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.
P.O. Thomas Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1989
Reported in: 1989(25)LC195(Kerala); 1989(44)ELT414(Ker)
ORDERU.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. Petitioner were dismissed on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdi...
Ahamadkutty Vs. Johnson and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ2462
ORDERK. Sreedharan, J.1. Complainant before court below has filed this petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment acquitting the accused. Office noted the defect that petitioner cannot maintain this application for special leave to appeal because he was not a party to the proceedings before trial court. Proceedings before trial court was initiated on a police charge. Present petitioner, being only a witness before court below should canvass the correctness of acquittal by filing a revision petition. Learned Counsel representing the petitioner took the view that proceedings before court below had its origin on the complaint filed by petitioner and hence petition for special leave to appeal alone is maintainable. To resolve this controversy, Office has sent up the matter.2. Petitioner lodged a complaint alleging offences under Sections 448, 506(2), and Section 427 r/w Section 34 IPC. Learned Magistrate without taking cognizance of that complaint forwarded the same to polic...
Puthiyottil Kunhava and ors. Vs. Kaniattichalil Mammadkutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker132
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. Defendant appeals. Suit is one for eviction. Respondent is the owner of the premises let out to one Ali. Appellant was the sub-lessee under Ali. In execution of a money decree in O. Section No. 685 of 1965, the rights of Ali and the appellant were sold in Court auction and purchased by the respondent on 8-3-1967, evidenced by Ext. A3. Sale was confirmed and delivery, as seen from Ext. A4, was taken on 20-3-1967. Appellant then executed Ext. A1 lease deed on 17-12-1967 and took the property on lease from the respondent.2. In the suit for eviction, appellant denied the Court sale and delivery and contended that Ext. A1 was executed in continuation of the earlier lease. He claimed fixity of tenure and relied on Exts. B1 and B5 order and purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal, to the effect that he purchased the rights of the land owner and intermediary. Respondent successfully established not only that he was not a party to Exts. B1 and B5 and no notice was ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pioneer Enterprises
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR218(Ker)
K.A. Nayar, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal dated April 24, 1984, in I. T. A. No. 361(Coch) of 1982 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation of a registered firm should not be allocated among the partners but should be carried forward for being adjusted against the future profits of the firm ?'2. The matter arises out of the income-tax assessment for the assessment year 1979-80, for which the previous year ended on March 31, 1979. The respondent-assessee is a partnership firm originally constituted under an instrument of partnership executed on February 17, 1978 as 'Kerala Enterprises'. The name was changed by an agreement executed on March 1, 1978 as 'Pioneer Enterprises', the respondent herein. The firm was given registration fo...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.M. Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR256(Ker)
K.A. Nayar, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question of law arising out of the common order of the Tribunal dated March 2, 1984, in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 379, 380 and 381 (Coch) of 1982:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of. the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the annual letting value of the ground floor of a building belonging to the assessee and which was in the occupation of a firm in which the assessee was a partner is not includible in the income of the assessee under Section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, consequently, in holding that the reopening of the assessment is not sustainable ?'2. The matter arises out of the income-tax assessment for the years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72 for which the accounting period ended on March 31, 1969, March 31, 1970, and March 31, 1971, respectively. The assessee was a partner in a firm 'Fashion Jewelle...
Sosamma Pothen Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-1989
Reported in: [1990]78STC164(Ker)
K.A. Nayar, J.1. The questions to be considered in the above two revision petitions are the same, even though the petitioners and the assessment years are different. The question to be considered is whether the rubber trees sold by the petitioners are liable to be taxed.2. T.R.C. No. 59 of 1989 is concerned with the assessment year 1981-82. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The assessee had sold rubber trees earmarked to be cut and removed with a view to replanting the area. The assessee contended that the standing rubber trees are not timber and the sale value of the same will not form part of the turnover. But the assessing officer took the view that an estate owner felling standing rubber trees will come within the definition of the term 'Dealer' and that the sale value will form part of the turnover and that the standing rubber trees were nothing else than timber. The Sales Tax Officer relied on a Bench decision of this Court in George P. Mathew v. Sta...
Dr. George Jacob Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-1989
Reported in: (1990)ILLJ541Ker
Sankaran Nair, J.1. These writ petitions are connected-perhaps complementary to each other - and are therefore disposed of by a common judgment. Petitioners challenge orders of transfer (Ext.P9 in O.P.No.3946/88 and Ext.P7 in O.P.5284/88 hereinafter referred to as Exts.P9 & P7), both claiming retention at Trivandrum.2. Petitioner in O.P.3946/88 (called Dr.George hereinafter) challenges the order transferring him to Calicut, and petitioner in O.P.5284/88 (called Dr.Bhat hereinafter) also challenges the order transferring him to Calicut.3. Both started their career as Tutors.Dr.Bhat was then appointed as Assistant Professor in Orthodontics. Against this, Dr.George complained and in consequence Dr.Bhat was reverted. Then a post of Assistant Professor was created, and Dr.Bhat was appointed to that. Later, Dr.Bhat was promoted as Associate Professor. Dr.George filed O.P.694I/82, 1693/83 & 573/84, challenging the promotion granted to Dr.Bhat, and the rules that enabled the promotion. These w...
Appukutty Moothan Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1440
ORDERK. Sreedharan, J.1. Second respondent lodged a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police. He forwarded it to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Town North, Palghat for investigation. Sub-Inspector in his turn transferred to his counterpart, Town South for investigation because the offence was committed within his territorial jurisdiction. Sub-Inspector, Town South, Palghat filed the report before Court. On the basis of that report and after preliminary hearing, learned Magistrate framed charge for offence under Section 420, IPC against the petitioner. Petitioner seeks to quash the charge on the ground that there was no investigation of the complaint by any of the police officers. Sub-Inspector, Town South, Palghat after verifying whether the complainant had written the complaint, laid the charge before Court without investigating into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. Since the Sub-Inspector did not investigate, it is alleged, the proceedi...
Ananthakini Padmanabha Kini Vs. Kamalavathy Ammal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-11-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker136
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant.2. The property in dispute belonged to one Narasimha Pai. After his death, the heirs partitioned all his properties including the property in dispute and as per the said partition, the property in dispute was put in the possession of Saraswathi Ammal (widow of Narasimha Pai) in lieu of her maintenance. Saraswathi Ammal in her turn leased this property to Ananthakini and on the death of Ananthakini, the leasehold right devolved on his son, the plaintiff. The defendant is the sister of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement evidenced by Ext. A3 dated 15-5-1974 and as per this agreement the property has been put in the possession of the defendant so that she can cultivate the same and appropriate the produce towards' her maintenance until the happening of the contingency contemplated thereunder. '3. The defendant claiming herself to be a cultivating tenant of the holding (she traces her possession t...
C.B. Joseph Vs. M.P. Chandran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-11-1989
Reported in: [1990]67CompCas31(Ker)
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The only question for decision in this appeal is as to the rate of interest payable on a negotiable instrument where the instrument itself does not specify any rate. The dispute in this case relates to the interest due under a promissory note, exhibit A-1. The promissory note is dated October 27, 1984, and it is for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000. The instrument does not specify the rate of interest. The court below has found that there was a collateral agreement between the parties as per which the defendant had agreed to pay interest at 16 per cent. per annum, and interest is decreed at that rate. Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as it stood on the date on which the court below passed its decree, reads :'80. Interest when no rate specified. --When no rate of interest is specified in the instrument, interest on the amount due thereon shall, notwithstanding any agreement relating to interest between any parties to the instrument, be calculated at the r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »