Kerala Court November 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.
C. Govindaraj Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ485
U.L. Bhat, J.1. Petitioner herein filed Crl. M. P. 489(a) of 1983 in C.C. 1250 of 1982 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class, Trivandrum under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking return of cash amount of Rs. 19,508.50 involved in that C.C. case on the ground that it belonged to him and was not related to gambling activity conducted in that case. The learned Magistrate declined to return the money to the petitioner and ordered the same to be confiscated. This order, having been confirmed by the Sessions Court in appeal, this revision is filed. A learned single Judge of this Court passed an order referring the case to a Bench of two Judges on the ground that the answer to the question which has been raised will have far-reaching effect.2. It appears, in 1982, under the auspices of the Trivandrum City Corporation, an exhibition was arranged in the Putharikandam grounds at Trivandrum. It appears a person by name A. Babu, obtained a right to play games...
State of Kerala and Others Vs. J. Padmavathy AmmA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-1987
Reported in: [1990]185ITR176(Ker)
K S PARIPOORNAN J. - The State is the appellant. The respondent is the widow of one Subramanya Bhat. She filed O.P. No. 2918 of 1980 and attached exhibit P-1 demand and attachment notice, issued to her, dated May 14, 1980. Ganapathy Bhat, who was an owner of various items of property, owned 6.68 acres of land in Sy. No. 99/2 in Kuttikole Village out of that, he had assigned 2.50 acres to one Subramanya Bhat on March 21, 1972. The petitioner in the original petition is the widow of Subramanya Bhat. Ganapathy Bhat was an assessee under the Kerala Agriculture Income-tax Act, 1950. He was assessed to pay agricultural income-tax for the period up to 1972-73. He committed default. It is for the said amounts due that exhibit P-1 notice was sent to the respondent in this writ appeal. The learned single judge quashed exhibit P-1 in so far as it related to 2.50 acres of land transferred to the respondents husband, Subramanya Bhat. Hence, the state has come up in appeal.We heard counsel for the a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Manjeri Kovilakam Interim Management Co ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-1987
Reported in: [1992]194ITR436(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The common question in respect of the assessment years 1969-70 to 1975-76 referred to us at the instance of the Revenue by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee (the group of 33 individuals) could be assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1969-70 ?'2. This question, in the light of the decision of the Supreme- Court in Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad (HUF) v. CIT : [1982]133ITR690(SC) , has to be answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. We do so.3. The Tribunal found that the facts of this case are similar to those in ITO v. Smt. N. K. Sarada Thampatty : [1976]105ITR67(Ker) , and followed the decision of this court in that case. But that case has been impliedly overruled by the Supreme Court in the decision aforesaid.4. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in these tax referred case...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. P.A. Varghese
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-1987
Reported in: [1988]172ITR550(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 justified in holding that the Income-tax Officer could not be considered to have, in actual fact, invoked the provisions of Section 52(2) when he has taken action under Section 52(1) ?'2. The assessment year in question is 1974-75. The assessee is a medical practitioner. He brought the assets and liabilities of his dispensary after closing down the practice and discharging the staff into a partnership firm when he became one of its partners. The other partners are his close relatives. The Income-tax Officer found that there was transfer of assets, but in so far as only the book value was shown in the accounts of the firm as the value of the assets brought in by the assessee, there was suppression of a portion of the actual value so as to attract the provis...
Chandran and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ483
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. All these appellants have been found guilty by the Special Court for Trial of Offences under Essential Commodities Act, Trichur for the offence punishable under Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of the' Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Section 8(i) of the Coconut Husks Control Order, 1973.2. The appellants in Crl. A. No. 415 of 1984 and Crl. A. No. 416 of 1984 have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and the appellant in Crl. A. No, 420 of 1984 has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.3. The gist of accusation against the appellants is as follows : P.W. 1, a Coir Project Officer who had been appointed as inspector under the Coconut Husks Control Order, 1973 was doing squad work along with the local Sub Inspector of Police and a head constable in the afternoon of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Manjeri Kovilakam Interim Management Co ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-1987
Reported in: [1992]194ITR486(Ker)
DR. T. KOCHU THOMMEN J. - The common question in respect of the assessment years 1969-70 to 1975-76 referred to us at the instance of the Revenue by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee (the group of 33 individuals) could be assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1969-70 ?'This question, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad (HUF) v. CIT : [1982]133ITR690(SC) , has to be answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. We do so.The Tribunal found that the facts of this case are similar to those in ITO v. Smt. N. K. Sarada Thampatty : [1976]105ITR67(Ker) , and followed the decision of this court in that case. But that case has been impliedly overruled by the Supreme Court in the decision aforesaid.We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in these tax referred cases.A cop...
H.H. Gourilakshmi Bayi Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-1987
Reported in: [1988]170ITR206(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The following questions have been, at the instance of the assessee, referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the claim of the assessee was not a mistake apparent on the face of the record and consequently Section 35 would not apply ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding in the face of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax admitting the appeal and deciding the appeal on merits against the assessee that the point in issue was a debatable one and, therefore, beyond the purview of Section 35 of the Act ?' 2. In respect of the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee filed a return under the Income-tax Act on the due date and the assessment was completed on December 31, 1974. Subsequent to the valuation date which fell on March 31, 1974, th...
C. Mohammed Vs. Ananthachari
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker298
M.M. Pareed Pilllay, J. 1. Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. 182 of 1976 of the Munsiff Court, Kasaragod. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the 'Kattapuni' (bund) between his areca garden in R.S. 135/4 on the north and paddy field in R.S. 135/5 on the south in its original condition and for a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from committing any damages to the bund and for other consequential reliefs. It is the case of the plaintiff that the 'bund' lying between his areca garden and the paddy field has been used by him and his ancestors as a pathway and that this is the only pathway for his ingress and egress to his property. 2. The Courts below held that there cannot be any easement by prescription as the plaintiff admitted that the disputed property belongs to him. The only question to be considered is as to whether a plea of ownership and a plea of easement can be advanced alternatively in a suit. Owne...
Sreepadam (Huf) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-1987
Reported in: (1988)72CTR(Ker)52; [1988]172ITR471(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The common question in these I.T.Rs. reads as follows:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the sum of Rs. 15,537 being the moiety of the annuity fixed under the provisions of the Sreepadam Land Enfranshisement Act 20 of 1969 was liable to be taxed as revenue receipt '2. The question in I.T.Rs. Nos. 360 to 363 of 1985 reads as follows:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the execution of the power of attorney by the applicant in favour of the Devaswom Commissioner for maintenance of the temples did not amount to diversion of income at source and, therefore, the entire income is taxable in the hands of the applicant ?'3. These questions have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, at the instance of the assessee.4. The assessment years are 1974-75 to 1977-78. The assessee is the Sreepadam Pa...
K.N. Achuthan Pillai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker140
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. Petitioner is the subscriberof Telephone No. 85-5350 of KalamassaryTelephone Exchange. He received Ext. P1letter dated 26-6-1987 in which the 3rdrespondent informed the petitioner that therewas unauthorised use of the telephone byproviding an external extension and that itwas without the knowledge of the telephoneDepartment. He was therefore called uponto pay a sum of Rs. 4,400/- towardsinstallation of two external extensions (theamount consists of Rs. 2,800/- towards rentfor two external extensions and Rs. 1,600/-towards installation charges of the extension).The petitioner sent a reply stating that he hasnot provided any extension whatsoever andthat he was not in need for such externalextensions. Later, petitioner received atelephone bill (Ext. P3) for Rs. 4,745/-, whichincludes Rs. 4,400/- claimed in the earlierletter. Hence the petitioner has approached this Court with this Original petition for quashing Exts. P1 and P3.2. It is obvious that the petitioner ha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »