are obtained in paragraphs 9 to 36 of the petition. The other paragraphs of the petition are general statements. Grounds alleged in the petition as well as the schedule and affidavi...
Mathew Vs. Devassykutty and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker315
Thommen, J. 1. The appellant is the defendant in a suit for grant of letters of administration. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the defendant are the children of the deceased Poranchu and his wife the 4th plaintiff. According to the plaintiffs-respondents, the deceased left a Will Ext. A1 dt. 1-9-1975 devising in favour of the plaintiffs his entire estate. On the basis of the Will, the plaintiffs filed petition under Section 276 of the Succession Act, 1925 for the grant of letters of administration. The defendant filed a caveat opposing the petition. The proceeding was converted into an original suit. The defendant-appellant contended that the will was invalid as the testator lacked testamentary capacity at the time of the alleged execution of the Will. The learned Judge, on consideration of the evidence, held that the testator had the necessary testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the Will and the Will was, therefore, valid. 2. Counsel for the appellant, Shri. P. K., Balasubram...
Shantilal C. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-1987
Reported in: (1988)68CTR(Ker)68; [1988]169ITR805(Ker)
M. Fathima Beevi, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Hindu undivided family of Shantilal C. Shah got partitioned with effect from December 1, 1976, and that the income of the erstwhile family is to be assessed in the hands of the members of the family ?'2. The assessment year in question is 1978-79. The assessee, Shantilal C. Shah, had been assessed as an individual. The Hindu undivided family of the assessee was a partner in the firm of M/s. Anandji. The Income-tax Officer included in the income of the assessee a sum of Rs. 3,830 as his share in the income of the Hindu undivided family from the firm, rejecting the contention of the assessee that the income from the firm was assessable only in the hands of the Hindu undivided family. The Appellate Assistant Commi...
P.G. Narayanaswamy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-1987
Reported in: (1988)68CTR(Ker)169; [1988]169ITR813(Ker)
M. Fathima Beevi, J.1. The question referred for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is this :'Whether, or; the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no Hindu undivided family came into existence on the marriage of the assessee in view of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 ?'2. The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee, who was a member of a Hindu undivided family, separated from the family on September 2, 1974. He was thereafter assessed as an individual up to and inclusive of 1978-79. He got married on June 12, 1978. In the assessment for the year 1979-80, the assessee claimed the status of a Hindu undivided family in respect of the share income from the firm in which he was a partner. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim and held that in view of the Kerala Hindu Joint Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, which came into force on December 1, 1976, the assessee cannot cla...
Antonitto Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and Another.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-1987
Reported in: (1988)73CTR(Ker)140; [1988]171ITR461(Ker); [1988]39TAXMAN228(Ker)
The judgment of the court delivered byK. S. PARIPOORNAN J. - The petitioner in O.P. No. 2214 of 1985 (supra p. 456) is the appellant in this writ appeal. The revenue is the respondent. An order was passed to arrest and detain the appellant in civil prison under Schedule II, rule 76 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The said order was challenged on the ground that there was no enquiry before passing the said order. Pending the O.P., exhibit P-4 order was passed. The order passed by the Tax Recovery Officer was also challenged in the O.P. Income-tax is admittedly due from the appellant for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The arrears come to Rs. 2,36,448. The Income-tax Officer issued a certificate on March 17, 1981, to the Tax Recovery Officer for realising the said amount. The Tax Recovery Officer issued a notice under Schedule II, rule 73 of the Income-tax Act to the appellant. He appeared before the Tax Recovery Officer along with his counsel on February 28, 1985. As could be seen from the ...
Raman and anr. Vs. Francis and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-19-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1359
ORDERChettur Sankaran Nair, J.1. The petition at the instance of the injured in C.C. 184/84 in the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cochin is to 'enhance the sentence'. Court below found that on 17-6-83 at 11.30 p.m., respondents in furtherance of their common intention trespassed into the property of first petitioner and caused grievous hurt to him, requiring hospitalisation for about four weeks (committing?) offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC. First petitioner, inter alia, sustained a fracture of the nasal bone. The Magistrate thought that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of court would meet the ends of justice; petitioners thought otherwise, and moved this Court under Section 482 of the Code. Counsel for accused-respondents submitted that the case be remitted to the trial court for imposing an appropriate sentence instead of revising in calendar.2. A question of importance touching an area of extreme sensitivity ar...
Joseph Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-16-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ491
ORDERK.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No. 20 of 1986 of City Crime Police Station. This case was originally registered as Crime No. 29/80 of Kannamaly police station and the same was transferred to the Crime Detachment, Ernakulam for investigation and the case has now reached the Court of Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-II & IV Additional Sessions Judge as case No. 33 of 1987.2. This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in this case against the petitioner. The incident happened on 19-3-1980 at about 2.45 p.m. The petitioner was the owner of a motor boat by name 'St. Xavier'. This boat was used for ferry service between Kannamaly and Perumpadappu on that day. 19-3-1980 was the festival day in Kannamaly church. It is alleged that the boat St. Xavier, though it had only a capacity for carrying 80 passengers, took on board 300 passengers and proceeded from Kannamaly to Perumpadau. As the boat reached the middle of the lake, water gushed into the boat...
Kunhimon Alias Sainudeen and Etc. Etc. Vs. the State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-16-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ493
ORDERChettur Sankaran Nair, J.1. Petitioner, accused 1 to 5 in S. C. No. 57 of 1983 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Ottappalam, stood trial for offences punishable under Sections 342 and 376 read with Section 34, I.P.C. Crl. R. P. No. 360 of 1984 is by A-1, Crl. R.P. No. 358 of 1984 by A2, Crl. R.P. No. 362 of 1984 by A3 and A4, and Crl. R.P. No. 367 of 1984 by A5. First accused a taxi driver - is alleged to have forcibly taken PW 2 in his taxi at or about 2 A.M. on the night of 2-9-1982, to the Deluxe lodge, Pattambi where he and the others committed rape on her against her will, and without her consent. PW 2 a seventeen year old girl is a victim of Epilepsy and Somnambulism. On the fateful night she went out of her house in her sleep, and reached the Kodumunda railway gate around 2 a.m. The railway gate was closed and a train passed by, whisling, waking her up, bringing her to her senses. She says, she was mortally frightened and perturbed. Then Al came, in his taxi that...
Gopinathan and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-16-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ497
ORDERK.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. The petitioners are challenging the propriety of the Court below in issuing notice to them to show cause why they should not be prosecuted for offences punishable under Section 471 read with Sections 463, 464 and 466, I.P.C. The first petitioner is the President of Manchadimood Coir Vyavasaya Sahakarana Sanghom. He was P.W. 2 in S.T. Case No. 41 of 1984 before the Special Judge for trial of offences under the Essential Commodities Act, Trichur. 2nd petitioner P. K. Damodaran was DW1 in that proceeding.2. One Jayaprakash and another were tried before the Special Court for violation of the provisions of Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and Clause 8( 1) of the Coconut Husks Control Order, 1973. The allegation against Jaya Prakash and another was that they transported 7000 coconut husks in a canoe without a valid movement permit. During the trial the first appellant produced a movement permit alleged to have been issued by the concerned offi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »