Kerala Court July 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Palghat Shadi Mahal Trust
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR287(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, 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, is the assessee a charity entitled to exemption under the Income-tax Act ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is the Tribunal right in holding that the benefit of the trust enures to the public at large and not to any particular religious community ?'2. The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. It is a trust. It claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1976-77. The trust deed is dated April 14, 1975. It was claimed that there was a clarificatory resolution regarding the trust deed, dated April 20, 1975. The Income-tax Officer held that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of Section 11 of the Income-tax Act. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, b...
State Farming Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-1989
Reported in: (1990)81CTR(Ker)239; [1990]181ITR271(Ker)
K.A. Nayar, J.1. A common question arose for consideration in these income-tax referred cases and that question is whether the amount received by sale of tender forms is taxable under the Income-tax Act, 1961. For the assessment years 1974-75, 1976-77 and 1977-78, the Income-tax Officer included in the assessment, income from sale of tender forms received by the assessee. The assessee is a State Government undertaking engaged in cultivation of sugarcane. It was the contention of the assessee before the Income-tax Officer that the income of the assessee received by the sale of tender forms is closely connected with the agricultural operations done by the assessee and, therefore, the same is agricultural income not taxable under the Central Act. The Income-tax Officer took the view that the income by way of sale of tender forms has nothing to do with the agricultural activities of the company and, therefore, cannot be treated as agricultural receipts.2. On appeal, the Commissioner of Inc...
Raghava Warrier Vs. Sarojini Warasyar and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-1989
Reported in: I(1990)DMC164
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. Plaintiff Appeals. First defendant is his wife. Second defendant is their minor child. First defendant's brother married plaintiff's sister. They fell out. That incident affected the relationship of plaintiff and first defendant to such an extent that first defendant was forced to approach the Criminal Court for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for herself and the child. After keen contest before the Magistrate, Sessions Judge and this Court, the ultimate result was a concluded order for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200 and Rs. 100 respectively per month for the mother and child.2. The present suit is for a declaration that the orders are void and for consequential injunction against enforcement. Defendants contested. Parties examined themselves and proved large volume of documentary evidence, most of which are letters exchanged between them and their relations. The Munsiff dismissed the suit with Rs. 300 as compensatory costs. Appe...
Mathew Alexander Vs. Sreedharan Pillay and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-1989
Reported in: I(1990)ACC196
Krishnamoorthy, J. 1. This appeal is by the petitioner in an application under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The application was for compensation for the personal injuries which he sustained on 13-1-1975. On that day he was travelling in a scooter from Thiruvalla to Chingavanam. While so a car belonging to the 2nd respondent and driven by the 1st respondent came from the opposite direction and knocked him down. He sustained serious injuries on his legs and consequently his right leg had to be amputated. He alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent; The petitioner was aged 35. He was businessman. He claimed an amount of Rs. 965/- towards special damages and an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards general damages, thus claiming a total amount of Rs. 20,965/- as compensation for the personal injuries sustained by him. The 2nd respondent being the owner of the vehicle was sought to be made vicariously liable and the insurer of the ca...
T. Govindankutty Menon Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR357(Ker)
ORDER--Applicability of s. 68Held:The question as to whether s. 68 can apply only if the case credits are found in the books of the assessee himself and not in the books of the firms of which he was only a partner, was not raised before the Tribunal and was not considered by it. Para 4 of the statemtn of the case dt. 29-4-1985 makes this position clear. If the said question was not raised nor argued nor considered by the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the question is now referred bythe Tribunal. Even if this court has directed the Tribunal to refer such a question, the court is not bound to answer the said question when if finally comes up for decision. Income Tax Act 1961 s.256 K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the assessee and as directed by this court in Original Petition No. 6578 of 1982, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court :'Should not the Tribunal have held that Section 68 can apply only if the cash...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Kaethikamal Kumari Varma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1989
Reported in: [1989]179ITR543(Ker)
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has, under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, referred the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-partner is entitled to exemption under Section 5(1)(iva) in respect of the agricultural properties of the firm ?'2. The question referred is covered by the decision of a Division Bench of this court in CWT v. Jose Mathew [1987] 168 ITR 46. But the case has come up before a Full Bench as another Division Bench felt that the decision in Jose Mathew's case [1987] 168 ITR 46 required reconsideration.3. The assessee is a partner of a firm called Koliat Estates. The assets of the firm include agricultural lands. In computing the net wealth of the assessee, his interest in the firm was taken into account as required by Section 4(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act. The assessee's claim for exemption under Section 5(1)(iva) of the ...
Ashoka Rubber Products Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1989
Reported in: 1989(25)LC356(Kerala); 1989(43)ELT605(Ker)
K.T. Thomos, J1. As per Ext. P2 proceedings, the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin, demanded excise duty and penalty from the petitioner under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act'). Petitioner preferred an appeal against Ext. P2 before the Customs Appellate Tribunal. Along with the appeal he filed an application to dispense with the requirements of pre-deposit of the disputed duty and penalty as per the proviso to Section 35F of the Act. In the same application, he prayed for stay of recovery of the disputed duty and penalty. The appellate tribunal passed Ext. PS order on the said application dispensing with the requirements of predeposit on condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 75,000/- on or before 30.6.1987. It is not disputed that the petitioner has deposited the said amount within time. But the petitioner's grievance is that the Customs Officials are now trying to recover the balance amount covered by the order appealed...
M.P. Gangadharan Vs. State S.i. of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ2455
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Petitioner challenges the order of the Special Court for Trial of Offences under Essential Commodities Act, Trichur. By the impugned order petitioner who was examined as D.W. 1 was joined as the third accused to be tried along with accused 1 and 2 in S.T. 2 of 1988. The main contention of the petitioner is that the trial Court ought not to have joined him as accused. In support of his stance reliance is made to the decision in Kunhappan v. State of Kerala (1987) 2 Ker LT 222. Sreedharan J. held that in view of Section 319, Crl. P.C. the statement of law made in (1987) 2 Ker LT 222 has to be examined more closely and for that purpose the case was referred to the Division Bench.2. It is contended by the petitioner that an answer given by him as a witness is protected by the proviso to Section 132 of the Evidence Act and hence the trial Judge was not justified in joining him as an accused. It is also contended that it is not a case where the petitioner has committ...
P.O. Thomas and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1028
U.L. Bhat, J.1. Petitioners in these cases are Keralites working in West Asia. They returned to Kerala on short leave and arrived at Trivandrum Air Port on different dates. It is reported that substantial quantities of primary gold were seized from them by the Customs Authorities under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act') and they were duly arrested and produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam and were remanded initially but were released on bail subsequently. Their passports and return air tickets were seized as documents which in the opinion of the Customs Authorities will be 'useful or relevant to proceedings under the Act.' Petitioners filed separate petitions before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (E.O.), Ernakulam requesting the Court to direct the Customs Authorities to release the passports and return air tickets. Petitions were dismissed on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction ...
P.K. Somanath Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ542
ORDERK. Sreedharan, J.1. Petitioner seeks to quash the complaint filed by the police against him for offence Under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and Section 292-A, IPC.2. Petitioner is the Printer and Publisher of a Cinema Magazine by name, 'Love'. The issue of that magazine dated 15-11-1988 contained photographs which is depicted as indecent representation of women. On getting information of that publication, Sub Inspector of Police searched the premises of first accused and seized two issues of the magazine, 'Love'. Now it is alleged that the petitioner has committed the offences mentioned earlier in publishing that issue of 'Love'. The contentions raised by the petitioner for quashing the charge are that the publication does not offend Section 292-A, IPC or Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Act. He has also raised a contention that the action taken by the Sub Inspector of Police in making the search...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »