Kerala Court February 1988 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.
Dunlop India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR622(Ker); [1988]71STC316(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The first petitioner is the Dunlop India Ltd., Kaloor, a public limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1950. The second petitioner is a shareholder of the company. The petitioners seek to quash the assessment orders, exhibits P-4(a), P-4(b), P-4(c) and P-4(d) all dated January 31, 1984, assessing the company to sales tax for the years 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80, respectively.2. The first petitioner-company is engaged in the manufacture of tyres, tubes and other rubber products. It has two factories, one in West Bengal and another in Tamil Nadu. The company purchases natural rubber from Kerala and despatches the same to its factories in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu for use in its manufacturing process. According to the petitioner, the purchase turnover of rubber was subjected to tax under Section 5A(1)(c) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, and assessed as per the impugned orders of assessment. The petitioners in the original ...
Cheelil Thottolil Asia Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Ker231
ORDERT.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. Petitioner's husband is one Moidu Haji. The claim is that he belongs to Panur near Tellicherry, Cannanore District, and that he is having relations and properties in Panur amsom. This Moidu Haji had acquired a Pakistani passport and on the strength of the passport he had been making occasional visits to this country. It is stated that he was employed in Karachi and that by acquiring the Pakistani passport he had not intended to abandon his Indian citizenship. The last time he entered India was on 20-1-1988, when he reached Bombay. Petitioner would contend that Moidu Haji had evinced an intention to acquire Indian passport and that for that purpose he was gathering the necessary, papers. It is stated that he was arrested on 2-2-1988 at about 10 A.M. and that he is in the process of being deported out of India. In paragraph 8 of the original petition the petitioner contends that she reliably understood that her husband entered the territory of India on th...
Chittur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. R.C. Pankunny and Two ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-1988
Reported in: [1988]64CompCas78(Ker)
K.T. Thomas, J. 1. A decree holder filed an application for attachment and sale of the properties of one of the judgment-debtors who is not the principal debtor. The application was dismissed solely on the ground that the decree holder has not shown any reason for eliminating the principal debtor. Hence this revision at the instance of the decreeholder.2. A decree for money was obtained by the petitioner against three persons in an award passed as per the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The decree made the three persons jointly and severally liable for the decree debt, the first among them being the principal debtor and the other two are sureties. The application is for attachment of the properties of the second judgment-debtor. There is no dispute that the person whose properties are sought to be attached was only a surety. There is also no dispute that no step, so far, has been taken against the other two judgment-debtors. The execution court dismissed the ...
Radhakumari Vs. Dr. K.M.K. Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Ker235
Shamsuddin, J.1. The above M.F.A. is directed against the order passed by the District Court, Trivandrum in O.P. (H.M.A.) No. 63 of 1983, an application filed by the appellant herein under Section 13(1A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By order dated 16th August, 1982 the learned District Judgedismissed the application. The appellant husband challenges the said order in this, M.F.A.2. A.S. No. 265 of 1986 is filed by the appellant (husband) against the judgment and decree of the court of Subordinate, Judge, Trivandrum in O.S. No. 532 of 1983, in so far as it related to maintenance awarded by the lower court to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 250/- per mensem. The appellant has not challenged the order of maintenance awarded to the children, the plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the suit at the rate of Rs. 250/- each per mensem.3. The parties are Hindus belonging to Nair community whose marriage was solemnised on 19-5-1967 in accordance with the customa...
imbichimoideenkutty Vs. Pathumunni Umma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker148
Bhat, J. 1. First defendant in O.S. No. 47 of 1982 of the Sub Court, Tirur is the appellant herein.2. Plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 are the daughters and the first defendant is the son of late P. K. Pareekutty, who died on 27-8-1972. His wife died on 27-8-1984. The suit wasfiled for recovery of possession of plaint A and B schedule immovable property and plaint C schedule movables on the allegation that the assets belonged to Pareekutty, that he gifted plaint A schedule property to the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 under Ext. A1 gift deed dt. 24-1-1972, on 2-4-1972 Pareekutty purported to execute Ext. B2 cancellation but that could not legally take effect and defendants unlawfully trespassed and reduced the property to their possession. Plaint B and C schedule assets are liable to be divided among the heirs of Pareekutty. Plaintiff also sought recovery of possession of A schedule property or alternatively partition of the same among the heirs.3. First defendant filed written statem...
N. Divakaran Vs. Taluk Supply Officer, Quilandy and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Ker288
Malimath, C.J.1. The appellant-petitioner was absent before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge, however, looked into the case and felt that there is no ground to interfere with the order of the State Government made in exercise of its revisional power in modifying the punishment imposed on the 6th respondent having regard to the fact that he has been running the shop for a long period without any punishment and that the lapse now proved is not of a serious character. The learned single Judge therefore declined to interfere.2. What is contended by the appellant in this appeal is that the order having been made in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner under Rule 45(11) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966, the State Government could not have interfered with that order in exercise of its revisional powers. Reliance was placed in support of this contention on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court reported in 1975 Ker LT 639 between Chandr...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-1988
Reported in: (1988)71CTR(Ker)1; [1988]172ITR733(Ker)
ORDER--ScopeIncome Tax Act 1961 s.263 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 the assessment order had totally merged in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and that consequently the order by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not legally sustainable ?'2. In respect of the assessment year 1977-78, relevant to the accounting period ending on December 31, 1976, the Commissioner of Income-tax (the 'Commissioner') in exercise of his power under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, revised the order of assessment, although that order had been already appealed against by the assessee and the appeal had been allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by his order dated January 16, 1982. The Commissioner directe...
Ragam Plastics and ors. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-1988
Reported in: [1988]69STC341(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The only point for decision in this original petition is as to whether new industrial units entitled to a limited exemption from sales tax as per notification of Government SRO No. 968/80 are excluded from the benefits of a lower rate of tax as provided for in Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act as substituted by the Kerala Finance Act 18 of 1987.2. There is no dispute that the three petitioners are small-scale industrial units established after the notification aforesaid and they are entitled to the benefits of the notification. Their claims for the benefits of Sub-section (3) of Section 5 were referred by the respective Sales Tax Officers and the Deputy Commissioner (Sales Tax) to the Board of Revenue for clarification as can be seen from exhibits PI, P3 to P5 and P7. The Board of Revenue has taken the view that small-scale industrial units entitled to exemption from sales tax under the . Notification SRO No. 968/80 are not en...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›