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.
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. S ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: [1988]69STC153(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The Revenue is the petitioner herein. The respondent is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (in short, 'the Act'). The matter involved herein relates to the assessment year 1983-84. The assessee (respondent) is a general merchant at Attappady. He was not submitting monthly returns, nor paying tax. From the declarations available in the check post, the assessing authority came to know that the respondent (assessee) had effected sales of groundnut outside the State. Notices were served on the assessee to file returns for June and July, 1983. The taxable turnover for these two months was determined at Rs. 75,000 and Rs. 80,000. The assessee filed a nil return for June and July, 1983. He did not file the returns along with the proof of payment of tax due before the 20th of the succeeding month for the period, June to September, 1983. This resulted in the assessing authority completing the assessments for August, September and October, 1983 on a turnove...
Krishnan Kesavan and ors. Vs. Kochukunju Karunakaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-07-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker107
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. Defendants are the appellants and the revision petitioners. Munsiff, Pathanamthitta decreed O.S. No. 628 of 1979 for specific performance of an agreement for sale of immovable property entered into by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Second defendant is the person in whose favour the first defendant entered into a subsequent agreement. Appeal was also dismissed and hence the second appeal. There was an order of injunction against the defendants from creating documents and disturbing the possession of the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed I.A. 12 of 1980 for taking action against the defendants under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure for having violated the injunction. I.A. 251 of 1980 was also filed for damages and prosecution. Both the petitions were allowed. Defendants 1 and 2, were ordered to be detained in civil prison for two months each and Rs. 500/- each was awarded as damages. C.M.A. No. 23 of 1982 filed by the defendants was dismisse...
N. Parameswara Pillai and ors. Vs. Kunchali Lekshmi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-07-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Ker282
Shamsuddin, J. 1. The important question of law that has been referred to the Full Bench for consideration is the period of limitation within which an application for resumption has to be filed under Section 17 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short), by a small-holder for resumption of a portion not exceeding one-half of the holding from deemed tenants under Section 4A of the said Act, introduced by Act 35 of 1969. 2. The facts leading to the above C.R.P. and the circumstances in which the matter was referred to the Full Bench, are as follows : The petitioners filed O.S. No. 1032 of 1966 for redemption of a mortgage. While the matter was pending Act 35 of 1969 came into force which inserted Section 4A. As per this section, certain mortgagees and lessees of mortgagees were treated as deemed tenants. It is not in dispute that respondents 1 to 5 are deemed tenants under Section 4A of the Act. It was so held in O.S. No. 1032/1966 and the decree o...
ZainuddIn Vs. Dy. Labour Commissioner and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-07-1987
Reported in: (1988)ILLJ225Ker
Sreedharan, J.1. The question involved falls within very small compass. Second Respondent was an employee of the petitioner. His services were terminated by issuance of a notice dated 22nd January 1983. That notice was delivered to the second respondent on the same day itself. He filed an appeal before the first respondent on 13th April 1983. According to the petitioner the appeal filed on 13th April 1983 was out of time and so the first respondent should not have entertained the appeal. In this view the order passed by the first respondent in that appeal, namely Ext. P1, is illegal and has to be quashed.2. Rule 3 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Rules, 1961 provides that an appeal under Section 18 of the Act should be preferred by the employee within 60 days from the date of delivery of the order terminating his services with the employer. It further states that the date of 60 days should be reckoned from the date on which the order is delivered to the employee either...
Jayalakshmi Vs. Shanmugham and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker128
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. Plaintiff is the revision petitioner and the matter arises from final decree proceedings. Defendants 1 and 2 are the brother and sister of plaintiff's deceased husband. The suit is one for dissolution of a partnership business in plastic goods conducted in a shop at Tellicherry and for settlement of accounts. Though plaintiff claimed that herself and defendants 1 and 2 are the partners, both defendants denied the partnership. First defendant claimed the business to be exclusively his. Second defendant denied having anything to do with the business except advancing a loan of Rs. 5,000/- to the first defendant. Trial court accepted plaintiff's case and passed a preliminary decree for dissolution and held that each is entitled to 1/3 share in the capital and profits of the business. In the final decree proceedings, on the application of the defendants, the trial court ordered the tenancy right in the shop building, in which the business is conducted, also to be s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›