Kerala Court February 1989 Judgments
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Ravi Cheloor
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-1989
Reported in: (1989)78CTR(Ker)153; [1989]178ITR640(Ker)
K.A. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 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 Wealth-tax Officer had validly reopened the assessment under Section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act ?'2. A common question arises for consideration in both these cases. The common respondent is an assessee to wealth-tax. For the years 1972-73 and 1973-74, assessments were effected against the respondent by the Wealth-tax Officer on 23-3-1974. The Wealth-tax Officer followed the balance-sheet of the assessee in valuing the assets. The main asset was a cinema theatre. He accepted the value admitted by the assessee substantially. Subsequently, the successor Wealth-tax Officer, apprehending that the market value of the assets was not properly determined; made a reference under Section 16A of the Wealth-tax Act for valuation of the cinema theatre. The Valuation Offic...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. K. Ravindranathan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-1989
Reported in: (1989)78CTR(Ker)34; [1989]177ITR1(Ker)
Paripoornan, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 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 assessee is entitled to claim deduction of the tax liability in respect of the disclosure made under Section 3(1) of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976?' 2. The respondent is an assessee to wealth-tax. We are concerned with the assessment year 1970-77. The valuation date for this assessment yearis September 30, 1975. The respondent-assessee made a voluntary disclosure under Section 3(1) of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976. By such declaration, he became liable to pay income-tax in the sum of Rs. 11,87,690. The income so declared by the assessee was included by the Wealth-tax Officer in the chargeable net wealth returned by the assessee for the assessment year 1976-77. The income-tax liability was not allowed as a deducti...
Tag this Judgment!Rubicon Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-1989
Reported in: 1989(22)LC269(Kerala); 1989(44)ELT401(Ker)
T.L. Vishwanath Iyer, J.1. Petitioner firm is a small scale industrial unit engaged in the manufacture of tread rubber. As a small scale unit, they claim exemption from payment of duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Act, for brevity) under notifications issued by the Central Government from time to time.2. On 9-8-1984, the first respondent issued notice alleging that the petitioner's factory was kept under surveillance and subsequently inspected by the Superintendent of Central Excise on 13/14-2-1984, which resulted in seizure of incriminating documents and the recording of a statements from Balan, the foreman of the factory. The documents seized and the statement recorded from Balan disclosed that the production in the factory far exceeded the limit of exemption under the notifications of the Central Government during the three years, 1981-82,1982-83 and 1983-84. On the basis of these disclosures, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Angamaly Range directed the pet...
Tag this Judgment!S. Nagarajan Vs. Kolappurathu Khader
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-1989
Reported in: 1989(22)LC526(Kerala); 1989(41)ELT380(Ker)
K.T. Thomas, J.1. This appeal is by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise who was the complainant in the lower court (court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Trivandrum). The said case was originally against two persons for the offences under Sections 132 and 135A of the Customs Act. But the second accused was absconding and hence the trial proceeded against the first accused alone. On 5-12-1984, the lower court pronounced judgment acquitting the first accused (he will be referred to as the respondent). This appeal is in challenge of the said acquittal. This Court has, in the meanwhile, called for the records from the lower court in exercise of the revisional powers of this court since the jurisdiction of the lower court was seriously doubted.2. Learned counsel for the complainant (appellant) contended that the court below had no jurisdiction to try the case from 29-11-1984 onwards in view of Notification dated 21-11-1984 [G.O. (MS) 158/84/Home issued by the Governm...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Raju Markose (Minor) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: II(1989)ACC22; [1990]67CompCas528(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J. 1. The second respondent-insurer appeals against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Quilon, inO. P. (M. V.) No. 206 of 1985 directing the insurer to pay compensation of Rs. 2,10,000 to the petitioners for the death of their mother, Grace Markose, in a car accident, on December 7, 1978. 2. The claim was for compensation of Rs. 6,00,000 from respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The first respondent is none other than the father of the claimants. The claimants are minors represented by their next friend. 3. The car KLI 1050 belonged to the first respondent The first respondent himself was driving the car bringing his children home from their boarding school at Trivandrum. Their mother. Grace Markose, was in the front seat. The accident took place at 5.30. p. m. at a road junction on the M. C. Road, south of Kottarakkara town. The vehicle capsized causing serious injuries to Grace Markose. She succumbed to the injuries on the same day at about 9 p. m. The pet...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanan Nair and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ2106
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. Along with others, the four appellants were on pilgrimage to Sabarimala. At Erumeli, two of them (accused 3 and 4) picked up quarrels with some other pilgrims in front of the tea shop of PW 2 by about midnight on 7-12-1985 and received some beatings. When the fourth accused fell down, the third accused went and brought accused 1 and 2. Suspecting PW 2 to be one of the assailants, all the four jointly assaulted him. Deceased Rajan, an adjacent shop owner, rushed to the scene, probably on a peaceful errand to prevent the attack. First accused took out MO 1 knife from his loins and stabbed Rajan twice resulting in injuries. When PW 2 escaped and ran away, the other three also joined hands in attacking Rajan. He was pulled down. Then the first accused inflicted the fatal stab on his right chest when he attempted to rise up. He walked to his shop and then fell dead. On these allegations, the four appellants were tried in Sessions Case No. 22 of 1986 before the Sessions ...
Tag this Judgment!A.M.A. Sultan (Deceased by Lrs) and ors. Vs. Seydu Zohra Beevi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker186
Pareed Pillay, J. 1. Appellants aredefendants 1 and 2 in O.S. 88 of 1978 of theSub Court, Thodupuzha. Plaintiff's (respondent's) suit for rendition of accounts' and injunction was decreed by the trial Court.2. On 3-3-1980 defendants did not appear before the Court when the suit was listed for trial. Though they sought adjournment of the case with a medical certificate the Court did not grant it. The first defendant's counsel submitted no instructions. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff the suit was decreed. LA. 225 of 1980 was filed under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte order. That petition was rejected on 27-3-1980 by theCourt below holding that the disposal of the case was on merits and so the petition under Order 9, Rule 13 is not maintainable. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the trial Court.3. Learned counsel for the defendants (appellants) submitted that an opportunity may be afforded to the defendants to substantiate th...
Tag this Judgment!Varghese Alias Sibi Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ2041
K.T. Thomas, J.1. The appellant was a witness in a sessions trial. The accused in that sessions case were acquitted by the Sessions Court. However, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for giving false evidence in his Court and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Hence this appeal2. As the testimony of the appellant in the sessions trial was found to be false in certain respects, the Sessions Judge ordered for initiation of proceedings against him under Section 344(1) of the Cr. P.C. (for short 'the Code'). A Miscellaneous Case was then registered against him. When the accusation against him was read over to him, he pleaded not guilty thereto. No evidence was recorded. The appellant reported that he has no evidence. Learned Sessions Judge heard the arguments and pronounced the impugned order, as per which the appellant was convicted and sentenced.3. It is evident that the learned Sessions Judge has not followed the procedure in accordance with law. ...
Tag this Judgment!M. A. Majeed and anr. Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-1989
Reported in: (1993)115CTR(Ker)19
M. FATHIMA BEEVI, J. :Sec. 206C of the IT Act, 1961 requires a seller referred to in s. 44AC to collect from the buyer of any goods of the nature specified, a sum equal to the percentage specified in the table. Accordingly for timber obtained by any mode other than under a forest lease, a sum equal to 10% is to be collected. The petitioner herein had participated in the auction of timber, notified by the first respondent. Petitioner tendered the amount along with 5% income-tax for the total amount. It is alleged that the first respondent insisted payment at the rate of 15.75%. Ext. P3 is the communication sent by the first respondent requiring the petitioner to pay at the rate of 15.75% of the total amount. Petitioner contends that what is payable is only 5% of the sale proceeds excluding the sales-tax and forest development tax and therefore, Ext. P3 is illegal. Petitioners have, therefore, prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus or direction to the first respondent to collect the inco...
Tag this Judgment!The Food Inspector, Muyattupuzha Municipality Vs. V.H. Kamath
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ2187
K.T. Thomas, J.1. A Food Inspector, attached to the Vigilence Squad, purchased 450 grams of Coriander Whole from a shop keeper on 29-9-1984. The food article was divided into three equal parts following the procedure prescribed by law. When one part of the sample was analysed by the Public Analyst, it was found to be adulterated, as the insect damaged matter in it exceeded the permitted limit (As per item A.05.08 in Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules insect damaged matter in Coriander (Dhania) Whole shall not exceed 5% by weight. The insect damaged matter in the sample was 20.3%). The Food Inspector of the local area (P.W. 3) instituted the complaint against the vendor. The trial Court acquitted the vendor relying on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Food Inspector v. Prabhakaran 1982 Ker Lt 809 : 1983 Cri LJ 81. Hence this appeal by the complainant, Food Inspector.2. Since a larger bench of this Court has overruled the dictum in Prabhakaran's case (v...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »