Kerala Court March 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.
V.J. Chandy Vs. the Village Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-1988
Reported in: [1989]72STC240(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. Heard also the Senior Government Pleader who took notice on behalf of the respondents.2. The petitioner's father N.C. John was a partner of a firm by name Vatry Enterprises. The firm is a dealer registered under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Exhibit P3 is the order of assessment to sales tax on the firm for the assessment year 1979-80. An appeal exhibit P6 against the order of assessment is pending before the third respondent, the appellate authority. N.C. John died during the pendency of the appeal. According to the petitioner he has not inherited any estate of his deceased father. Nevertheless his separate properties are sought to be proceeded against in revenue recovery proceedings for realisation of the tax due from the firm as per the assessment order exhibit P8. It is also submitted that the appeal exhibit P6 was actually heard on 18th February, 1988, but no orders have been passed until this date.3. The partners of the firm are also liable for pa...
Joseph Michael and Brothers Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and Others.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-1988
Reported in: (1988)74CTR(Ker)58; [1988]174ITR562(Ker)
T. KOCHU THOMMEN J. - The petitioner is the transferee of an agricultural property. The transfer occurred on November 30, 1977. An assessment was made on the transferor in respect of the agricultural income for the years 1975-76 and 1976-77. This was for the period prior to the date of transfer The assessment was made after due notice to the assessee. However, recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in his capacity as the transferee for the taxes due from the assessee-transferor for the period prior to the date of the transfer. The petitioner filed revision petitions before the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, but without success. His main contention before the Commissioner was that no notice had been issued to the petitioner prior to the assessment. The Commissioner rightly rejected the contention stating that the petitioner was not the assessee and that he was, therefore, not entitled to any pre-assessment notice. The assessment was duly made after due noti...
National Insurance Company Vs. Narayanan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-18-1988
Reported in: II(1988)ACC412; [1988]64CompCas724(Ker); [1989(58)FLR73]
Sivaraman Nair, J. 1. The insurer of a stage carriage, KLT 2319, appeals against the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner in W. C. C. No. 66 of 1980. The son of the claimant was involved in an accident and died as a consequence of the injury sustained by him. He was aged 22 years as on 5th August, 1978, when the accident occurred. He was an employee of the present second respondent, who was the owner of the stage carriage. While travelling in that vehicle as an employee, he fell out of the vehicle and was crushed under the left rear wheel, as a consequence of the swerving of the vehicle to avoid hitting a boy who suddenly crossed the road. In the application under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the father of the deceased boy alleged that the deceased was an employee of the second respondent and that he was receiving a monthly salary of Rs. 650 and, therefore, the claimant was entitled to Rs. 50,000 as compensation. The insurer resisted the claim on the gro...
Kottan Thazhathu Veettil Krishnan Vs. Palari Thaivalappil Govindan and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker83
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The first defendant in a suit for malicious prosecution is the appellant. Both the Courts found that the two defendants were liable in damages to the plaintiff for maliciously prosecuting him. The second defendant died during pendency of the appeal in the lower appellate Court. Her legal representatives were impleaded as appellants 3 to 7, but they have not challenged the decree of the lower appellate Court.2. The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant and his mother, the second defendant, filed a private complaint against the plaintiff stating that he along with two others had ser fire to the hut in which the second defendant lived, as a result of which the second defendant was seriously injured. The second defendant was alone in the hut at the time of the incident. The criminal case ended in acquittal of the plaintiff. The prosecution, according to the plaintiff, was maliciously launched and the prosecutors were, therefore, liable in damages. Both th...
Kuruvila Thomas and Co. and anr. Vs. State Bank of Travancore
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1988
Reported in: [1991]70CompCas797(Ker)
K.T. Thomas, J.1. During execution proceedings, the judgment-debtors challenged the validity of the decree, but the execution court repelled the challenge as per the order under attack in this revision. The decree is for sale of the mortgaged properties for realisation of the decree debt. The main contention is that since the decree was not passed in accordance with Order 34, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') the decree is not a valid decree and is hence unexecutable. The other contention is that, if at all the decree is valid, it can only be treated as a preliminary decree as envisaged in the said rule and hence the decree holder has to wait till a final decree is passed by the trial court.2. The State Bank of Travancore filed a suit for recovery of a certain sum of money by sale of the immovable properties mortgaged with the bank. The defendants in the suit had deposited the title deeds relating to the decree schedule properties with the bank and thus an eq...
Sathyan Alias Sathyavrethan Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1988
Reported in: [1989]65CompCas502(Ker)
V. Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.1. When a suit is filed for an injunction restraining a bank from paying the amount covered by a fixed deposit, is the plaintiff liable to pay court fee on the amount covered by the, fixed deposit receipt, treating the suit as a declaratory suit or is it sufficient to pay court fee only on the relief of injunction which he has sought A question of court fee on which will also depend the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction thus arises for consideration in this revision.2. The plaintiff filed a suit in the Munsiff's Court, Varkala, praying for a decree :(a) prohibiting the 1st defendant bank from releasing the amount covered by the Fixed Deposit Receipt No. F. 409l60/FBD-38/76 and renewed as C. 307528/MID/25/79 to the second defendant or anybody else.(b) directing the 1st defendant to release the said amount covered by the said fixed deposit receipt with interest from March 24, 1984, to the plaintiff.and for other consequential reliefs. He valued the reliefs of...
Regional Director, E.S.i. Corpn. Vs. Suresh Trading Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-1988
Reported in: II(1988)ACC35; [1989(59)FLR137]; (1990)ILLJ348Ker
Sivaraman Nair, J.1.. The Regional Director of the Employees Slate Insurance Corporation (hereinafter to be referred to as the Corporation) appeals against the judgment of the Employees' Slate Insurance Court (hereinafter to be referred to as the Insurance Court) in I.C.No.97 of 1979. That case was instituted by the respondent herein Under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, for a declaration that the applicant-establishment was not liable to be covered under the Insurance Act.2. The short facts that led to this appeal are as follows: The respondent, M/s. Suresh Trading Company, is an establishment engaged in the purchase of raw-coir mats and mattings, and their sale in India and abroad after processing, which includes shearing, trimming, stenciling, colouring etc. Process of manufacturing and shearing were conducted by the applicant establishment. Their case was that manufacturing and shearing process were conducted through independent factories, one of which was M/...
Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-1988
Reported in: 1988(17)ECC259; 1989(39)ELT11(Ker)
V. Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company manufacturing paper and paper boards. Under Rule 173-B of the Central Excise Rules, every assessee under the Central Excise Act has to furnish a list showing the full description of ail excisable goods produced or manufactured by it, all other goods produced or manufactured by it and intended to be removed from his factory and all ex cisable goods already deposited or likely to be deposited from time to time without pay ment of duty in its warehouse. When once the list is so published, the proper officer conducts the necessary enquiries and may approve the list with such modifications as are considered necessary by him. The classification so made, in respect of the excisable goods manufactured by the petitioner-company, by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, was taken in appeal before the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, by the petitioner under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Mahim.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-03-1988
Reported in: [1988]174ITR149(Ker)
K. P. RADHAKRISHNA MENON J. - The Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, is the petitioner. The questions sought to be referred read thus :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the Revenue has failed to establish that the assessee was the real owner of the properties purchased in the names of three persons, viz., Shri K. Abdul Rahman, K. P. Abdulla and K. Abdulla Kunhi ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in deleting the addition of income relating to the property purchased in the names of Shri K. Abdul Rahman, K. P Abdulla and K. Abdulla Kunhi ?'After listening to the arguments of counsel on both sides, we are satisfied that the questions sought to be referred are questions of law arising out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal and they, therefore, require to be referred to this court for opinion.We accordingly direct the Income-tax Appella...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. H.H. Sri Rama Varma Maharaja of Travancor ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-02-1988
Reported in: [1988]173ITR357(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. In view of the decision in I.T.Rs. Nos. 132 and 133 of 1981 (CITv. H. H. Gouri Parvathi Bhai [1988] 173 ITR 355), the following questions are required to be referred for being dealt with by this court:' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that no transfer has been made by the asses-see of these lands and, therefore, there was no gift ? 2. That the factual position appears to be that the lands in question could not have been validly transferred by the assessee ' 2. The Appellate Tribunal, therefore, is directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the above questions to this court for being dealt with in accordance with law.3. The original petition is disposed of as above....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »