Kerala Court September 1987 Judgments
John Vs. Chandy Philip and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker122
Kochu Thommen, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is against the judgment in O. S. No. 131 of 1979 which is a suit for specific performance of a contract. Dismissing the suit, the Court below found that Ext. A3 which is alleged to evidence a contract for sale of the suit property did not evidence a concluded contract so as to bind the first defendant.2. The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant who lived in Africa engaged the second defendant to negotiate the sale of his property in Alwaye and enter into a binding contract for sate. Pursuant to such authorisation, the second defendant negotiated with the plaintiff for the sale of the suit property and concluded a contract for sale for a total consideration of Rs. 45,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 2,000/-was received by him as advance on behalf of the first defendant as evidenced by Ext. A3. The first defendant contended that no authority had been given to the second defendant to enter into a contract on his behalf; no contr...
Tag this Judgment!Padmanabhan Gangadharan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ591
P.K. Shamsuddin, J.1. The accused in Sessions Case No. 85 of 1984 on the file of the Court of Session, Trivandrum, is the appellant. He was charged for offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. The lower court found him guilty of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the lower court, the accused has filed this appeal.2. The prosecution case may be summarised as follows:The appellant is the owner and driver of lorry No. KLQ. 6855. The deceased Sivadasan was its cleaner. The occurrence took place on 28-8-1983 at 2.30 p.m. at the premises of the petrol bunk of Radhakrishnan and Company situated on the western side of the road near Kilimanur junction. P.W. 1 went to Kilimanur market to borrow Rs. 15/- from one Kamalan. He borrowed the money from him and purchased some medicines from a drugs shop and was returning home. On the way he found Sivadasan sitting on a verandah of shop of Anandan Muthalai situated...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Partner, National Transport Co. Vs. R.T.A., Kozhikode and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-24-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Ker10
ORDERT.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The petitioner, who is operating a stage carriage on the route Kozhikode-Taliparamba, with a cut trip from Kozhikode to Badagara, applies for curtailment of the route, limiting it to Kozhikode-Cannanore, together with the cut trip. According to him, there were many new permits granted in the route Cannanore-Taliparamba so that the interests of the travelling public in that sector will not be affected by the curtailment. The Regional Transport Authority who considered the petitioners application however, found no reason to curtail the route, and to limit it up to Cannanore, as it was felt that such curtailment beyond Cannanore was not in public interest. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, after an elaborate consideration of the matter, held that the fact that the route from Cannanore to Taliparamba was adequately served was no justification for the curtailment sought, inasmuch as it had no...
Tag this Judgment!St. Michael's Oil Mills Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-24-1987
Reported in: [1988]68STC360(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. The petitioner is an assessee to sales tax. We are concerned with the assessment year 1977-78. The business premises of the petitioner was inspected on 29th March, 1978. Excess stock of 4,130 kgs. of copra was found. So also, an excess stock of 317 kgs. of coconut oil was found. The total value of the unaccounted stock was fixed at Rs. 32,080. Proceedings under Section 28(8) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act were initiated. The first respondent levied a penalty of Rs. 16,040 being 50 per cent of the value of the unaccounted stock. This is evidenced by exhibit P2 order dated 31st August, 1978. In revision, the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax fixed the value of the unaccounted stock at Rs. 28,910 and on that basis limited the penalty to a sum of Rs. 14,455. In further revision, the Board of Revenue, by exhibit P5 order dated 1st April, 1980, affirmed the decision of the Deputy Commissioner. At the same time, the Board of Revenue init...
Tag this Judgment!Antonitto Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and Another.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-1987
Reported in: [1988]171ITR456(Ker); [1988]35TAXMAN261(Ker)
K. SREEDHARAN J. - The petitioner was ordered to be arrested and detained in civil prison under rule 76 of Schedule II to the Income-tax Act, 1961. That order is under challenge on the ground that no enquiry as contemplated by rule 74 was held before ordering the detention subsequent to to the filing of the original petition, exhibit P-4 order was passed, as contemplated by rule 76 of Schedule II to the Income-tax Act. It was passed in pursuance of the direction issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the Commissioner directed the defaulter to pay at least 50% of the demand to avoid the rigour of detention under the proviso to rule 76 and that instead of making payment, he has approached this honble court. Since the Commissioner has taken such a view as is evident from the counter-affidavit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that exhibit P-4 order if challenged in appeal as contemplated by rule 86(1)(c) will be an empty fo...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Cloth Depot Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-18-1987
Reported in: (1988)71CTR(Ker)58; [1988]173ITR330(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following four questions of law for the decision of this court :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) are attracted to the assessee's case in respect of the assessment year 1970-71 and onwards and that penalty is leviable ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that even in the absence of any records to show concealment or the quantum thereof for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1974-75, levy of penalty is justified? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the spread over for a period of five years is justified ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in confirming that the levy of penalty based on a spread over is valid and wheth...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Veneers (P) Ltd. Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-18-1987
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC575
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. Ext. P-3 is an order of the first respondent Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Trivandrum by which he has treated the establishments of the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 as interrelated composite units, liable to be clubbed together for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, XIX of 1952, (the Act). The case of the petitioner and of respondents 2 and 3 was that they were each employing only less than the number of persons, which will bring them within the coverage envisaged by Section 1(3) of the Act. The first respondent has, for the reasons stated by him, held that the three establishments are inter-related, liable to be clubbed together and therefore liable to be covered by the Act as one establishment. Ext. P-3 is challenged on various grounds mentioned in the Original Petition. The question to be decided is whether the three establishments are separate and independent or whether t...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary, Ochira Temple Administration Board Vs. State of Kerala and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-17-1987
Reported in: [1988]171ITR429(Ker)
K. SREEDHARAN J. - The short question that arises for consideration is whether the auditorium and the sathram belonging to the petitioner is liable to be taxed under section 66 of the Kerala Panchayat Act. The auditorium owned and maintained by the petitioner is being let out for solemnisation of marriages at the temple, for holding other religious functions and for staging dramas etc. The income received by so letting out the auditorium is ploughed back for the administration of the temple and for other religious and charitable purposes. The santhram is let out for the residence of devotees visiting the temple. In absence of the devotees, it is being let to the members of public as well. The rent thus realised is being made use of for the administration of the temple and for other religious and charitable purposes. Since the income derived by letting out the auditorium and sathram are ploughed back for the administration of the temple and for other religious and charitable purposes, t...
Tag this Judgment!K.G. Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs. the Tahsildar and Accommodation Controlle ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-16-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker150
ORDERK. Sreedharan, J.1. In exercise of the powers under Section 13 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act the first respondent, the Tahsildar and Accommodation Controller by Ext.P3 order dated 17-6-1983 directed the petitioner to restore the amenities enjoyed by respondents 3 to 7. Petitioner questioned the correctness of Ext.P3 order before the second respondent, Collector. The appeal was dismissed by Ext. P4 order dated 11-9-1984. These orders are under challenge.2. The petitioner is the owner of an old two storied building situated in Ward No. XII of Muvattupuzha Municipality. Respondents 3 to 7 are the tenants occupying the rooms in that building. In front of the building there were steps for entry into it from the road. Since those steps were constructed encroaching into the poramboke land, proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act were initiated against the petitioner by the Tahsildar, Muvattupuzha. In pursuance to the orders passed by the Tahsildar under the said...
Tag this Judgment!Sarojini Amma Vs. Sarojini and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-16-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1362
ORDERM.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Petitioner who is the accused in C.C. 15 of 1984 of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First C lass, Wadakkancherry was charged under Section 420 of the I.P.C. Challenging the framing of the charge petitioner filed Crl. R.P. 79 of 1986 before the Sessions Court, Trichur. The Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition holding that no revision would lie against framing of charge, itbeingonly an interlocutory order.2. Contention of the petitioner is that the Sessions Judge went wrong in holding so. Counselrelying on Abdullakutty Haji v. Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate 1982 Ker LT 861 contended that revision lies from an order framing charge when the proceedings are within the purview of the Criminal P.C.3. The question to be considered is whether the framing of charge is an interlocutory order or not and consequently revisable or not in view of Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 397(2) provides that the powers of revi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »