Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1988CriLJ28
ORDERP.K. Shamsuddin, J.1. This revision has been filed against the order of the Court of Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tirur, in M.C. No. 86 of 1982. The above M.C. was filed by respondents herein claiming maintenance from the petitioner herein, and the learned Magistrate ordered maintenance to the respondents 1 and 2 at the monthly rate of Rs. 150/- and Rs. 100/- respectively from the date of the petition.2. The case of the respondents in the petition was that in August 1979 the petitioner herein married the first respondent according to Muslim Law and the second respondent was born out of that wed-lock. Later she came to know that the petitioner had another wife. The petitioner began to behave towards her indecently. The child was born at her parent's house. One year before filing of the petition, the petitioner sent the respondents to the first respondent's parental home and thereafter he wilfully neglected to maintain the respondents. Finally he divorced the first respondent.3. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1987)65CTR(Ker)184; [1987]167ITR103(Ker); [1987]35TAXMAN66(Ker)
S. PADMANABHAN J. - The petitioner and the respondent in both the cases are the same. The respondent-Income-tax Officer is the complainant in C.C. Nos. 16 and 161 of 1986 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, and the petitioner, a cashew exporter, is the sole accused in both. Both the petitions are under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the respective complaints. The only question for consideration is whether the allegations in the complaint constitute the offence.Assessment of income-tax for the years 1977-78 and 1978-79 were completed and the income-tax outstanding and payable were respectively Rs. 7,28,354 and 6,38,796. The properties of the petitioner including two air-conditioned theatres were attached for the arrears after issue of notice under rule 2 or Schedule II by the Tax Recovery Officer after the certificate has been received by him from the Income-tax Officer for recovery of the arrears. In violation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1988Ker280
ORDERT.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The petitioner challenges certain proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of his properties for the purpose of construction of a new dairy plant at Trivandrum. Ext.P1 dt. 27-5-1981 is the notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961. From the counter-affidavit of respondent 1. it is seen that this was published in the Kerala Kaumudi and Malayala Manorama dailies dt. 2-6-1981. Petitioner objected to the acquisition of his land as per a statement of objection, a copy of which is Ext.P2. He followed it up with a further representation before the4th respondent for whose purposes the land was being acquired, by a representation marked Ext. P3. However, these representations did not bear fruit and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Kerala Gazette dt. 29th May. 1984. A true copy of this declaration is Ext.P4. Petitioner had however been making representations in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1990]183ITR638(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The following questions have been, at the instance of the Revenue, referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and (i) since the foreign buyer had, through the Indian agent, located the assessee, (ii) the commission had been paid in India, the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35B(ii) or (iii) or both ?' 2. In the light of our decision in I. T. R. No. 100 of 1980 (CIT v. Orion Coir Mats and Matting Mfrs. P. Ltd. : [1987]166ITR616(Ker) ), we answer question No. 1 in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.3. In the light of our decision in I. T. R. Nos. 7 and 8 of 1982 (CIT v. C. Tharian and Sons : [1987]166ITR607(Ker) ), we answer question No. 2 in favour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1988)68CTR(Ker)31; [1988]169ITR237(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J. 1. The following two questions have been, at the instance of the Revenue, referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench ;' 1. Whether the payment of Rs. 75,000 to one Mr. Nair is revenue expenditure deductible in the computation of the business income of the assessee ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the rubber replantation subsidy is income assessable to income-tax ' 2. Question No. 2 has to be, in the light of our decision in CIT v. Mala-yalam Plantations Ltd. : [1987]168ITR63(Ker) (ITR Nos. 352 and 353 of 1982), answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. We do so.3. Question No. 1 relates to the payment of Rs. 75,000 paid by the assessee to one Mr. Nair during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1977-78 in full and final settlement of Mr. Nair's suit against the assessee for recovery of possession of property. The Income-tax Officer considered this cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1994)IIILLJ200Ker
Sivaraman Nair, J. 1. The Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation is the appellant in these appeals filed under Section 82 or the Employees' State Insurance Act. The appeal is against the common judgment of the Employees' Insurance Court in I.C. Nos. 26, 31, 33, 37, 40, 43, 49, 52, 53, 55 and 57 of 1982. In all these cases, the employer, against whom proceedings under Section 85B of the Employees' State Insurance Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for recovery of damages for failure to pay the contribution or any other amount payable under the Act, had challenged the competence of the Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation. The argument is that the Regional Director got power only by virtue of a sub-delegation made by the Director-General of the Corporation and that sub-delegation was contrary to Section 94A of the Act. The Tribunal held in favour of the employer. The Regional Director challenges that order of the Insurance C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1989]65CompCas499(Ker)
Bhat, J.1. Third respondent herein (second defendant) has not been served. In the light of what appears hereafter, we do not think that we need wait till he is served in this appeal.2. The first respondent herein filed the suit against the owner and driver of lorry KLP 5293 and the two insurers, third defendant (appellant) and fourth defendant (insurance department of the State) for damages and loss caused to her building by the lorry dashing against the same, at a time when it was driven by the second defendant. It was alleged that, on 22nd June, 1972, at about 6 p.m. the second defendant in the course of his employment under the first defendant, driving the lorry in the Jalsoor road in Kasargode, was proceeding southwards and he drove the lorry rashly and negligently and failed to keep control of the same, as a result of which the lorry struck a car coming from the south, swerved to the right, proceeded to a distance of 25 ft. in the road margin on the western side and dashed against...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1987]166ITR732(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the pension paid to Mr. William Rae is an expenditure wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that 'no other element of personal enrichment or favour or extra-commercial considerations came into play' in the payment of pension to Mr. William Rae and is not the above finding wrong and unreasonable 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in view of the dictum laid down in Seshasayee Bros.' case : [1971]82ITR442(Ker) is not the payment of pension merely an ex gratia payment by the assessee-company in consideration of the past services of Mr. Rae to the company ?' 2. Question No. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1987)66CTR(Ker)147; [1987]168ITR72(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. Pursuant to the direction of this court in O.P. No. 9391 of 1982, the following two questions have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the subsidy received from the Rubber Board is income of the assessee ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reopening of the assessment under Section 147(b) is valid ?' 2. In the light of our decision in I.T.R. Nos. 352 and 353 of 1982 (CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. : [1987]168ITR63(Ker) ), we answer question No. I in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.3. For the assessment year 1974-75, the assessment was completed without taking into account the sum of Rs. 12,280 received by the assessee during the relevant accounting year as rubber replantation subsidy. The officer subsequently received from the Central Board of Direct Taxes ('the Board') Circular No. 75(D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1987]67STC279(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The State is before us. The year of assessment is 1976-77.2. Facts lie in a narrow compass. The amount of Rs. 1,18,801.29 representing the turnover of photo blocks supplied by the assessee in the assessment year to various parties though included in the return, was claimed to be not liable to be assessed under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act because the contracts under which the supplies were made did not involve sale of any materials. The contracts were all in the nature of works contracts. The assessing authority did not accept this argument. The claim accordingly was disallowed. The appellate authority disposed of the appeal, the assessee had filed against the order of the assessing authority, with a direction to re-examine the claim afresh. The department challenged the said order of the appellate authority before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Assistant Sales Tax Officer v. B.C. Kame [197...
Tag this Judgment!