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 Bank of Travancore Vs. Devassia Joseph and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Ker195; [1992]75CompCas796(Ker)
ORDERK.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The decree holder is the revision petitioner.2. The order under challenge is one by which the executing court has dismissed I.A. 1169/80, a petition filed by the decree holder under Section 152, C.P.C. to incorporate a provision for future interest in the judgment and decree, which, according to the petitioner, was inadvertently or accidently omitted to be incorporated in the judgment and decree. The execution petition also stands dismissed by the order.3. The two points that survive for consideration and pressed before me are: (1) whether the court below was justified in dismissing the application under Section 152, C.P.C.? (2) Whether the claim of the petitioner for the benefit of Sub-section (8) of Section 7 of Act 11/1970 is sustainable?4. Point No. 1: Facts touched upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard can be stated thus :-- The suit was for realisation of the amount due under a chitty hypothecation bond executed by defend...
N.S. Vijayaraghavan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-1990
Reported in: [1990]182ITR352(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. The petitioner purchased 17 cents of land at Trivandrum in 1967 with his own funds. He is an assessee to income-tax ever since 1967-68. The petitioner claims that, on October 30, 1971, he furnished the original title deed of the aforesaid property to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle, Ernakulam, as security for the payment of the tax which was then due from him. The arrears have been wiped out. The petitioner is entitled to the return of the title deed. It is not being returned to the petitioner. The petitioner filed exhibits P-3 and P-4 petitions before the respondents to return the documents. There is no reply thereto. The action on the part of the respondents is illegal. The respondents are bound to return the title deed. They have no right to retain the title deed relating to the petitioner's property. The petitioner was informed that the title deed will not be returned as the property in question belongs to his father, late Sri Sreedharan Unni, and the...
A.S. Mohammedkutty and Company Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-04-1990
Reported in: [1990]79STC24(Ker)
K.A. Nayar, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee on the file of the first respondent. It is a registered dealer both under Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and also under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Sales Tax Officer found on verification that the assessee issued C form for the purchase of goods not covered by certificate of registration granted to them and thus misused C forms issued. The petitioner purchased beedi labels, wrappers, paper, etc., from outside the Kerala State using the C forms. Originally the petitioner-assessee used to purchase beedi, tobacco and leaves only for resale. But from 11th October, 1975, onwards the petitioner was authorised to issue C forms for purchasing beedi, tobacco and leaves for use in the processing of goods for sale. Since the first respondent found that the petitioner was using C forms for the purchase of beedi labels, wrappers, paper also, etc., it was proposed to impose penalty at 15 per cent of the tax due on the purchases effected during ...
R. Bharathan Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-03-1990
Reported in: [1990]182ITR146(Ker)
K.A. Nayar, J. 1. The petitioner-assessee conducted a business in arrack in the name of one of his former employees at Kazhakootam. On March 5, 1985, the business premises of the assessee as well as the residence of his daughter who was staying at Trivandrum were searched. Cash amounting to Rs. 85,000 was seized from the bedroom normally used by the assessee in the house belonging to his daughter. Another sum of Rs. 7,500 was also seized from the office of his arrack business at Kazhakootam. It was contended that the residence belongs to his daughter. The assessee was not there and the daughter is also engaged in business earning income therefrom. Therefore, the daughter claimed not only the amount of Rs. 85,000 but also Rs. 7,500 as her income. It is noted by theIncome-tax Officer that the assessee normally resides along with his only daughter, Smt. Indira Rani, at Sreenilayam, Trivandrum. A room in the upstairs of that building is kept under lock and key by the assessee for his own p...
Asst. Labour Officer Vs. Muraleedharan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-03-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1987; (1990)IILLJ335Ker
Balakrishnan, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the accused in S.T. No. 24 of 1986 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Shertallai. The Assistant Labour Officer, Shertallai (North) filed a complaint against the respondent alleging that he violated the provisions of Section 5(A) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). During the relevant time the accused was conducting cation shop ARD No. 59-A at Eramalloor. The complainant. Assistant Labour Officer, inspected the shop on 10th July 1980 at 11.45 AM and required the accused to produce the visit book and the registration certificate. The accused failed to produce the registration certificate and the visit book and prosecution was launched against him under Section 29 of the Act.2. Two witnesses. PW1 and PW2 were examined on the side of the complainant. PW1 is the complainant. He deposed that the accused is a ration shop dealer of shop...