Kerala Court January 1990 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.
State of Kerala and anr. Vs. Joseph Vilangadan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Ker276
Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. The petitioners in Arbitration O.P. 150/85 before the 1st Addl. Sub Court, Ernakulam, are the appellants.2. Essential facts lie in a narrow compass. The contract, the State had entered into with the respondent-Contractor to do the work of 'widening and strengthening single lane section to two lanes from K.M. 438/0 to 444/0 road formation of C.D. Works', was terminated by the State on 24-3-1980 on the ground that the contractor failed to perform the contract. The contractor thereupon filed O.S. (Arb.) 226/80 before the Court below for filing the arbitration agreement and for the appointment of an arbitrator. Accepting the case of the contractor the Court appointed an arbitrator who passed an award and filed the same in Court, The Contractor thereafter filed O.P. 64/84 under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act to pass a decree in terms of the award. The State filed O.P. 100/84 under Sections 16, 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award. Both these p...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Travancore Titanium Products Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-17-1990
Reported in: [1990]183ITR78(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.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 correct in law in holding that an amount of Rs. 5,572 paid in 1975 is an allowable deduction for the assessment year 1977-78 ?'2. The respondent is a public limited company, It is an assessee to income-tax. We are concerned with the assessment year 1977-78. The previous year ended on December 31, 1976, Admittedly, the company is maintaining its accounts on mercantile basis. For the relevant assessment year, the company claimed an amount of Rs. 5,572 as an allowable deduction, This plea was rejected by the Income-tax Officer holding that the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting and that the expenditure relating to earlier years could not be allowed as a deduction. It has come out in evidence that the amount was paid as early as...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Traco Cables Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR339(Ker)
1. This is an application by the Revenue under Section 261 of the Income-tax Act, praying for the grant of a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court of India from the judgment of this court in Income-tax Reference No. 303 of 1980, dated February 25, 1987, Traco Cable Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1987]166ITR278(Ker) . A perusal of the above judgment, especially paragraph 6, shows that this court followed the decisions of the Calcutta and Delhi High Courts, in preference to the decision of the Madras High Court, and held that the matter is barred by limitation. In view of the sharp conflict of judicial opinion on the crucial issue that is involved in this case, we are satisfied that a substantial question of law which is one of public importance arises for consideration in this case. Accordingly, we certify that this case, Traco Cable Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1987]166ITR278(Ker) (Income-tax Reference No. 303 of 1980) is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court of India. A certificate is granted acco...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Eapen Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-1990
Reported in: [1990]184ITR46(Ker)
1. This is an application by the Revenue under Section 261 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, praying for the issue of a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court of India from the judgment of this court in I. T. R. No. 267 of 1981 dated June 30, 1987 (Eapen Joseph v. CIT, [ 1987] 168 ITR 26).2. The short question that arose for consideration was whether the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer, dated March 6, 1976, was one with jurisdiction. In considering the various provisions of the Act, this court came to the conclusion that the assessment made on March 6, 1976, is illegal. In coming to the said conclusion, the scope of Section 139(1), (2) and (4) of the Income-tax Act came up for consideration. This court followed the view taken by the Delhi, Allahabad and Rajasthan High Courts, in preference to the decision rendered by the Calcutta High Court, and held that the assessment made on March 6, 1976, is illegal. There is sharp conflict of judicial opinion regarding the scop...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kilkotagiri Tea and Coffee Estates Co. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-1990
Reported in: [1990]183ITR145(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The Revenue is the petitioner in these two cases. The same assessee is the respondent in both these original petitions. The matter relates to the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. It arises under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act. The Revenue prays that the common question of law, formulated in para 7 of the original petitions, may be directed to be referred to this court. The question is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, secured loans from the banks and the provision for taxation should be adjusted against the value of investments while computing the capital under Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act ?'2. The short question that arises for consideration is whether, in computing the capital for the purpose of surtax assessment, secured loans from the banks and the provision made for taxation should be adjusted against the value of investments, in view of Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to th...
Karthi Pankajakshy Vs. Lalitha Sujatha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-1990
Reported in: II(1990)DMC100
Manoharan, J.1. This appeal is by the first respondent in A.S. 153/1983 of the District Court, Trivandrum who was the first defendant in O S. 88 of 1988 of the Munsiffs Court. The suit was one for partition and allotment of the plaintiffs 1/11th share in A schedule property and 1/11th share in the one-half of plaint B schedule property. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, against which the first respondent preferred A.S. 153 of 1983 before the District Court, Trivandrum. The District Court allowed the appeal and passed a preliminary decree for partition declaring that, the first respondent is entitled to 1/10 share in the plaint A schedule property and 1/10 in the one-half of the plaint B schedule property. Though the share claimed in the plaint is 1/11, the lower appellate court passed a preliminary decree for 1/10 share. Para 11 of the lower court's judgment states that, since the first respondent has applied for amending the plaint stating that the 8th respondent is not entit...
Janardhanan Vs. Syamala Kumary
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-15-1990
Reported in: II(1990)DMC128
Thomas, J. 1. The appellant, a husband, filed a petition in the lower court for a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') on the ground that his wife has after solemnisation of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with another person. The wife (1st respondent) who resisted the petition, however, admitted her marriage with the appellant, but denied all the allegations relating to her character. While the original petition was pending, both the husband and wife filed a joint petition and prayed for a decree of divorce in terms of the said petition. Learned Sub Judge dismissed the original petition as well as the joint petition as per the impugned order. Hence this appeal at the instance of the husband.2. The original petition was filed by the appellant in the lower court on 18-2-1985. The above mentioned joint petition was filed on 9-4-1987. The averments in the joint petition, inter alia, are that the marriage between the partie...
R.R. Rajendra Menon (No. 2) Vs. CochIn Stock Exchange Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-1990
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas256(Ker)
Thomas, J. 1. Cochin Stock Exchange Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The appellant who claims himself to be a shareholder of the said company filed a petition before the original jurisdiction of this court (company court) purportedly under Section 257 of the Act praying for a direction to the company to circulate exhibit P-2 notice among its members. The learned single judge, after finding that the petition is not maintainable in the company court, dismissed the same as per the judgment which is challenged in this appeal. According to the learned single judge, the company court has no jurisdic-' tion to grant the relief on the petition filed by the appellant 2. Sri Joseph Vellappally, advocate, who took notice on behalf of the first respondent-company, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. An appeal shall lie to a Bench of two judges from 'a judgm...
Travancore Tea Estate Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-1990
Reported in: [1992]194ITR404(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred two questions of law at the instance of an assessee and one question of law at the instance of the Revenue as arising from its common appellate order dated July 30, 1984. I. T. R. No. 500 of 1985 is a reference at the instance of the assessee and I. T. R. No. 501 is at the instance of the Revenue. As stated, these references arise out of the common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, dated July 30, 1984, in I. T. A. Nos. 175/(Coch) of 1982 and 269/(Coch) of 1982. The matter relates to the assessment year 1977-78. The three questions of law referred for the decision of this court are as follows :At the instance of the assesses : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 40,81,140 as an item of bad debt written off is not allowable ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Mrs. Daisy Paul
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-1990
Reported in: [1990]183ITR22(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.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 is justified in holding that the work of reconditioning automobile and marine engines is processing of goods and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of her interest in Messrs. Popular Garage ?'2. The matter arises under the Wealth-tax Act. The respondent is an assessee to wealth-tax. In the return of net wealth for the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act of her interest in the firm, Messrs. Popular Garage. The value of the interest was calculated by the assessee at Rs. 1,00,566. The entire amount was claimed as exempt under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act. Originally, the said amount was not included as assets in the wealth-tax assessment. However...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »