Kerala Court July 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.
John Vs. Kamarunnissa
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Ker78
ORDERM.M. Pareed Pillay, J. 1. Revision petitioner who is the plaintiff in O.S. 11 of 1985 of the Sub Court. Shertallai challenges the order in I.A. 446 of 1985. Second defendant (respondent herein) filed the petition for taking out a commission for local inspection. The learned Sub Judge allowed the petition. 2. The main contention of the plaintiff is that the trial Court erred in allowing the commission application overlooking the fact that the defendants have not filed written statement. The short question that has to be decided in the C.R.P. is as to whether the Court can issue a commission before filing the written statement by the defendants. Contention of the plaintiff is that defendants have not filed written statement and so the defences available to them were not before the Court and that being the position there was nothing to be elucidated by deputing a commission. 3. Order XXVI, Rule 9, C.P.C. enables the Court to depute a commission for local investigation whenever it con...
Bank of India Vs. James Fernandez and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker89
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J. 1. (sic)acknowledgement under Section 18 of the Limitation Act must be of a liability. It must relate to some existing debt or other obligation to same property or right. The liability must be existing on the date of acknowledgement. It must be in writing and signed by the person against whom such property or right is claimed or by some person through whom he derives his title or liability. The acknowledgement must be before the expiry of the period prescribed for a suit or application in respect of such property or right. These are essential conditions for a valid acknowledgement in order to be effective for the purpose of enabling computation of a fresh period of limitation from the time the acknowledgement was so signed. When the writing containing the acknowledgement is undated, oral evidencecan be given to prove when it was signed. But the additional question for consideration in this civil revision petition filed by the plaintiff in a money suit is whether...
Madhavan Sunanda Vs. Krishnan Chethoharan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker228
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. The civil revision petition had arisen out of O.S. No. 842 of 1982 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara. The suit for injunction was filed by the first respondent against the second respondent who is his father's brother's son. The suit property is the one allotted to his share as per the partition decree in O.S. No. 1033 of 1969. On the application of the first respondent a receiver was appointed to take possession of the property. At that time the petitioner filed LA. No. 3963 of 1984 under Order 40, Rule 1(2). The Munsiff dismissed the application by order dt. 22-8-1984. Against that she filed C.R.P. No. 2150 of 1984. The Order was set aside and the matter was remanded. The petition was again dismissed by the Munsiff by order dt. 7-3-1987. The present revision was filed by her against that order.2. Revision petitioner is the daughter of one of the brothers of the plaintiff. That brother was the second defendant in O.S. No. 1033 of 1969 (Partition Suit...
Kreem Foods (P.) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1987
Reported in: [1988]71STC353(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner herein is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (in short, 'the Act'). The matter relates to the assessment years 1975-76 to 1980-81. The assessments relating to the years 1975-76 to 1977-78 were reopened under Section 19 of the Act. It is the revised orders of those years reopening the assessment, that are impugned in these revisions. The petitioner, a limited company, is manufacturing and selling ice-creams under the trade name 'Joy Ice Cream'. For the first three years--1975-76 to 1977-78--it was originally assessed to sales tax at the rate of 4 per cent. It was subsequently found out that the articles sold will come under item 25H(viii) of the First Schedule to the Act as it stood before the amendment by Act 19 of 1980, as foods...which are tinned, canned, bottled or packed and are sold under any brand name registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. Accordingly the turnover relating to ice-creams was brought to tax...
P. Sathrugnan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1987
Reported in: [1988]71STC283(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. The petitioner herein is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The respondent is the Revenue. The matter relates to the assessment year 1965-66. The sole question that arises for consideration is regarding the exigibility to sales tax on the local purchase of cashew kernel. The plea of the assessee was that the purchases were in the course of export and so they were liable for exemption under the Central Sales Tax Act. This was negatived by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. It was stated that the plea, that the purchases were in the course of export, was not proved by any evidence. It was also stated that there was no prior contract between the selling dealer of cashew kernels and the foreign purchaser. On this ground the plea was negatived. This finding was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal also held that the purchases of the petitioner were not purchases in the course of export, relying on the decision of this Court in Hind...
Dr. V. Sebastian Vs. the State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1150
K.T. Thomas, J.1. The appellant is a doctor by profession. He was in the Health Service of Kerala State. He worked as Municipal Health Officer for a certain period, on deputation. While so, he has been indicted for offence under Section 161 of the Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the Act). The Special Judge convicted him and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- under each of the counts.2. The case against him, in short, is that he demanded and received illegal gratification in a sum of Rs. 10/- from P.W. 1 for issuing a 'life Certificate' in favour of the mother of P.W. 1. Being the widow of a railway employee, the said mother was entitled to family pension. The application for family pension must be supported by a life certificate. (The purpose of the certificate is to assure that the applicant concerned is a living person).3. On 14-7-1980, P.W. 1 and his mother (P.W. 6) appr...
Syed Hassan Baffakki Thangal and ors. Vs. Kalliath Thazha Chirutha and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker160
T. Kochu Thommen, J. 1. The appellants are defendants 7 and 9 to 11 in a suit for partition. The suit was instituted in the name of a person described as an idiot by her sister claiming to be next friend. The appellants contended that the person decribed as an idiot was not an idiot, but only a dumb person. Both the courts proceeded on the assumption that the appellants did not specifically dispute the claim of the next friend that the suit was being instituted in the name of a person who was an idiot, and so allowed the next friend to act as such. The suit was decreed by both the courts.2. Shri P.N.K.. Achen, appearing for the appellants, submits that the plaint should not have been accepted and numbered by the trial court except after satisfying itself as to the claim of the next friend in accordance with the provisions of Order XXXII, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Secondly Shri. Achen points out that the specific issue on the point ought to have been raised and tried...
United Timber and Cashew Products (P.) Ltd. Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-1987
Reported in: [1988]69STC250(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee to sales tax. The matter relates to the year 1962-63. The assessing authority finalised the assessment on a gross and net turnover of Rs. 48,00,090.73 and Rs. 23,20,212.60 respectively by assessment order dated 20th March, 1967. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, by his order dated 19th August, 1972, set aside the assessment order and ordered a remit. He directed the officer to re-examine the liability to tax on the closing stock of cashew and pepper in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. T. Narayanaswami Naidu [1968] 21 STC 1. The assessee filed a second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. It was contended that the assessment is barred by limitation. The Appellate Tribunal negatived this plea. Thereafter the assessing authority, in pursuance of the directions of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, re-examined the liability on closing stock and finalised the fresh assessment on a taxable turnov...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Taj Textile Industries Co-operative Soc ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-16-1987
Reported in: [1988]170ITR465(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunalfor the decision of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is engaged in 'a cottage industry' and is entitled to the relief under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The respondent/assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the manufacture and sale of handloom cloth. The members of the society are eighty artisans weaving handloom cloth. The society purchases raw materials for the manufacture of cloth and entrusts the materials to the workers who carry out the work in thatched sheds belonging to the society. The looms are kept in a thatched shed. The members are remunerated at piece rates. They are also provided with bonus and other compensation. The plea of the assessee is that it is entitled to the benefit of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act and is entitled to deduction. T...
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. R ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-16-1987
Reported in: [1989]73STC446(Ker)
K. Sreedharan, J.1. The Revenue is the petitioner. The respondent is an assessee on the files of the Sales Tax Officer, 2nd Circle, Mattancherry. They were engaged in building boats and selling them. When they produced their books of accounts for verification for the purpose of assessment for the year 1973-74, the assessing authority found that they had built 22 hulls as per agreement executed with the Director General of Supplies and Disposals, Government of India and sold them to the Indian Navy for a sum of Rs. 5,55,000. The assessing authority sought to assess the said turnover to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessee objected to the said assessment contending that the agreement entered into with the Director General of Supplies and Disposals was in the nature of a contract for work and labour and did not evidence a contract for sale of goods. The objection raised by the assessee was overruled and assessment was made on the said turnover. On appeal, the Additional Appel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »