Kerala Court November 1989 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.
Udupi Krishna Bhavan Vs. Additional Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-1989
Reported in: [1991]81STC208(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The assessment years with which the original petition is concerned are 1981-82 and 1982-83. The petitioner had been assessed to tax for five years, 1980-81 to 1984-85 under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (the Act) against which the petitioner filed appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. These appeals were allowed in part, and the matter remitted to the assessing authority with a direction to amend the assessment, as indicated in paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 13 of the appellate order, a copy of which is exhibit P1. We are concerned with the observations in paragraph 12 of exhibit P1. Therein, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dealt with the petitioner's claim for non-liability for tax under Section 5A of certain purchases. According to the petitioner, the goods in question had been subjected to tax earlier and therefore, the purchases by him were not liable to levy under Section 5A. But the petitioner had not substantiated his claim with a...
Food Inspector Vs. K. Harikumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-1989
Reported in: 1991CriLJ641
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. This criminal appeal against acquittal came up for hearing again when the judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was set aside in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the appeal reopened.2. Sample is curd, which the respondent exposed for sale in his hotel and sold to PW2 Food Inspector on demand without specifying whether it is from milk of cow or buffalo. Rules require it to be treated as curd from milk of bufallo. Ext. P1 report issued by PW1 Public Analyst shows it to be substandard going by the standard of curd from milk of cow or bufallo. It also contained not less than 31% of added water. Sale and adulterated nature of the sample were found by the Magistrate. Those aspects were not challenged before me.3. Curd was exposed for sale in the hotel in cups. PW2 purchased 6 cups of curd. In the box, he said that the entire quantity purchased was poured into a larg...
T.D. Kavi Rajan Vs. Kerala Co-operative Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-1989
Reported in: [1991]72CompCas498(Ker)
Malimath, C.J.1. This case has been referred by Justice Chettur Sankaran Nair to the Division Bench at the stage of admission in view of the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is an apparent conflict between two Division Bench decisions of this court in Thilakan v. M. C. V. Co-operative Society Ltd. [1978] KLT 256 and Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies v. Velayudha Kurup [1979] KLT (SN) 24, that is, the decision in Writ Appeal No. 312 of 1976 rendered by V. P. Gopalan Nambiyar C. J. and M. P. Menon J. on January 31, 1979. The Kerala Co-operative Tribunal has taken the view that the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to arbitration proceedings under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. That is precisely the view taken by the Division Bench of this court consisting of Balakrishna Eradi J. (as he then was) and Narendran J. in Thilakan v. M. C. V. Co-operative Society Ltd. [1978] KLT 256 decided on December 21, 1977. I...
M. Bhaskaran Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker210
ORDERK.A. Nayar, J.1. The original petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings for reconveyance of land in Survey No. 299/12 A & B of Alwaye village to the additional 4th respondent and also for a writ of mandamus to consider the representation of the petitioner for assignment of land to him. The additional 4th respondent was the owner of property situated in Survey No. 299/12 A & B of Alwaye village. The Central Government acquired in 1952 two acres of land comprised in Survey No. 299/12 A & B of Alwaye village from the 4th respondent for the purpose of construction of National Highway. The construction of the National Highway was over in 1954 and the Government utilised only about one acre for the actual construction of the road. There was 1.10 acres of land remaining unutilised for the public purpose. The land was not needed for other public purposes of the Government or other local authorities. Therefore on 10-7-1962 the petitioner was given 50 cents of land...
Nanoo Gopinathan Vs. Neelacantan Balakrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker197
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J. 1. Defendant is the appellant. Plaintiff's (respondent's) suit for recovery of money on the strength of two chitty transactions was partly allowed by the Munsiff and the plaintiff was granted a decree for a sum of Rs. 420/- with interest thereon. Plaintiff filed A.S. 100 of 1980 before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara. Cross objection was filed by the defendant. When the appeal and cross objection were taken for hearing counsel appearing for the plaintiff reported no instructions and consequently the appeal was dismissed. Defendant's counsel argued the cross objection and the learned Sub Judge dismissed it.2. Contention of the defendant is that the Sub Judge was not justified in hearing the cross-objection when the appeal was dismissed for default. Learned counsel submitted that when the appeal was subsequently restored the Sub Judge ought to have reheard the cross-objection also along with the appeal and as that has not been done the defendant is seriously prejudiced...
Travancore Rubbers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-1989
Reported in: [1990]183ITR111(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the assessee-company, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following five questions of law for the decision of this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sale proceeds of rubber trees for which there was the basic operation of planting and subsequent maintenance is not revenue derived from land and, therefore, not agricultural income within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sale proceeds of rubber trees is liable to capital gains without taking into consideration the assets as a whole which is a land with plantation which is not a capital asset prior to the sale of rubber trees ? (3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that cost can be ...
Ammu Vs. Janu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-10-1989
Reported in: II(1990)DMC91
Pareed Pillay, J.1. Defendants 3 to 8 are the appellants. Plaintiffs (respondents 1 to 4) filed the suit for partition claiming 5/12 shares in the plaint B schedule property. Defendants 3 to 8 contended that since 1st plaintiff's husband Choyikutty died in 1949 without male issues his right over the property reverted to the coparcenary consisting of Thamaran alias Pachu, Ganapathy alias Appu and his male children who are defendants 4 to 7 and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the property.2. It is not disputed that the parties are governed by Hindu Mitakshara Law, Choyikutty, father of plaintiffs 2 to 4 and husband of 1st plaintiff died before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act. Contention of the plaintiffs is that by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act (for short the Act) the right which devolved on the 1st plaintiff after death of her husband has blossomed into full right and so the plaintiffs cannot to denied of their share. On the other ...
Kamarban Beevi Vs. K.G. Radhakrishnan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-10-1989
Reported in: I(1996)ACC488
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The petitioner in O.P. (M.V.) 804/79 before the M.A.C.T. Trivandrum, is the appellant.2. Her application under Section 110(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation stands dismissed by the judgment under challenge. The accident occurred on 28.12.1977 on the Quilon-Trivandrum national highway at Vendor Junction, near Chinnakkada. The description of the accident is this: The husband of the appellant was traveling in a cycle-rickshaw, the lorry bearing No. K.L.Q. 9479 driven by the 2nd respondent hit the cycle-rickshaw resulting in the victim sustaining injuries to which he succumbed. According to the appellant, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent. Respondents 1 and 2 disputed the contention of the appellant that it was due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent, the accident occurred. It is further stated therein that the rickshaw was being driven by the deceased who had no licence, rashly an...
Thankappan Mohanan and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-09-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1477
U.L. Bhat, J.1. At about 7 p.m. on 4-12-1983, now deceased George, husband of P.W. 1 sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to General Hospital, Thiruvalla. At 11 p.m. P.W.1 went to the Thiruvalla police station and gave information on the basis of which case was registered against eight persons under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. Ultimately, P.W.23 Circle Inspector of Police, Thiruvalla laid charge against these eight persons for the aforesaid offences. The trial court convicted them under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 341 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. For the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. No separate sentence was awarded under the othercounts. Second accused was further convicted under Section 323 I.P.C. Accused have filed the above appeals challenging the conviction and sentence entered against them.2. Prosecution...
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Ernakulam Vs. K.N. Surenderan Nai ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-1989
Reported in: 1990ACJ581; AIR1990Ker206
Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The Insurance Company, the third respondent in O. P. (M.V.) No. 774/1981 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam is the appellant.2. On a perusal of the memorandum of appeal it is clear that the grounds urged therein are gounds which can be availed of only by the insured.3. The counsel for the claimant therefore argued that the appeal was not maintainable. Dilating on this argument the counsel submitted that the Insurance Company was not entitled to take any defence which is not specified in Sub-section (2) of Section 96 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short, The Act. Before we consider this case of the claimant we shall briefly state the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant. The counsel submits that the appeal may be treated as one filed on behalf of the insured and that is possible in view of Section 110-C(2A) of Chapter VIII of the Act. Had that not been the position there was no need for the Tribunal to allow the appellant ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »