Kerala Court July 1989 Judgments
Joseph Vs. Block Development Officer, Angamaly and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker131
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. Petitioner and the second respondent were the contesting candidates at the panchayat election from Ward No. VIII to the Manjapra Panchayat. The Returning Officer, on counting the votes treated four votes invalid. It was then found that the rival contesting candidates secured 519 votes each. He then drew lots and declared the second respondent elected. Petitioner filed an election petition before the Munsiff of Alwaye, joining the second respondent and the Returning Officer alone as respondents. A preliminary objection was raised by the second respondent regarding the maintainability of the election petition on the ground that all the seven candidates who were duly nominated to the election were not joined in the election petition. Learned Munsiff upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the election petition, by Ext. P1 order. This original petition is in challenge of Ext. P1.2. It is not disputed that there were altogether seven persons who submitted nomin...
Tag this Judgment!Order of the Holy Cross Vs. Lonnappan Thattil and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker215
ORDERK.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The sixth additional defendant in O. S. 300 of 1983 before the SubCourt, Ernakulam, a suit instituted by therespondents for the following reliefs, is therevision petitioner :'(a) declaring that the 1st plaintiff is the Trustee of the 2nd plaintiff organisation and is the Director, Superior and Rector of the institutions in the plaint schedule property and to hold and possess the plaint scheduled property as such and to live in the building in this property and carry on the religious and charitable functions in the institutions in this property, in accordance with the bye-laws and memorandum of associations relating to the same.(b) Granting a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any way with the 1st plaintiff's rights stated above and from trespassing into the plaint scheduled property and the buildings therein.(c) Granting a decree for all the costs of the plaintiff in connection with the suit from the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Natarajan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-1989
Reported in: [1990]185ITR352(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 assessee is entitled to claim deduction of the interest paid ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of interest paid for non-payment of 'kist' after the 20th of the month ?' The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. We are concerned with the assessment year 1973-74. The assessee is a dealer in foreign liquor. He delayed payment of the kist amount due to the Government. So, he had to pay Rs. 48,738 as interest. The said interest was claimed as deduction in the income-tax assessment. The assessing authority disallowed the claim. It was held that the interest paid was penal in nature. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the deduction and deleted the addition mad...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Ittiyathi and ors. Vs. Pappy Bhaskaran and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker112
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. The three points raised in this second appeal by defendants 2 and 3 and the legal representatives of deceased first defendant are whether the decree of the appellate Court is liable to be reversed and the suit dismissed for the reasons that the suit is barred under Order II, Rule 2 of the Civil P.C. and Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and the title of the plaintiffs is lost by adverse possession and if not whether the appellants are entitled to claim and get value of improvements.2. The three items in the plaint schedule belonged to deceased Raman Kunhan. Third plaintiff and third defendant are his sisters and defendants 1 and 2 are their brothers. They had also a brother Krishnan who died unmarried and issueless. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the children of third plaintiff. On 26-3-1963, Kunhan settled the suit properties in favour of plaintiffs and Krishnan by Ext. Bl reserving life estate with him. Kunhan died on 10-2-1970. Before that, on 3-6-1964, he cancelled...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Flour Mills, Mattancherry, CochIn Vs. the Board of Revenue (Civ ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker14
Malimath, C.J.1.The petitioner is a firm engaged in the manufacture of wheat products like maida, sooji, atta, bran etc. by grinding wheat in the wheat roller flour mills owned by it. The petitioner has obtained a licence under the Wheat Roller Flour Mills (Licensing and Control) Order, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Flour Mills Order'), which has been issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955. The petitioner has also obtained a licence under the Kerala Food Grains Dealers (Licensing) Order 1967 issued under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 which enables it to carry on the business of dealing in foodgrains. The petitioner has been purchasing wheat allotted to the State of Kerala by the Government of India through the Food Corporation of India at the prescribed prices. After grinding the said wheat into products like maida, sooji etc. the petitioner has been s...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmikutty Vs. Mohandas and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker78
ORDER1. This revision arises under the Indian Lunacy Act. Indira Devi-- the daughter of the revision petitioner is said to be a lunatic. Respondents herein filed an application invoking the power of the court under Section 62 of the Indian Lunacy Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for directing an inquisition for the purpose of ascertaining whether Indira Devi is of unsound mind and incapable of managing herself and her affairs.2. Respondents-petitioners before the lower court claimed that they are consanguine brothers of the alleged lunatic. They further claimed that the mother of the lunatic is not taking proper care of the lunatic and her properties and that her interest is adverse to the alleged lunatic. Besides they say that certain properties belonging to the lunatic are being sold away to the second respondent in the petition before the lower court. In these circumstances, the respondents wanted the court to appoint the respondents, or one of the respondents or a proper ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kumar Industries
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-1989
Reported in: [1990]183ITR156(Ker)
K.A. Nayar, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, and as directed by this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, referred the following questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated June 18, 1982, in I. T. A. No. 48(Coch) of 1981 for our opinion :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction for 'goodwill bonus' under the Income-tax Act ? (2) (a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right and had materials in considering/treating the so-called 'goodwill bonus' as to 'made up the customary bonus' in the nature of the customary bonus ? (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, did the assessee prove and the Tribunal consider 'customs' in the so-called customary nature of the bonus and is not the order vitiated for not proving/ considering 'customs' ?' 2. The matter arises out of the income-tax assessment f...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kumar Rajendra Kumar Vs. K. Assan Koya and Sons
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker20
Ramakrishnan, J.1. The appeal and the memorandum of cross-objection are filed respectively by the plaintiff and defendant in the suit.2. Plaintiff and defendant are both firms carrying on business in rice and other food-grains in Mattancherry and Calicut respectively. According to the plaintiff, defendant entered into two contracts on 19-7-1975 with them for the purchase of three wagons each of Nepal rice. The first contract was for three wagons at the rate of Rs. 362/- per quintal, bilticut, ready R.R. from 'Jayamgur' or 'Jogbani' to Calicut. The second contract was for three wagons again, at the rate of Rs. 365/- per quintal bilticut, ready R.R. from 'Jogbani' to Calicut. The other terms and conditions of the two contracts were identical. The payment was agreed to be made against R R in cash or by T.T. at Cochin through bank. There was an agreement to pay interest from the date of contract at 18% and also bank commission at 50 Np. per hundred rupees. The defendant also paid a total a...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Pillai Chandrasekharan Nair Vs. Kunju Amma Thankamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker177
S. Padmanabhan, J. 1. Plaintiff appeals against the appellate decree dismissing his suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale in reversal of the decree of the trial Court.2. Ext. A1 is the agreement, unilaterallyexecuted by the defendant in favour of theplaintiff, who is her sister's son-in-law, on6-4-1978. The property is 3 1/2 cents and abuilding. Consideration is Rs. 5,000/-. Termis three years. Towards the sale consideration,:the appellant executed a pronote in favour ofthe respondent on 6-4-1978 itself for Rs.4,900/- with a term of three years. Balanceamount of Rs. 100/- was agreed to be paidwhen the sale deed is executed. That means, ineffect, the entire sale consideration ofRs. 5,000/- was to be paid when the sale deedis executed.3. On 27-3-1981, appellant issued notice demanding sale and requesting defendant to appear before the Sub-Registrar on 6-4-1981. On 3-4-1981, respondent sent Ext. A4 reply repudiating Ext. A1 and stating that even though she signed Ext. A1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. State Farming Corporation of Kerala Ltd ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR669(Ker)
K.A. Nayar, J.1. As directed by this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, referred the following question of law arising out of its common order in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 552 (Coch) of 1978-79 and 126,127 and 128 (Coch) of 1980 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the penalties levied by the assessee-company on the contractors are not receipts of the assessee-company, but are only by way of reduction of expenditure and hence not taxable ?'2. The reference is at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum. The assessee-respondent is a State Government undertaking engaged in the cultivation of sugarcane. The sugarcane so cultivated will have to be cut and removed for supply to the sugar factories. The assessee gets these operations transacted through contractors. All the contracts entered into by the assessee-company with the contractors contained a clause to ensure that the work is...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »