Kerala Court March 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.
Chaliloth theroth Mohanan and anr. Vs. Chaliloth Yesoda and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ker286; [1990]185ITR31(Ker)
1. The defendants in O.S. No. 265 of 1978 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Cannanore are the appellants. The suit relates to 36 cents of land comprised in R.S. No. 69/6 in Elavoor Amsom, Chow a Desom. The plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the plaint schedule property belongs to her. There is a 'samadhi sthanamnagam' on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff claims title and possession of the entire 36 cents inclusive of this 'samadhi stanamnagam'. The plaintiff alleged that she had been in possession of the plaint schedule property for the last 50 years and the income from this property was set apart for the conduct of poojas and other ceremonies in the aforesaid samadhi stanam nagam. In 1967, an R.C.C. building was put up in the property at the place of worship according to the wishes of the 'Gurunadhan'. Religious Ceremonies are being performed in the 'samadhi. Plaintiff further alleged that the defendants have no title or possession over the property. ...
State of Kerala Vs. Dr. C.K. Bharathan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ2025
K.T. Thomas, J.1. A medical practitioner holding M.B.B.S. degree falsely publicised that he has two more degrees M.R.C.P. and D.T.M. & H. This is the main allegation against the accused who faced a charge for the offence of cheating under the Indian Penal Code. The trial Magistrate acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove that he does not have those two degrees.2. Prosecution allegations can be summarised thus : Accused was running a Nursing Home at Chengamangalam by name Krishna Nursing Home. He exhibited a name board in which his name and degrees were shown as : 'Dr. C. K. Bharathan, M.B.B.S. : M.R.C.P.; D.T.M. & H'. He was holding out that he has those degrees by showing such credentials in the prescription slips issued to his patients. The Circle Inspector, who received a complaint from PW. 2 (who was a partner or associate of the accused in running the Nursing Home for a while), conducted a search of his house as well as the Nursing Home ...
Crossfield Traders Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-20-1989
Reported in: (1989)77CTR(Ker)26; [1989]179ITR606(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act:'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the time taken for affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in terms of the proviso to Section 129 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is to be excluded in computing the time limit within which the assessment has to be passed in terms of Section 153 of the Act ?'2. The respondent is the Revenue. We are concerned with the assessment year 1977-78. Under Section 153 of the Income-tax Act, the assessment should normally be over on or before March 31, 1980. The disparity between the income returned by the assessee and the income proposed tobe assessed by the Income-tax Officer was more than Rs. 1 lakh. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer forwarded a draft assessment order to the assesse...
C.D. Govinda Rao Vs. Assistant Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-20-1989
Reported in: 1990(29)ECC20; 1989(25)LC560(Kerala); 1990(45)ELT556(Ker)
T.L. Vishwanatha Iyer, J.1. 78.500 grams of gold belonging to the petitioner was seized from his jewellery shop in East Fort Gate, Tripunithura for alleged violation of certain provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (the Act, for short), and the Rules framed thereunder. Petitioner is a licensed dealer in gold. The adjudicating authority, namely the first respondent passed order Ext. P1 on January 28,1980 directing confiscation of the gold, but giving the Petitioner an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 4000/- within thirty days. A penalty of Rs. 250/- was also imposed on the petitioner.2. Petitioner challenged the order in appeal, which was ultimately dealt with by the Customs, Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. Pending appeal, he had moved the Tribunal for stay of operation of the order of adjudication Ext. P1, but no order appears to have been passed thereon. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal on June 12, 1984 by which the order of confiscat...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Andrew Vivera
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker139; [1989]66CompCas807(Ker)
Pareed Pillay, J.1. Appellants are the defendants in O.S. 2I7 of 1983 of the Additional Sub-Court, Cochin. Respondent (plaintiff) filed the suit to recover a sum of Rs. 54,334/- being the amount due to him on account of damages caused to his fishing boat which was covered by an insurance policy. The learned Additional Sub Judge decreed the suit for the amount claimed with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation and proportionate costs.2. Plaintiff owned a fishing boat which was insured with the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiff that apart from the policy of insurance he had taken monsoon coverage in respect of the boat for one month. It is further stated that the boat was in good condition, that on 13-6-1981 the boat sailed from Cochin with the members of the crew, and that on 15-6-1981 plaintiff came to know that the boat which was drifted away by violent waves met with accident. Plaintiff sent notice claiming an amount of Rs.69,735/- as damages from ...
E.V. Kunhamu Vs. Food Inspector, Cannanore Municipality
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ2340
U.L. Bhat, J.1. Food Inspector, Cannanore Municipality (P.W. 1) filed a complaint against the revision petitioner (owner of shop by name 'Anukul Mini Departmental Store' in Door No. KL 200(q) of Cannanore Municipality) as the second accused and his salesman as the first accused alleging that on 29-12-1981 at about 11 a.m. he visited the shop and after fulfilling all the legal formalities purchased 450 grams of cow's ghee for analysis from the first accused and sent it for analysis to the Public Analyst and the sample was found adulterated. Complaint was filed and other legal formalities complied with. First accused absconded. The case was proceeded against the second accused, who denied the incriminating evidence and stated that the sample was not taken from his shop. The trial Court and the appellate Court concurrently found in favour of the prosecution case and convicted the second accused under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act') and ...
Arun Agencies, Mattancherry Vs. St. Antony's Oil Mill and Ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ker312
Varghese Kaluath, J. This is an appeal by the plaintiff. Plaintiff challenges the order of the trial Court refusing to appoint a receiver. The suit is one for recovery of money. The plaintiff has got a serious case that the 1st and 2nd defendants are liable to pay a total amount of Rs. 2,41,454.94. According to him he is entitled to this amount since the amount is due to him on account of an over payment made by the plaintiff to 1st and 2nd defendants. The 3rd defendant has filed a written statement stating that at the time of transaction he was running the oil mill and that he is the person who is liable to pay the amount and he is willing to pay the amount received by way of over payment.2. The Court below found that there is no just and proper reason for appointing a receiver, particularly in a money suit.3. Learned counsel submitted that extraordinary circumstances are existent in this case which would enable proper justification for this Court to appoint a receiver in the case. Th...
T.i. Mathai Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-1989
Reported in: [1990]183ITR490(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. At the instance of the accountable person, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal') has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court:'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the value of the properties covered by the settlement deed dated 30-8-1124 (M. E.), are includible in determining the principal value of the estate, as property passing on the death of the deceased ?'2. The assessment to estate duty arose on the death of one T. C. Issac on December 10, 1970. The deceased had executed a settlement deed in 1949, annexure D, dated 30-11-1124 (M. E.), in favour of his children. There was a reservation in the deed stating that the donees shall pay out of the income of the said properties to the donor and his wife annually an amount of Rs. 1,200 and 200 paras of paddy. It was further stipulated that the payment should be made to the donor during his lifetime and thereafter to his widow until her death. The ...
N. Velappan Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-1989
Reported in: [1989]179ITR423(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, 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 Tribunal is justified in sustaining the penalty holding that penalty exigible in a case where return is filed in response to the notice under Section 14(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, within the time allowed after committing a default under Section 14(1) ?'2. The matter arises under the Wealth-tax Act. The applicant is an asses-see to wealth-tax. The respondent is the Revenue. The matter involvedherein relates to the levy of penalty under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act for the years 1973-74 and 1974-75. Return was due from the assessee under Section 14(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, for the year 1973-74 on July 31, 1973, and for the year 1974-75 on July 31, 1974, In conformity with the said statutory obligation, the assessee did not file the return. Howev...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Relish Foods
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-1989
Reported in: (1989)79CTR(Ker)197; [1989]180ITR454(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 two questions of law for the decision of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, the subsidy received should be deducted from the cost of assets for purposes of allowing development rebate and depreciation on such assets and computation of relief under Section 80J ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, (i) the assessee's business involves 'production' ? (ii) the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The respondent is a firm. It is an assessee to income-tax. We are concerned with the assessment year 1977-78. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80H on the ground that the business of purchasing shrimps, peeling and freezing and exporting them, involved manufacture or p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »