Kerala Court January 1988 Judgments
Gangadharan Vs. T.K. Thankam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Ker244
Shamsuddin, J.1. The petitioner in O.P. No. 30 of 1983 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode, whose application for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act is dismissed, is the appellant in this Miscellaneous First Appeal.2. The above petition was filed for a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent and for consequential reliefs. In the petition it was alleged that the appellant married the respondent on 30-8-1976, that they lived together for some time, that the respondent indulged in several acts of misbehaviour and had treated the appellant with cruelty and deserted him for a long time, and in the circumstances the appellant was entitled to a decree for dissolving the marriage. The respondent resisted the petition and contended that the allegations of cruelty, misbehaviour and desertion are untrue. She admitted that she was residing separately.3. The learned Subordinate Judge, after considering t...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Aboobacker and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Ker242
Malimath, C.J. 1. Though we are inclined to agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge that we should not interfere with the grant of licences to the rival industrialists we cannot refrain from examining the validity of Ext. P4 Government order particularly when the complaint is that that order has been made in violation of the statutory provisions. Ext. P4 dated 25-10-1986 is the order of the State Government which purports to deal with simplification of the procedure for the issue of licences by local bodies for small-scale industries. It is with that object in view that certain instructions have been issued. We are concerned here with two instructions contained in Ext. P4, which we propose to extract for the sake ofconvenience as follows : 'I. Reference to other Agencies by local bodies :(A) For units in the Industrial Development Plots/Development Areas/Industrial Growth Centres and Industrial Estates set up by the Industries Department as well as local bodies or Governm...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Chit Funds Ltd. Vs. Narayanan Nair and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-1988
Reported in: [1989]66CompCas106(Ker)
K.T. Thomas, J. 1. M/s. Syndicate Chit Fund Limited (plaintiff) got a money decree, but has no practical use of it since the plaintiff-company is precluded from realising the amount decreed on account of want of necessary operative words in the judgment. The petition for amending the judgment was dismissed and hence this revision petition. 2. The plaintiff-company filed a suit for realisation of Rs. 1,360 based on exhibit A-1 which is a bond executed by one Krishnan and two sureties (defendants Nos. 1 and 2) for repayment of the defaulted instalments of a kuri. Krishnan died and his legal representatives were made defendants in the suit. The trial court found that the plaintiff is entitled to the amount claimed in the suit. The court allowed the plaintiff to proceed against the property left behind by the said Krishnan and also against the assets of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The operative portion of the judgment is worded thus : 'In the result, the suit is decreed as indicated above wit...
Tag this Judgment!idukki District Estate Workers' Union Vs. Labour Court and Anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-1988
Reported in: (1989)ILLJ408Ker
Chettur Sankaran Nair, J.1. Five workmen represented by the petitioner were dismissed after a domestic enquiry by the second respondent. An industrial dispute was raised and exhibit P-1 is the reference order. In the proceedings a preliminary issue was raised and by exhibit P-4, dated 9th February, 1983, the Labour Court (first respondent) found that 'workmen were not given sufficient opportunity to establish their innocence. Enquiry to that extent is vitiated.'2. Thereafter, additional evidence was taken and three witnesses (WW2 to 4) were examined for the workmen. One of the workmen and the enquiry officer were examined respectively, as WW1 and MW1, as seen from exhibit P-6 (paragraph 5). Thereafter, the first respondent considered the matter and found that charges 1 and 3 were established. Punishment of discharge from service was imposed.Exhibit P-6 order is challenged on three grounds. It is contended that the first respondent should not have acted on evidence recorded at the domes...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. Darico Cannings Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-1988
Reported in: [1988]173ITR390(Ker)
T. Kochu Thomhen, J.1. The following question has been, at the instance of the Revenue, referred to us by the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the sums of Rs. 11,756.05 and Rs. 37,629.32 disallowed by the assessing authority as amounts spent for the maintenance and upkeep of immature plants under the two heads ' weeding charges ' and ' fertiliser charges ', respectively, are allowable deductions under the provisions of Section 5 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 '2. In respect of the assessment year 1970-71, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer disallowed the sums of Rs. 37,629.32 and Rs. 11,756.05 being expenditure claimed for fertilisers and weeding charges, respectively, on the ground that the said expenditure had been incurred on immature plants from which no agricultural income had been derived. This decision was, on ap...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. Good Hope Plantation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-1988
Reported in: (1988)69CTR(Ker)146; [1988]170ITR173(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J. 1. The question which we should have thought was too simple to attract any controversy is :'Is the Tribunal justified in holding that 'motor car' in entry III-B(i) of the statement of Rule 9 of the Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1951, includes a 'jeep' ?'2. The Tribunal, not surprisingly and in our view rightly, held that the expression 'motorcar' includes a jeep. In common parlance, a jeep is understood as a sturdy motor car. That is in fact the dictionary meaning : See the Concise Oxford Dictionary. That meaning is in harmony with the definition of 'motor car' under the Motor Vehicles Act : See Section 2(1). In the circumstances, the Tribunal, in our view, rightly found that 'motor car' includes a jeep for the purpose of deduction under Section 5 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act read with Rule 9 of the Agricultural Income-tax Rules. Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.3. We direct th...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Achamma Sebastian Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1988
Reported in: [1988]173ITR296(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J. 1. The following question has been, at the instance of the assessee, referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that a sum of Rs. 19,54,685 due fromM/s. Koolfoam Pvt. Ltd. and a sum of Rs. 1,67,160 due from M/s. Stella Rubber Works should be treated as the assets of the firm of M/s. Heavea-tex Rubber Co. in computing the value of the interest of the assessee in the said firm for the purpose of wealth-tax ' 2. The assessment years in question are 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79 for which the relevant valuation dates are March 31, 1976, March 31, 1977, and March 31, 1978, respectively. The assessee is an individual whose wealth included her interest in a firm. Certain amounts were due to the firm from its customers and the firm had written off Rs. 15 lakhs from one of them and Rs. 1,67,160 from another. The assessee in computing her interest in the firm...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Vs. P.V. Mohanan and Ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-15-1988
Reported in: II(1989)ACC158; (1988)IILLJ177Ker
V. Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.1. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kottayam, has referred the following question of law for the decision of this Court under Section 27 of the Workmen's Compensation Act:Whether the compensation amount deposited with the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation becomes the property of the sole dependent of the deceased workman in case nobody opposes to that, and further, if that sole dependant dies prior to the allotment of that compensation whether the said amount devolves to his or her heirs?2. Gopalan, a workman, died on 22nd February 1986 by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment in a tea estate. The employer accepted the liability for compensation and deposited the compensation amount of Rs. 21,000 with the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. He also submitted a statement in Form A showing that Thankamma, the widow, was the sole dependant of the deceased workman. Before the amount could be paid to her, she died on 20th ...
Tag this Judgment!V. A. Abraham Vs. Superintendent of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-1988
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1144
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. The Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam, convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 161, IPC and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to rigorous imprisonment for two years each with an additional sentence of Rs. 5,000/- fine for the latter with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 3 months, with permission to suffer the substantive terms concurrently.2. Appellant was the Administrative Officer in the Head Office of F.A.C.T. in charge of purchase. PW. 1 was the Divisional Manager of a Company by name 'Logic Systems Pvt. Limited' with which the F.A.C.T. placed orders for purchase of electric typewriters. The charge is that misusing his official position the appellant demanded and received Rs. 2,000/- as illicit gratification from PW. 1.3. Defence is that there was no demand or receipt and PW. 1 was only arranging an illegitimate trap to save his employment from which he was facing dismissal and the money...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C. Karunakaran and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-1988
Reported in: (1988)68CTR(Ker)131; [1988]170ITR426(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J. 1. The following question has been, at the instance of the Revenue, referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there could be no assessments either as an association of persons or as a body of individuals and that the assessments can only be in respect of each co-owner of the business on his respective share of income ?' 2. The assessment years in question are 1975-76, 1976-77, 1979-80 and 1980-81. The assessees are the children of late C. Ramankutty Nair who died on May 3, 1971. He was the sole proprietor of a gold business. He left behind him his widow, 4 sons, of whom three were minors, and six daughters, among whom one was a minor. The mother and the daughters executed a deed of relinquishment on May 22, 1971, giving up all their rights in the business. The Income-tax Officer, for the assessment years in question, treated the sons as an as...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »