Kerala Court June 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.
Hassan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1962
P.K. Shamsuddin, J.1. The appellant is the first accused in S.T. No. 18/86 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Offences under Essential Commodities Act, Trichur. By its judgment dt. 27-6-1986, the lower Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 r/w Section 3 of the said Act and Clause 3 of the Kerala Edible Oil Seeds, Edible Oils, Vanaspati and Baby Food Dealers Licencing Order, 1975 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. The lower Court acquitted accused 2 to 5 though they were also charged along with the appellant for the above offence.2. According to the prosecution, on 3-11-1983 at about 9.20 p.m., the appellant and four others transported unauthorisedly 461.200 K.Gms. of palm oil in a jeep bearing registration No. KLI 1146 and the jeep w...
Alavi Vs. Vehyudhan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1989
Reported in: I(1990)ACC24
Krishnamoorthy, J1. This is an appeal by the 1st respondent, the owner of the vehicle, in a motor accident claim. The application for compensation arose out of an accident at Pariyapuram on 1-2-1983 involving motor cycle No. KRR 5250 belonging to the 1st respondent who was driving the same at that time. The 2nd respondent before the Tribunal was the insurer and the supplemental 3rd respondent was impleaded on the contention put forward by the 1st respondent that the 3rd respondent is the owner of the vehicle. According to the claimant he was walking towards east through the northern side of the road of the road on 1-2-1983 when all on a sudden the motor cycle owned and driven by the 1st respondent Came from east through the wrong side of the road in an uncontrollable speed and hit him. He sustained serious injuries and regained consciousness only while he was in then hospital. He had to undergo prolonged treatment, he is unable to move his right hand properly, he is having acute headac...
G. Ramakrishna Pillai Vs. J. Vijayakumari Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker55
Bhat, J.1. The common appellant in the two appeals is the husband of respondent in M.F.A. No. 883 of 1986, who is the first respondent in A. S. No. 461 of 1986 and is the father of respondents 2 and 3 in the latter appeal. He filed a petition before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara seeking decree for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife Under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Petition was contested and dismissed. Wife and daughters filed a suit in the same court seeking decree for arrears of maintenance for three years and for future maintenance against him. The suit was contested but decreed. The decrees in the two cases are now challenged by the appellant.2. The spouses belong to the Hindu Nair community. They were married on 12-9-1969. They lived together for a short while (either for a few days or for a few weeks) in the house of the husband's mother and thereafter shifted residence to the house allotted to the wife under the family partition deed and in which her mother h...
Laxmi and ors. Vs. A. Sankappa Alwa and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ker289
ORDERVarghese Kalliath, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is against the finding of the court below holding that the suit is barred by res judicata. Plaintiffs are the revision petitioners. The suit is one for partition. On the averments in the pleadings, the defendants wanted the Court to raise an additional issue whether the Suit is barred by res judicata by reason of the decree in O.S. No. 13/66. The Court settled the above issue and allowed that issue to be tried as a preliminary issue. As I said earlier, the findings on this preliminary issue is against the plaintiffs. They are aggrieved. They filed this Civil Revision Petition.2. It is admitted that there was an earlier suit -- O.S. No. 13/66 between the parties. This suit was also for partition of the property involved in the present suit. In this suit (O.S. No. 13/66) a preliminary decree was passed on 3-4-1968. The said judgment was appealed against in A.S. No. 376/68. The appellate decree was passed on 11-11-1971. So, there i...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Grand Cashew Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1989
Reported in: [1990]182ITR216(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Cochin Bench) had referred the following four questions of law for the decision of this court:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the liability of the assessee in respect of the damages payable for committing breach of the contracts accrued on the passing of the award in arbitration proceedings ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the liability under the award passed in arbitration had accrued in spite of the fact that no decree had yet been passed by the court in which the awards were filed ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the liability crystallised on the passing of the award, in spite of the fact that the assessee had written to one of the parties pleading for reduction of the amount payable ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kerala State Drugs and Pharmaceuticals ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1989
Reported in: [1990]184ITR424(Ker)
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 Tribunal was right in law in holding that the subsidy received from the Central Government is not to be deducted from the cost of the assets to arrive at the actual cost to the assessee of the assets ?'2. The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. The matter arises for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. For both the years, the assessing authority reduced from the actual cost of the assets the subsidy received from the Central Government for the purpose of computing depreciation and development rebate in the case of the assessee, In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) followed the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in Relish Sea Foods' case (I. T. A. Nos. 333 to 335 (Coch.) of 1980 dated November 25, 1981) and held that the Income-tax Officer was not justified ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P. Balakrishna Pillai, International Ca ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1989
Reported in: [1990]182ITR449(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 :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the ease, the Tribunal is right in holding that the bonus paid as per the settlement arrived at at a conciliation conference does not come within the purview of the Payment of Bonus Act and, therefore, the first proviso to Section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot govern its allowability ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the commission payment made in India in respect of exports made by the assessee to Russia is entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. He carried on business in the manufacture and export of cashew. We are concerned with the assessment year 1978-79. The assessee claimed that he was entitled to a deduction of Rs. 6,64,44...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N. Radha Bai (Binod Cashew Corporation)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR429(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, 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 finding that the assessee is entitled for deduction of Rs. 2,62,506 under Section 36(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act; 1961 ?'2. The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. The matter relates to the assessment year 1976-77. The previous year ended on September 30, 1975. The assessee provided for gratuity for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76 at the rate of half month's salary. For the assessment year 1976-77, no provision was made. A sum of Rs. 2,92,541 was paid as premium to the Life Insurance Corporation. It related only to the assessment years 1973-74 to 1976-77. Out of the above, a sum of Rs. 30,034 was refunded subsequently. So, the assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 2,62,506 as a permissible deduction under Section...
Sathee Devi and anr. Vs. P. Maluk Mohammed and Anrs.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1989
Reported in: 1990ACJ83
U.L. Bhat, J.1. Appellants herein filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trivandrum claiming a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation for the death of the first appellant's husband and the second appellant's father in a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,29,520/- with interest in their favour. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, they have preferred this appeal.2. First appellant's husband, John P. John, while riding bicycle was hit by a lorry which came from the opposite direction. He was removed to the Medical College Hospital on the same day, namely, 18.12.1984 and died on 27.12.1984. He was working in a bank. At the time of accident, his total monthly emoluments amounted to Rs. 1,663.25 and he was aged 41 years. He had sixteen more years of service left in the bank. Second appellant was born a few months after the accident. The Tribunal estimated that he would have contributed half of his monthly income, na...
George K. Thomas Vs. Tahsildar and Others.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR82(Ker); [1990]50TAXMAN108(Ker)
K. SUKUMARAN J. - Notwithstanding the vigorous arguments supported by profuse case law, I am disinclined to admit this writ petition. The petitioners father was a partner in a firm and had been assessed to income-tax. That was, however, a story of long time back in 1957-58. Tax remaining unpaid, recovery proceedings were set in motion. Things drifted like that till March 17, 1967, when the property referred to in the original petition was brought to sale. Soon thereafter, the assessee bid goodbye to all his earthly worries. It was thereafter that the legal representative takes on his further fights. He did it repeatedly. Apparently, it was unsuccessful, as is evident from the suit, the appeal and second appeal and the decisions of the courts therein. The sale having been held on March 17, 1967, it had been duly confirmed later.The civil litigation having not yielded any good results, the petitioner felt like challenging the entirety of the recovery action by putting forward a jurisdict...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »