Kerala Court November 1989 Judgments
Radhamony Amma Vs. Gopinathan Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: I(1990)DMC434
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The application of the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of his marriage with the appellant by a decree of divorce, stands allowed by the order under attack.2. Facts pleaded by the respondent in the petition reply stated are : The respondent married the appellant on 16-1-1984. On the same day the respondent took the appellant to his house. There in his house, the appellant behaved like a mad woman, making the petitioner (respondent) quite upset, causing much worry and mental pain to him'. The respondent therefore was constrained to enquire into this peculiar behaviour of the appellant. The enquiry revealed that the appellant was a lunatic and she had been under treatment for lunacy for several years. She was thereupon taken to a psychiatrist who certified that she was suffering from an incur-able mental disease. The pleading is concluded thus :--'As the counter petitioner (appellant) is suffering from incurable...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala and Etc. Vs. Monu D. Surendran and anr. Etc.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: 1991CriLJ27
U.L. Bhat, J.1. Since common questions of law arise for consideration in these vision petitions, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Criminal R.P. No. 399 of 1987 arises from one of the cases known as mark list cases. Investigation proceeded against four accused. Final report was laid on 29-12-1984 only against two of them; they being respondents in the revision petition, eliminating two of the accused. Chief Judicial Magistrate of the district tendered pardon to one of these two accused on 9-3-1984 and the latter accepted pardon. On the next day, namely, 10-3-1984 Chief Judicial Magistrate purported to record sworn statement of the approver. It was subsequently that the Final Report was laid against the two accused before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for various offences all of which are triable by First Class Magistrate. Though the case is not exclusively triable by Sessions Court, Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to Sessions C...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Poyilakada Fisheries (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-1989
Reported in: [1992]197ITR93(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal') has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court in the above two referred cases :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who held that the entire business of the assessee was eligible for allowance under Section 80J ?'The common respondent in the two referred cases is an assessee to income-tax. We are concerned with the assessment years 1976-77 and 1978-79. The sole question that arises for consideration is whether the respondent assessee is eligible for the allowance under Section 80J of theIncome-tax Act. The assessing authority negatived the relief under Section 80) of the Act. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), following his own earlier decision, held that the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 80J o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aspinwall and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-1989
Reported in: [1990]184ITR298(Ker)
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench B, Camp at Cochin, has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the Income-tax Officer to exclude the medical expenses while making the disallowance under Section 40A(5) ?'2. The question referred above is a common question of law for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80.3. The assessee is a company. While completing the assessment for the assessment year 1978-79, the Income-tax Officer disallowed an amount of Rs. 19,005 under Section 40A(2) of the Income-tax Act, which represented the expenditure incurred by the company on maintenance of bungalows, furniture, etc., as well as the reimbursement of medical expenses to two of the executives of the company. The executives concerned were one Mr. C. Prabhakaran and Mr. E. B....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.i. Simon
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-28-1989
Reported in: [1991]187ITR302(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two 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 and on facts in holding that 'the oil mill was only a branch and did not constitute a separate business' and is not the above finding wrong, unreasonable and without material and is not the above finding vitiated by failure to consider the relevant evidence and material facts ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payment of retrenchment compensation is allowable as a deduction under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The respondent, an individual, is an assessee to income-tax. We are concerned with the assessment year 1975-76, The previous year ended on March 31, 1975. The assessee was mainly dealing in oil and oil seeds as well as commission agency in those goods. He was also running an ...
Tag this Judgment!Travancore Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-1989
Reported in: [1990]185ITR558(Ker)
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal'), Cochin Bench, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that the claim for deduction of gratuity to the extent of Rs. 1,88,752 was not allowable ?'2. The assessment year concerned is 1977-78. The previous year is the year ended on April 30, 1976. The assessee claimed admissible amount of gratuity of Rs. 5,25,247. The Income-tax Officer allowed only Rs. 3,36,495. Thus an amount of Rs. 1,88,752 was disallowed. This amount was disallowed since the Income-tax Officer disallowed incremental liability. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) followed the order of the Income-tax Tribunal dated December 30, 1975, in I. T. A. No. 369 (Cochin) of 1974-75 and confirmed the same. The assessee fil...
Tag this Judgment!The All Kerala Poor Aid Legal Association, Trivandrum and ors. Vs. Chi ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-21-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker241
ORDERChettur Sankaran Nair, J. 1. These writ petitions relate to appointment of High Court Judges; and reliefs sought are similar to a measure. Petitioners profess to sponsor the cause of members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.2. Petitioner in O.P. 8991/89 seeks to restrain appointment of four individuals named in Ext. P9 (since appointed as additional Judges) alleging that such appointments, would be violative of Articles 14, 16, 217, 224(1) and 335 of the Constitution of India. 8th respondent is ineligible for appointment, according to petitioner.3. Petitioner in O.P. 9358/89 seeks to compel respondents, 'to take due note of the request made by the Minister of State for Law and Justice to Chief Justices to locate members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for appointment as Judges of the High Court of Kerala, and implement the policy of the Government of India in this matter'.4. Petitioner in O.P. 8991/89 submits that seven places of additional Judges, are available i...
Tag this Judgment!C. Assiamma Vs. State Bank of Mysore and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker157
Shamsuddin, J. 1. 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 16 of 1977 on the file of the court of Additional Sub Judge, Parur, is the appellant in this appeal.2. The above suit was filed by the 1st respondent herein for recovery of money. 1st defendant is a partnership firm run under the name and style 'M/s. Hilal Traders' and constituted under Ext. A1 partnership deeddated 1-10-1969. Its partners are defendants 2 and 3. Defendants 2 and 3 executed Ext. A2 power of attorney dated 1-10-1969 in favour of the 4th defendant to manage the affairs of the firm. The firm was carrying on business in arecanuts and hill produces.3. 1st defendant represented by its partners defendants 2 and 3 and acting through the power of attorney holder the 4th defendant, requested plaintiff-Bank in 1969-70 to extend financial assistance to it. Defendants agreed to execute necessary documents and to give proper security. Defendants 2 and 3 also informed the Bank of the power of attorney given by them in favour of the 4th defe...
Tag this Judgment!V.D. Devassia Vs. Micheal Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker261
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J. 1. Defendant is the appellant. Plaintiff (respondent) filed the suit for eviction of the defendant who is a tenant of the plaint schedule building. The trial Court. decreed the suit and it has been confirmed by the lower appellate Court.2. For the plaintiff, Advocate Mr. Cyriac Joseph entered appearance. Mr. E. V. Nayanar, counsel for the defendant contended that as rent was received by the plaintiff subsequent to the notice there is waiver and hence the plaintiff cannot get recovery of possession of the property. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that mere acceptance of rent does not tantamount to a waiver as the rent was accepted in lieu compensation for use and occupation.3. The essential element of waiver is that there must be a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right or conduct as warrants the inference of the relinquishment of such right. To constitute waiver there must be definite evidence of a voluntary and intentional relinqui...
Tag this Judgment!G.T.N. Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-1989
Reported in: [1990]184ITR366(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the applicant (assessee), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law for the decision of this court:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer was right in law in reopening the assessment under Section 147(b) and in withdrawing the relief under Section 80J computed and carried forward in the original assessment for the assessment year 1973-74 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the validity of reassessment made under Section 147(b) ?' 2. We heard counsel for the assessee, Mr. Jose Joseph, and also counsel for the Revenue, Mr. P.K.R. Menon. The assessee claimed relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74. Without giving priority of deduction under Section 80J, the assessin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »