Kerala Court January 1989 Judgments
Sumathi Vs. S. Devasan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-1989
Reported in: AIR1991Ker295
ORDERT.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. There is no merit in thisoriginal petition; nor for that matter, any bona fides.2. A petition for eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (the Act in brief) was filed against the petitioner in May, 1985. The landlord who is a retired Army Officer, a disabled war hero of the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War, claimed that he needed the building bona fide for his occupation. Petitioner however contended that she was not the lessee but her husband Ravindran, and since there was no landlord-tenant relationship between her and the owner of the building, the petition for eviction under the Act was not maintainable. Further, there was an agreement between her and the owner of the building, by which the latter had agreed to sell the building to her, and received an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as advance. Her possession was referable to this agreement, and not to any lease. The petition for eviction was liable to be rejected, as not maintainable on thi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kerala State Industrial Development Cor ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-1989
Reported in: [1990]182ITR62(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. These references are at the instance of the Revenue. The respondent in all these referred cases is the Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Trivandrum. The question that falls for consideration in Income-tax References Nos. 42 to 47 of 1982 relates to the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74. The question that falls for consideration in Income-tax Reference No. 104 of 1983 relates to the assessment year 1967-68.2. At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions of law have been referred in Income-tax References Nos. 42 to 47 of 1982 for the decision of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenses incurred in investigation, research and feasibility study are revenue expenditure or capital expenditure ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right and reasonable in holding that the above expenditure is not a capital exp...
Tag this Judgment!Parameswaran Vs. M.K. Parameswaran Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-1989
Reported in: II(1989)ACC65; 1991ACJ124; (1993)IIILLJ707Ker
Sivaraman Nair, J. 1. The appellant had filed an application under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, claiming an amount of Rs. 5000/- as compensation for amputation of three fingers of his left palm, as a result of injuries which he sustained in an accident on 13.9.1982 when he was working under the respondent. The accident occurred when he was removing veneers from the peeling machine.2. It was the applicant's case that he was a workman under the respondent and that the accident resulting in injuries to him occurred during the course and out of employment and that the respondent was bound to compensate him for the injury. In his sworn statement, he had stated that he was working as a regular employee in a match factory owned by the respondent and that it was during the course of and out of the employment that the accident occurred, which resulted in injuries to him. The respondent-employer filed a written statement contending that the employment of the applicant was ...
Tag this Judgment!Lukose Vs. Govindan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-1989
Reported in: I(1990)ACC557; 1990ACJ1097
K.T. Thomas, J. 1. This appeal is by a claimant whose claim petition was dismissed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for default. Though the appellant filed an application for restoration of the petition, the Claims Tribunal dismissed that application. The appellant then moved an original petition in this court under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the said order by which the restoration application was dismissed. But the original petition was also dismissed with the observation that the appellant should have preferred an appeal as provided in Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act') against the award by which the claim was dismissed. Hence this appeal after getting the delay condoned by this court.2. The order dated 5.6.1986 which is under challenge reads thus:On behalf of the petitioner's counsel an adjournment is prayed for without stating any reason. Adjournment refused. Petitioner called, absent. Hence petition dismissed. On filing the c...
Tag this Judgment!George Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-1989
Reported in: (1989)IILLJ23Ker
Sivaraman Nair, J.1. In the establishments of Public Health Engineering and Public Works Departments of the State, there were different categories of workmen. Persons who were appointed in the regular establishment formed the first category; and persons who were engaged for nominal work of the Department but not of a regular nature were NMR workmen. There were Casual Labour Roll workmen engaged on daily rates of wages in the exigencies of service. Seasonal Labour Roll workmen were engaged only for work during specified seasons. Apparently due to delay in assessment of the strength of the regular establishment and for like reasons, the NMR and CLR workmen had to be engaged for continuous periods. SLR workmen were engaged only for seasons.2. The third respondent engaged the petitioner as a seasonal labour roll operator by order dated 25th July 1981. He commenced work on daily wages on 4th August 1981 and claims to have been working continuously thereafter. The State Government had evolve...
Tag this Judgment!T.C. Bose Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-30-1989
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR868]; (1991)IILLJ502Ker
V. Sivaraman Nair, J.1. The petitioner was a Cashier in the Kerala State Electricity Board. He was suspended from service pending enquiry into the allegations of criminal misappropriation of the funds of the Board. That was on March 1, 1985. He was also simultaneously prosecuted in C.C.No. 567 of 1983 for offences punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thodupuzha. The Magistrate convicted him. He filed an appeal against the conviction and sentence before the Court of the Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha and obtained an order to stay of the sentence. The respondent, however, passed exhibit P-1 order on May 21, 1985, dismissing the petitioner from service in view of his conviction on a criminal charge under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner submits that exhibit P-1 order is illegal and is liable to be vacated.2. The ground urged by Counsel for the petitioner is that exhibit P-1 order ought to have been preceded by...
Tag this Judgment!Associated Transport Corporation (P.) Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Comp ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-1989
Reported in: [1989]66CompCas565(Ker)
Krishnamoorthy, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant, a common carrier, in a suit for recovery of loss and damages to the extent of Rs. 9,511 with interest at 12% from December 27, 1975, the total amount claimed being Rs. 13,703. The 1st plaintiff is an insurance company (hereinafter called the insurer) and the 2nd plaintiff is the consignee of certain goods (hereinafter referred to as the insured), The suit is filed by the 1st plaintiff on its own behalf and as the power-of-attorney-holder of the 2nd plaintiff. The plaint allegations are the following: One Maya Agencies entrusted 80 bundles of raw rubber to the defendant, a common carrier, for carriage through its transport service by road from Cochin to Kanpur, under exhibits A1 and A2 invoices dated May 24, 1975. The goods had a total weight of 4,000 Kgs. and the consignee was the 2nd plaintiff. It was insured with the 1st plaintiff for Rs. 34,400 against road risk, theft, pilferage etc., by exhibit A4 policy dated May 26, 1975. Acc...
Tag this Judgment!Calicut Tea Mart, Tea Dealers and Commission Agents Vs. Commissioner o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-1989
Reported in: [1989]178ITR198(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner is a firm. It is an assessee to income-tax. It is engaged in business as commission agents and wholesale dealers in tea. We are concerned with the assessment year 1979-80. More than one return was filed by the petitioner for the assessment year. The Income-tax Officer found huge cash credits in the names of 77 parties. He further found that the petitioner/assessee failed to give correct and complete addresses of the said persons and most of the credits were not genuine. The assessments were made for two different periods April 1, 1978, to September 15, 1978, and September 16, 1978, to March 31, 1979, in view of the retirement of a partner. The peak credit was found to be Rs. 6,68,268. On this basis, additions were made. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) sustained the additions in the sums of Rs. 5,00,000--Rs. 2,00,000 was treated as income for the first period and Rs. 3,00,000 was treated as income for the second period. The total...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Eminent Enterprises
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-1989
Reported in: [1989]178ITR416(Ker)
Paripoornan, J.1. The Revenue is the petitioner herein. The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. We are concerned with the assessment year 1976-77. The assessment was completed on March 21, 1979. Penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, by notice dated March 21, 1979, which was served on the assessee on March 27, 1979. The respondent/assessee filed a reply thereto on March 29, 1979. An order imposing the penalty was passed on March 18, 1981, by the successor Income-tax Officer, in exercise of his powers under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. The respondent/assessee took up the matter in appeal. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, by order dated December 30, 1983, held that the levy of penalty cannot be sustained since the successor Income-tax Officer who levied the penalty did not give an opportunity to the respondent/assessee to be heard. The order imposing the penalty was set aside and a direction was given to the Income-tax Offi...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Shahul Hameed and ors. Vs. N. Sanal Kumar and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-1989
Reported in: II(1989)ACC127
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. The appellant is the owner of the vehicle in both the cases. In O.P. (MV.) No. 500 of 1980 Rs. 70,100/- was awarded as compensation whereas in O.P. 501 of 1980 Rs. 14,000/- was awarded.2. Contention of the appellant is that there is no material or cogent reason to hold that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the second respondent and that the Tribunal ought to have held that the first respondent in both the cases were really rash and negligent and contributed to the incident. The quantum of compensation awarded is also challenged by the appellant. Cross objections were filed by the first respondent in both the cases (claimants) on the ground that the compensation awarded is inadequate and warrants interference by this Court.3. Petitioner in O.P. 500 of 1980 deposed that he is a businessman earning an income of Rs. 1,000/- per month. He also stated that he was studying for C.A. Examination. No convincing evidence was produced to prove as ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »