Kerala Court April 1987 Judgments
K.T. Thomas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-28-1987
Reported in: [1988]173ITR283(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer J.1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. R. K. Nair, counsel for the respondents, who took notice and opposed the original petition.2. An order for arrest under Rule 73 of Schedule II to the Income-tax Act, 1961, is under challenge in this original petition. This order, exhibit P-4, passed by the second respondent, the Tax Recovery Officer, was confirmed on appeal by order exhibit P-7 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax.3. An amount of Rs. 7,87,784 was due from the petitioner by way of income-tax, wealth-tax and interest for various years from 1965-66 to 1975-76 as set forth in paragraph 2 of the order, exhibit P-7. The certificates for recovery in relation to these arrears were received in the second respondent's office between March 26, 1981, and March 31, 1985,as detailed in the aforesaid order. The Tax Recovery Officer found that the petitioner had, after March 26, 1981, dishonestly transferred in October, 1984, his right in what is described as th...
Tag this Judgment!Anthony Kutty Vs. E.S.i. Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-18-1987
Reported in: (1988)ILLJ80Ker
Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The petitioner was the recipient of benefits under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the Act' for short) while employed as a working chargeman in the Transformers and Electricals (Kerala) Ltd., Angamaly. He met with an accident on December 29, 1980 in respect of which he was given a temporary disablement benefit of Rs. 1200/- and a permanent disablement benefit of Rs. 4823.45 by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation').2. Long afterwards, and on February 17, 1983, he was intimated by the letter Ext. P1 from the Corporation that he was not an employee covered under Section 2(9) of the Act on the date of the accident and that 'E.S.I, contributions' were not payable by him. As such, it was stated that he was not entitled to the payments made of temporary and permanent disablement benefits. The petitioner was therefore requested to refund the amount of Rs. 6023.45 within one month failing ...
Tag this Judgment!Mathew Michael Vs. Tekoy (India) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-1987
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas145(Ker)
V. Sivaraman Nair, J. 1. These ten appeals arise out of a common order of the learned single judge (M. P. Menon J.) dismissing the applications filed by the appellants under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956. All these appeals involve common questions. That was why the applications were dealt with by a common judgment by the learned company judge. We propose to deal with all these appeals in the same manner. Counsel on both sides agreed that this may be so. 2. The facts which are necessary are only just a few. The first respondent is a company limited by shares. Regulation 24 of the articles of association of the company provides that: 'The board of directors may, in their absolute discretion and without assigning any reason, decline to register, (a) the transfer of shares to a person of whom they do not approve, ...' 3. The authorised capital of the company is Rs. 16,00,000 made up of 60,000 cumulative preference shares of Rs. 10 and one lakh equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The co...
Tag this Judgment!Santhos Kumar and ors. Vs. Verghese George and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker277
Pillay, J.1. Appellants 1 to 4 are defendants 3 to 6 in O.S. 84 of 1979 of the Additional Sub Court, Alleppey. 5th appellant is the 1st defendant in the suit. The 1st respondent (plaintiff) filed the suit for specific performance of a contract for sale. The suit has been decreed by the trial Court and defendants 1 and 2 on their own behalf and on behalf of minor defendants 3 to 6 are directed to execute the sale deed in respect of the plaint property in favour of the plaintiff on receiving the balance sale consideration recited in Ext. A3 within three months. Plaintiff is allowed to execute the decree in case defendants do not comply with the direction of the court. Defendants 1 and 2 were also restrained by injunction from executing the sale deed in respect of the property in favour of the 7th defendant or in favour of any other person.2. The ranking of the parties as it stood before the trial Court is followed in this judgment.3. Plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of E...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Commonwealth Trust Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-1987
Reported in: (1987)66CTR(Ker)26
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 this case, the Tribunal is right in holding that- (a) the payments were in the course of business ; (b) the payments did not arise out of any transfer of the business; (c) the expenditure was incurred to protect the business 2. If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether the expenditure, being for a substantial change in the capital structure which resulted in changing the ownership of the business, is a revenue expenditure 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 'dilution expenses' are an admissible deduction ?' 2. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee-company which was a non-resident company expended Rs. 1,38,520 for payment to I.C.I.C.L., M/s. Billimoria & Co., and M/s. Menon & Men...
Tag this Judgment!K. Jayachandran Vs. O. Nargeese and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-1987
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1997
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') the petitioner is the accused who was prosecuted in S.T. No. 1401 of 1984 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Quilon in a private complaint for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Both the offences are triable as summons case. Procedure for trial of Summons Cases is provided in Chap. XX of the Code. Particulars of the offence will have to be stated and the plea of the accused recorded. Then the prosecution evidence and defence evidence will have to be recorded. Acquittal or conviction must follow. These are also offences triable in a summary way as provided in Chap. XXI. Procedure is the same as in summons trial except (1) no sentence of imprisonment exceeding three months shall be imposed on conviction, (2) the particulars including the plea, the finding and the sentence or final order shall be entered in a register,...
Tag this Judgment!H. H. Rama Varma Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-1987
Reported in: (1987)66CTR(Ker)98
T. Kochu Thommen, J. - The following question has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 70,000 representing the value of National Defence Certificates and Defence Deposit Certificates held by the assessee even prior to 1st March, 1970 was liable to be included in the net wealth having regard to the proviso to s. 5(1A) of the WT Act ?'In the light of the decision of this Court in CWT v. H. H. Sethu Parvathi Bayi : [1979]116ITR135(Ker) we answer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.2. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in these Tax Referred Cases....
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Hassim Trading Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-1987
Reported in: [1987]66STC240(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The Revenue is the revision petitioner. The year of assessment is 1974-75.2. The only question arising for consideration is 'whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that garlic is a vegetable ?3. The term 'garlic' is not defined in the Kerala General Sales Tax Act; for that matter there is no definition of the term 'vegetables' also. According to the learned counsel for the Revenue, 'garlic' cannot be included within the meaning of the term 'vegetables'-commonly known as any kind of plant life or plant product. Garlic, the learned counsel for the Revenue submits, is a spice and if that be so, the sale of the same would attract sales tax. The assessment, the Assistant Commissioner has entered treating garlic as a spice, requires to be sustained. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the aforesaid assessment. The order of the Tribunal interfering with the assessment order treating garlic as a vegetable, therefore is liable to be vacated, the learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Vittappan Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-1987
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1994
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. P.W. 1 in Sessions Case No. 72 of 1986 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Parur is the appellant. In that case the accused was convicted and sentenced for murder by judgment dt/- 22-1-1987. Appellant was also the first informant in that case and Ext. PI is. the first information statement given by him and recorded by P.W. 14 in the Sessions case. The prosecutor filed Crl. M.P. 7 of 1987 before the Additional Sessions Judge under Section 340 of the Cr. P.C. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') to prosecute the appellant for giving false evidence. By order dt/- 2-2-1987 the Additional Sessions Judge allowed that petition and ordered the appellant to be prosecuted for having committed an offence as defined under Section 191 and made punishable under Section 193 of the I.P.C. Accordingly the Additional Sessions Judge filed a complaint and the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parur took cognizance for an offence punishable under Section 193, I.P.C. The app...
Tag this Judgment!Kumaran Nair Vs. Bhargavi and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1000
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. In a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') respondents 1 and 2 (mother and minor child) claimed maintenance from the petitioner who denied marriage and paternity. A letter, Ext. P2 marked subject to proof, denied by the petitioner, but having bearing on the question of paternity and marriage, was sought to be sent to the expert after obtaining the specimen signature of the petitioner. This petition filed under Section 482 of the Code is to quash the order allowing the prayer.2. The order could have been passed only under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, which reads:In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, wri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »