Kerala Court August 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sorabji Dorabji
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-19-1987
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(Ker)260; [1987]168ITR598(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and fact in holding that the spouse of the assessee had acquired the necessary professional qualification as contemplated by the proviso to Section 64(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by virtue of her long experience in the service of the company and, therefore, the salary received by her cannot be included in the assessment of the assessee, namely, Shri Sorabji Dorabji '2. The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. We are concerned with the assessment year 1978-79. A sum of Rs. 8,400 was included in the assessable income of the assessee for the year 1978-79. The said sum represented salary paid to his wife, Mrs. Soonoo Sorabji, who was a director of the company, M/s. Sorabji & Co. (P) Ltd. The respondent assessee has substantial ...
Dr. Ashok Mathew Zacharia and K.T. Benny Vs. Majestic Kuries and Loans ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-1987
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas865(Ker)
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. Plaintiffs are the revision petitioners. The two revision petitions arise from O. S. No. 728 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Trichur, and O. S. No. 2510 of 1986 on the file of the Munsiff, Trichur. Order in I. A. No. 1842 of 1986 in O. S. No. 728 of 1986 gave rise to C. M. A. No. 92 of 1986 before the District Judge, Trichur. Order in I. A. No. 3732 of 1986 in O. S. No. 2510 of 1986 gave rise to C. M. A. No. 127 of 1986. Both the C.M.As. were disposed of by the Dis'trict Judge, Trichur, by a common judgment. C. R. P. No. 1285 of 1987 is against the order in C.M.A. No. 127 of 1986 and C.R.P. No. 1286 of 1987 is against the order in C. M. A. No. 92 of 1986.2. First defendant in both the cases is the Majestic Kuries and Loans (P.) Ltd., High Road, Trichur, a company incorporated under the Companies Act for the conduct of kuries worth about Rs. 10 crores. There are 25 shareholders. Plaintiffs in both the cases are shareholders of the company. The fourth a...
Dedha and Co. Vs. Paulson Medical Stores and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker233
T. Kochu Thomman, J.1. The first defendant in a suit for recovery of damages is the appellant. The suit was decreed by the trial court against the second defendant. But on appeal by the plaintiffs, the suit was decreed against both the defendants, and the compensation awarded by the trial court in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- was enhanced to Rs. 6,000/-together with interest.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff, a Partnership firm, was a licensee under the Drugs and cosmetics Act, 1940 (the 'Drugs Act') and the other two plaintiffs were partners of the firm. The first plaintiff purchased from the first defendant on 29-5-1971 a certain quantity of 'Sweetin' bearing a guarantee that the articles did not 'contravene in any way the provisions of Section 18 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940'. Unknown to the plaintiffs, a notification had been issued on 25-5-1971, and published in the gazette on 26-5-1971, under Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955,...
V.K. Kurien Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-13-1987
Reported in: [1988]64CompCas82(Ker)
U.L. Bhat, J. 1. The petitioner is the president of the second respondent, Kottayam District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 are members of the board of directors of the bank of whom the sixth respondent is the vice-president. The petitioner was nominated by the Registrar to the board of directors under Section 31 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, (for short 'the Act'), as per exhibit P-1, dated December 5, 1986. At the meeting of the board of directors held on March 20, 1987, the petitioner was elected president of the bank. The third respondent and others submitted a representation before the first respondent, Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, alleging that the election of the petitioner is illegal. According to them, being a nominated member under bye-law 26, he is not eligible to be an office-bearer. They also challenged the legality of the meeting since seven days' clear notice was not given to the members as required in the bye-laws. The first resp...
Paru Narayani, Revn. Vs. Thomas Varghese and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker105
Balakrishna Menon, J. 1. The only question for decision in this civil revision petition is as to whether the 1st respondent's application under Section 77(1) read with Section 75(2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is liable to be dismissed for want of a notice to the revision petitioner as required by the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 77.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The 1st respondent in this C.R.R is the owner of the land where one Ankan had a kudikidappu. Ankan died. The revision petitioner and one Ankan Achuthan are his legal representatives and they continued to reside in the kudikidappu. The land owner issued a notice to Ankan Achuthan requiring him to shift the kudikadappu to an alternative site offered by the land owner. No notice was given to the revision petitioner. She was however made a party to the application under Section 77(1) of the Act. The Land Tribunal as well as the appellate authority have held that the notice to Ankan Achuthan is suffi...
Vasudevan Nair and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-1987
Reported in: (1988)ILLJ239Ker
Sreedharan, J.1. Petitioners in O.P. No. 6239 of 1981 are the appellants. The first petitioner is working as Administrative Officer Grade II and the second petitioner as Finance Officer. They claim special pay as given to their counter-parts drawn from the Secretariat service. That claim was negatived by Ext. P2 order dated 7th January 1981. Thereupon they approached this Court for quashing Ext. P2 order and for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Government to grant the petitioners special pay as in the case of their counterparts in the Secretariat service. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Original Petition holding that the special pay is given to a class or persons by reason of the special nature of their work and so it is based on a reasonable classification. The averments in para 8 of the counter affidavit were relied on to sustain the conclusion. The decisions of the Supreme Court bearing on the question are not seen referred to in the judgment. The O.P. was dismis...
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. J ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-1987
Reported in: [1988]71STC72(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. The Revenue is the petitioner. The respondent is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (in short, 'the Act'). The matter relates to the assessment year 1974-75. The short question is whether PVC cloth (rexine) is cotton fabrics exempted from tax under entry 7, Schedule III of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal followed the decision of this Court, reported in Ateesee (Agro-Industrial Trading Corporation) v. State of Kerala [1978] 41 STC 1 and Varma Industrials Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer [1981] 47 STC 43 (Kar) and held that PVC cloth (rexine) is cotton fabrics within the meaning of entry 7, Schedule III of the Act. The Revenue has come up in revision.2. We heard counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Divakaran Pillai. It was argued that the earlier decision of this Court reported in Ateesee (Agro-Industrial Trading Corporation) case [1978] 41 STC 1 and Varma Industrials Limited case [1981] 47 STC 43 (Kar) require reconsideration. It is agreed that the afore...
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. Dr. Kuri ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-1987
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC301
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. The 2nd respondent in O.P. (M.V.) 681 of 1981 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam is the appellant.2. The claimant therein one Dr. Kurian P. Chacko, a medical practitioner, met with an accident on 7-5-1981. The claimant was riding a motor cycle and a passenger bus bearing registration No. K.L.R. 7959 hit the motor cycle and the Motor cyclist was thrown away and he sustained serious injuries. The incident happened at Kanattukara on Trichur Kunnamkulam main road. The injured was admitted in the hospital. He was under prolonged treatment. It is said that he is even now undergoing treatment for his injuries. At the relevant time he was employed as a House Surgeon in the District Hospital, Trichur. He claimed a sum of Rs. 1,29,776.83 as compensation. The Tribunal awarded the entire amount as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from 4-11-1981 till realisation.3. The only contention urged by the insurance company is that their liability...
K.G. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: [1990]79STC243(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. These two revisions are filed by two different assessees. In both of them we are concerned with the assessment year 1978-79. The Revenue is the respondent in both the cases. The petitioners (assessees) are dealers in mats, mattings, etc. They are exporters in coir products. In pursuance of anterior contracts, the petitioners purchased coir products and after subjecting such coir products to sheaving, smoking and stencilling, exported them. Their claim for exemption under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, was negatived by the assessing authority. The said view was upheld by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. After referring to a few decisions, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the unfinished goods purchased by the petitioners and those exported by them after the process, such as sheaving, smoking, stencilling, etc., are two different commodities and so, the goods exported by the petitioners are not the very same goods purchased and so, they ...
Mercantile Employee's Association Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: (1988)ILLJ377Ker
Fatima Beevi, J.1. The petitioner is a registered trade union representing the staff members of the Common Wealth Trust (India) Limited, Calicut. The challenge in the Original Petition is against Ext. P1 order whereby the first respondent, the State, under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act declined to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner for adjudication. The dispute was regarding the withholding of increment of certain employee. The Government did not consider it expedient to refer the issue for adjudication after going into the merits of the case. According to the petitioner Ext. P1 is vitiated by illegality in that the decision was arrived at on irrelevant considerations. When a dispute exists the only consideration should have been whether it was expedient in the circumstance of the case to refer that dispute and it is for the Tribunal or Labour Court to adjudicate upon the claim.2. The State has filed a counter-affidavit refuting the grounds taken up.3. It is open...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »