Kerala Court September 1989 Judgments
J.B. Enterprises Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-29-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker65
ORDERP. Krishnamoorthy, J.1. The revision petitioner entered into a contract with the State for the work of 'Construction of a building for Government High School, Ollur' on 26-2-1977. Disputes and differences arose between the petitioner and the respondents relating to the contract and as per the arbitration clause in the agreement the disputes were referred to the appointed arbitrator. He gassed an award on 22-3-1985. The Arbitrator by an authorisation letter dated 11-3-1986 authorised an advocate (who is the advocate for the revision petitioner also) to file the award in Court. Accordingly the award was filed on 11-7-1986. On the same day the revision petitioner filed O. P. (Arb.) No. 82/86 under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, for making the award a rule of court and to pass a decree in accordance with the award.2. The respondents filed an objection contending among other things that the award was filed long after the expiry of the period of limitation provided for under Article...
Tag this Judgment!Paulose and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ100
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. Cognizance, whether it be under Section 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under any other Statute, is only of the offence and not the offender or offenders. Whether on complaint or on police report or upon other information or knowledge, what is required for taking cognizance' is only reception of facts which constitute offence. It can be against known or unknown persons or both as the definition of 'complaint' in Section 2(d), Cr.P.C. indicates. All the offenders or their identities may not be before court when cognizance is taken. In such cases court has not only the right but also the duty to find out the persons involved. That is one of the purposes of compliance of Section 200 or if necessary 202 and the power to order investigation under Sections 156(3), 202(1) or further investigation under Section 173(3). Even before framing charge the court can summon an offender as an additional accused if it is satisfied of a prima facie case against him from t...
Tag this Judgment!Asok Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-1989
Reported in: [1990]183ITR653(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the assessee to income-tax, the Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 12,112 being the excess amount paid due to the fluctuation in the rate of exchange was not allowable as a revenue expenditure in computing the loss of the applicants for the assessment year 1976-77 ?'2. The respondent is the Revenue. We are concerned with the assessment year 1976-77. The assessee is a limited company. It had purchased certain machinery from a Japanese concern on deferred payment scheme. The instalments had to be paid in foreign currency. At the time of purchase, the assessee entered in the books of account the value of the machinery and the amount payable in terms of Indian rupees. It was based on the exchange rate prevailing then. When instalments had to be paid, the assessee had to remit m...
Tag this Judgment!National Rubber Factory Vs. Cegat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-1989
Reported in: 1989(25)LC282(Kerala); 1992(61)ELT219(Ker)
Chettur Sankaran Nair, J.1. Petitioner challenges Ext. P7 order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Southern Regional Bench, Madras, directing him to make a pre-deposit of a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on or before 28-9-1989. Petitioner submits that owing to unforeseen circumstances, he could not make the deposit within the time. He also submits that certain aspects could not be placed before the Tribunal while considering the application for stay. Petitioner also relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vijay Prakash D. Mehta v. Collector of Customs, 1989 (39) E.L.T. 178 (S.C.). I do not think the proper course is to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, but to give another opportunity to petitioner to place the relevant material before the Tribunal. Petitioner, if advised, may make a fresh application before the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall consider the same on merits uninfluenced by the observations made in Ext. P7. Till such time as tribunal takes a d...
Tag this Judgment!Muthanikattil Mohammedkutty and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ770
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. Wrong approach to the relevant legal provisions alone is responsible for the convictions and sentences, which resulted in these two criminal appeals, one by accused 1 and 2 and the other by the third accused.2. On 19-10-1987, at about 11 p.m., P.W. 8 Sub-Inspector at first searched Shop No. C11 of Tirur Municipality admittedly possessed by accused 1 and 2 as their business premise. Two tins of palm oil were found. A neighbouring room No. A14 in another building claimed by accused 1 and 2 as their godown was also searched as opened by them. 18 tins of palm oil were also found and seized. They were charge-sheeted and tried for contravention of Clause 3 of the Kerala Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils, Vanaspathi and Baby Food Dealers' Licensing Order, 1975 (for short 'the order'). P.Ws. 1 to 6 were examined. On the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6, third accused was also impleaded under Section 319(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All the three were convicted and sentenc...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajagiri Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd. (N ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-1989
Reported in: [1990]182ITR393(Ker)
K. S. PARIPOORANAN J. - 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 Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of rubber replanting subsidy ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, income-tax for capital gains is exigible on the trees comprised in the rubber estate sold 'The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. It is a public limited company. We are concerned with the assessment year 1975-76. The previous year ended on June 30, 1974. The assessee received a sum of Rs. 74,229 as rubber replantation subsidy from the Rubber Board. The assessee sold 100 acres of a rubber estate for a sum of Rs. 3,62,600. The Income-tax Officer held that the subsidy received by the assessee is income. It was brought to tax. Similarly, the Income-tax Officer held that the capital gains arising on the...
Tag this Judgment!Ottapalam Jawan Transport Company (P.) Ltd. Vs. Regional Transport Aut ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker127
ORDERT.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The third respondent has taken notice through Sri K. Radhakrishnan, Advocate. Counsel for the petitioner and the third respondent agree that the original petition itself may be taken up and disposed of. Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 and 2, on receipt of a copy of the original petition.2. The short question for consideration is whether the proceedings before the Regional Transport Authority (Authority in brief) after remit by the Appellate Tribunal in an appeal pending before it on July 1, 1989 when the Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) came into force, should be dealt with under the provisions of that Act or under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which is repealed.3. I shall state the facts briefly, leaving out the unnecessary details. The route in question is a circular route Ottappalam -- Ottappalam of less than 50 K.Ms., its length being 47-9 K.Ms. By the proceedings Ext. P-11 dated August 16, 1988, the first respondent Reg...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavi Amma Bhavani Amma and ors. Vs. Velu Pillai and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker144
1. Defendants are the appellants. Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title, for partition and recovery of possession. The trial Court granted a decree declaring that the plaintiff is the sole heir of deceased Thankappan Pillai and that as such he is entitled to inherit the properties of the latter and for recovery of possession of items 2 to 5 of A schedule from the defendants and also for partition and separate possession of half of plaint B schedule properties. The plaintiff was also granted mesne profits. The suit and O.P. 35 of 1974 were jointly tried. In O.P. 33 of 1974 the trial Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to the grant of succession certificate.2. As the plaintiff (respondent) died his legal representatives were impleaded as additional respondents 2 to 6.3. Learned counsel for the appellants (defendants) contended that by the judgment in S.A. 452 of 1979 this Court remanded the case to the lower appellate Court with certain directions and while disposing of...
Tag this Judgment!Thayyullathil Kunhikannan and ors. Vs. Thayyullathil Kalliani and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker226
T. L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. This appeal is by defendants 3 to 6 in a suit for partition. Admittedly, the plaint a schedule properties belonged to one Pokken, who had two sons, Kumaran and Kunhikannan (3rd defendant) and three daughters, Devu, Ammalu and Kalyani, who are defendants 1 and 2, and the plaintiff, respectively. Defendants 4 to 6 are the children of the 3rd defendant. Pokken died on March 12, 1968; his wife Chirutha on May 30, 1977, and son Kumaran, on September 4, 1974 (vide Ext. B27). Pokken had two sisters Matha and Kalyani, of whom Kalyani had two sons, Kunhikannan and Gopalan.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/3 share in the two items of plaint a schedule properties, and the B schedule movables, with the a1legation that Pokken had executed a registered will on August 31, 1953 bequeathing these properties to his three daughters, to be held by them in equal shares, and that therefore she was entitled to a 1/3 share therein. By th...
Tag this Judgment!N.K. Razack Vs. Cegat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-1989
Reported in: 1989(25)LC539(Kerala); 1990(45)ELT223(Ker)
Chettur Sankaran Nair, J.1. Petitioner seeks to quash Ext. P7 order of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Madras, ordering stay on deposit of Rs. 50,000/-against the demand. According to Counsel, petitioner is in financial difficulties and he is not in a position to make the pre-deposit. Insistence on pre-deposit would make the appellate remedy illusory, submits counsel. The question for consideration is whether the Appellate Tribunal has exercised its discretion properly with reference to material considerations. The demand was for a sum of Rs. 2,06,479.20 by way of duty and Rs. 75,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively as penalty. Against the total of Rs. 2,91,479.20, the Tribunal ordered deposit of a 5th of it. Tribunal also took into account the difficulties pleaded by petitioner and noted that the fixed assets of petitioner were worth Rs. 5,17,031/- against a liability of Rs. 2,10,185.60. I am not inclined to think that there was no application of mind to releva...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »