Kerala Court October 1990 Judgments
Lakshmi Amma Narayani Amma and ors. Vs. Saraswathi Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-31-1990
Reported in: [1991]70CompCas354(Ker)
P.K. Shamsuddin, J.1. The plaintiffs in O. S. No. 302 of 1982 on the file of the First Additional Sub-Court, Ernakulam, are the appellants. The suit is for declaration and recovery of money.2. The first plaintiff is the wife of one P. K. Gopalan Nair and the other plaintiffs are his children. Gopalan Nair died intestate on June 12, 1978. He had a fixed deposit for Rs. 15,000 for five years in the Union Bank of India, Puvattupuzha branch, and a savings bank account of Rs. 500 with the same bank. He had another fixed deposit of Rs. 12,000 for five years in the Puvattupuzha branch of the Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank. In respect of the fixed deposit amount of Rs. 12,000 in the Puvattupuzha branch of the Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank, Sri Gopalan Nair had made a nomination in favour of the first defendant.3. In this appeal, we are concerned only with the question whether the nomination of the first defendant will disentitle the plaintiffs from claiming a right to the amount d...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Trophical Plantations Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-31-1990
Reported in: [1992]196ITR755(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, certain questions of law are referred for the decision of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.2. The respondent-assessee is common in all the cases. The matter relates to the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81. The assessee is a company owning tea, rubber and coffee estates. During the relevant accounting period relating to the assessment year 1979-80, the assessee sold 6,514 rubber trees for a consideration of Rs. 4,99,500. The Income-tax Officer estimated the cost of rubber trees as on January 1, 1964, at Rs. 20 per tree and computed the capital gains that accrued on the sale of the above rubber trees. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) enhanced the cost of a rubber tree as on January 1, 1964 to Rs. 50 and computed the capital gains at Rs. 1,95,420 as against Rs. 3,69,220 arrived at by the assessing authority. In the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1980-81, the assessee sold 5,250 r...
Tag this Judgment!Sudarsan Trading Company Ltd. and M. Velayudhan Vs. Government of Indi ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-1990
Reported in: [1991]71CompCas265(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. The orders of the Central Government, the first respondent, refusing to approve the appointment of the petitioner in O. P. No. 112 of 1986 as the managing director of the company, the petitioner in the other original petition, namely, the one dismissing the application seeking approval and the other dismissing the petition seeking review of the first mentioned order are under challenge in these original petitions.2. The application seeking approval of the appointment of the petitioner in O. P. No. 112 of 1986 as the managing director of the company for the period from January 31, 1990, to January 30, 1985, was filed on March 21, 1980. To the show-cause notice calling upon the company to show cause why the request for approval shall not be rejected, the company gave its explanation in time, as is seen from exhibit P-2 marked in 0. P. No. 4759 of 1985. The first respondent was not prepared to accept the explanation and, consequently, the request was rejecte...
Tag this Judgment!Calcutta Sanitary Wares and anr. Vs. C.T. Jacob
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1990
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas347(Ker)
Thulasidas, J.1. These petitions filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, are for quashing the complaints and relatedproceedings in C. C. No. 22 of 1990 and C. C. No. 23 of 1990 pending against the petitioners before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam. The complaints were filed under Section 138 of the Act 66 of 1988 in respect of two cheques which the second petitioner had issued as a partner of the first petitioner-firm, in favour of the respondent. The cheques were dishonoured upon presentation. As required, notices were issued to the petitioners. A reply was sent by the second petitioner but the payment was not made. The complaints were, therefore, laid as warranted by the provisions of the above Act.2. The allegations in the complaints, in my view, do make out a prima facie case against the petitioners. Before filing the complaints, the respondent had taken care to abide by the relevant legal provisions. Indeed, it is not the case of t...
Tag this Judgment!Devasia Chacko Alias Ghacko Mathukadan Vs. the Joint Registrar of Co-o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ker309
K.T. Thomas, J.1. These two Original Petitions relate to election to the Board of Directors of Idukki District Co-operative Bank Ltd., (for short 'the Bank'). The Bank is a central society having its members enlisted only from other co-operative societies functioning within the territorial limits of revenue district of Idukki, Each of the member societies elects a delegate to the central society-Such delegates constitute the general body of the Bank. The erstwhile Board of Directors of the Bank was removed and an administrator was appointed on 21-6-89, as per Section 33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (for short 'the Act'). When the administrator has initiated steps to hold elections for a new Board of Directors, petitioners apprehended that such elections would be so manipulated by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Idukki at the behest of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) as to send only persons who are partisans to that political party as delegates to...
Tag this Judgment!Central Banking Corporation of Travancore Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. N. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-23-1990
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas539(Ker)
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. The revision petitioner is a banking company ordered to be wound up by the order of this court in B. C. P. No. 4 of 1962.2. In the course of liquidation proceedings, the official liquidator obtained a certificate for payment due from the debtors under Section 45D of the Banking. Regulation Act, 1949. The certificate was sought to be executed by filing Execution Petition No. 63 of 1980. The contesting respondents who are the legal representatives of the first respondent resisted the execution on the ground that it is barred by limitation.3. Admittedly, the decree was passed on July 26, 1966. The execution petition was filed only on June 21, 1980. The earlier execution petition filed by the revision-petitioner was dismissed on September 29, 1973. That dismissal was by a judicial order. The Sub-Judge held that the subsequent execution petition is barred by limitation.4. The revision petitioner contended that, in view of Section 45O of the Banking Regulation Act, t...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Fr. Joseph Vilangatil
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-22-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR305(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in 0. P. No. 2379 of 1986 (the Revenue) (See Fr. Joseph Vilengetil v. Union of India [1990] 186 ITR 63) are the appellants herein. The petitioner in the original petition is the sole respondent herein. He is an assessee to income-tax. He filed a return for the assessment year 1983-84, wherein he disclosed an amount of Rs. 3,11,065 in Part III of the return, being advance paid to him on March 11, 1983, towards compensation to be yet finally determined in respect of the agricultural land acquired by the Government and of which the Government took advance possession on November 19, 1982. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on March 31, 1984. Deducting the advance amount paid in the sum of Rs. 3,11,065, a further sum of Rs. 4,26,150.58 was paid to the assessee on April 30, 1984. Within six months from the date of the advance payment of Rs. 3,11,065, on August 26, 1983, the assessee invested a sum of Rs. 3,10,200 in the Seven ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.R. Kini
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-19-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR282(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred for the decision of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the . monthly allowance towards expenditure on refreshments cannot be treated as income and is not taxable ?'2. The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. His employer provided a cash allowance of Rs. 200 per mensem to him for meeting the refreshment expenses during office hours. This was brought to tax by the assessing authority. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that refreshment provided during office hours cannot be taken as a perquisite and so the cash allowance cannot be taxed. In appeal by the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal held that since this is a provision for meeting the expenditure on refreshments provided to employees during lunch hour, it cannot be treated as the income of the assesses and so is not taxable. It is thereafter at the instance of the Revenue tha...
Tag this Judgment!C. Chellappan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-19-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ170
K. Sreedharan, J.1.When C.M.P. No. 15204 of 1990 came up for orders I heard learned counsel appearing on either side in detail. I am disposing of the original petition.2. Petitioner is the father of deceased C. Sudhakaran who was working in Kuwait. Sudhakaran died in a motor accident in Kuwait on 22.10.1988. Legal proceedings for claiming compensation on the death of Sudhakaran were conducted by the Indian Embassy in Kuwait at the request of the petitioner and on the basis of the power of attorney executed by him in favour of the Indian Embassy. Indian Embassy realised a sum of 13,000 Kuwait Dinars towards compensation. After deducting the lawyer's fee of 1,330 Kuwait Dinars the balance was remitted in favour of 3rd respondent, the District Collector, Thiruvanantbapuram, by draft No. 151310224 dated 17.2.1990 drawn on the State Bank of Travancore, M.G. Road Branch, Thiruvananthapuram. Third respondent informed the petitioner that he should produce succession certificate from court for ...
Tag this Judgment!Mythili Nalini Vs. Kowmari and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ker266
P.K. Shamsuddin, J. 1. Defendants 2 and 3 in O.S. No. 87 of 1977 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Alleppey, are the appellants in A.S. No. 321 of 1982 and the 1st plaintiff in the same suit is the appellant in A.S. No. 357 of 1982. Suit is for partition. 2. Plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 are children of Kunju Kunju who died in 1976. Mythili is the wife of Kunju Kunju and she died in 1975. Plaint A schedule property originally belonged to Mythili. Her right devolved on her children and each of them was entitled to 1/5 share. Buildings in A schedule are B schedule items 1 and 2. Item No. 1 is the residential building and item 2 is a workshop. These buildings were constructed by Kunju Kunju. Plaint C schedule building belonged to 4th defendant. Kunju Kunju was a tenant under the former owner of the building and he was conducting business in harmonium for the last forty years. The business accessories are C schedule item No. 2 and kept in the workshop. In 1975 Kunju Kunju e...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »