Kerala Court October 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.
i. Ismail Kutty Vs. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1761
ORDERK.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 7/89 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise Trivandrum Division filed complaint against the petitioner alleging that he committed violation of Section 27 of the Gold (Control) Act. The contention of the petitioner is that the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was repealed by the Gold (Control) Repeal Bill, 1990 passed by the Parliament and therefore the prosecution initiated against the petitioner under the Gold (Control) Act is not sustainable and the petitioner-accused should be discharged. It is contended that the effect of the repeal is to obliterate the statute repealed completely as if it had never been passed and it must be considered as a law which never existed. The petition is opposed by the respondents. The learned Central Government Standing Couns...
The Motor and General Finance (India) Ltd. Vs. Mary Money and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC379
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. This is a phenomenal case. Appeal is against a judgment in O.P.(MV) No. 305 of 1986 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. It is phenomenal, since the victim in the case is the owner of the vehicle itself. Not only this fact makes the case phenomenal but the legal representatives of the deceased got an award of compensation on the basis that the owner of the vehicle, under strange circumstances, met with a motor accident with his own vehicle, which has taken his life. Now, we shall briefly state the facts of the case.2. Respondents 1 to 3 in the appeal are the applicants in the application for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. The unfortunate event happened on 10.12.198S at about 11 a.m. Respondents 1 to 3 herein are the claimants, the widow and minor children of the deceased. 4th respondent is the persons who drove the vehicle, which caused the accident. 5th respondent is the Insuran...
Motor and General Finance (India) Ltd. Vs. Mary Mony and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ101
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. This is a phenomenal case. Appeal is against a judgment in O.P. (MV) No. 305 of 1986 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. It is phenomenal, since the victim in the case is the owner of the vehicle itself. Not only this fact makes the case phenomenal but the legal representatives of the deceased got an award of compensation on the basis that the owner of the vehicle, under strange circumstances, met with a motor accident with his own vehicle, which has taken his life. Now, we shall briefly state the facts of the case.2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the appeal are the applicants in the application for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. The unfortunate event happened on 10.12.1985 at about 11 a.m. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein are the claimants, the widow and minor children of the deceased. 4th respondent is the person who drove the vehicle, which caused the accident. 5th respondent is the...
Gopalakrishnan Chettiar and anr. Vs. Annamma Devassye and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-10-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ836; AIR1991Ker72
1. Defendants 4 and 5 in O.S. No. 298 of 1978 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kottayam, are the appellant. The suit is for damages.2. 5th defendant was conducting a photo studio at Changanacherry by name 'Ravi Studio'. There is an open compound belonging to the 1st defendant, behind the studio. Defendants 2 to 4 were employees in the studio. According to the plaintiff, defendants 2 to 5 with the concurrence and knowledge of the 1st defendant planted a galvanised iron wire net just behind the studio without giving any warning that the wire net was alive. One Devassia who is the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 to 6 and a head-load worker in the Changanacherry market, happened to cross the open comound on his way to the market at about 7.15 a.m. on 8-3-1977, and came in contact with the wire net. He was entrapped by the wire and died at the spot by electrocution. Devasaya was only 37 years old when he died and he was having good physique and earning ...
Nelliampathy Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-10-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR227(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. At the request of an assessee to agricultural income-tax, the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Trivandrum,has, by order dated April 25, 1986, referred the following question of law for the decision of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the proceedings of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Trivandrum, under Section 34 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, by his order dated February 28, 1982, in respect of the assessment year 1969-70, after the lapse of about ten years, is barred by limitation of time and whether the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax has power under Section 34, after the lapse of about ten years, to direct the assessing authority to make a revision of assessment originally completed on April 25, 1972 ?' 2. The applicant is an assessee to agricultural income-tax. It is a public limited company. The respondent is the Revenue. We are concerned with the assessment year 1969-70, for which th...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Haji Essa Haji Abdul Sathar Sait (by Leg ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-10-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR187(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following three questions of law for the decision of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in finding that Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act is not attracted ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in finding that 'it is not possible on an interpretation of the gift deed in the present case to come to the conclusion that in the absence of a fresh agreement after the expiry of the period of two years a benefit had been reserved in favour of the donor ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in finding that exemption under Section 33(1)(o) is available in this case ?' 2. The matter arises in connection with levy of estate duty on one Hajee Abdul Latiff Hajee Essa Sait. He died on November 25, 1967. Long before his death, the dece...
Kerala Clays and Ceramic Products Ltd. Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and or ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-09-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR164(Ker)
D.J. Jagannadha Raju, J. 1. This original petition is filed by the petitioner which is a Government owned company. It was formed for acquiring the undertakings of the fourth respondent-company and running the company. The main controversy relates to income-tax due for the assessment year 1974-75 which was payable by the fourth respondent. 2. The facts leading to the present original petition are as follows. The fourth respondent-company was carrying on the business of mining and processing of china clay. It was running at a loss and it was not even able to pay wages to the workers. The Government of Kerala declared the undertaking of the fourth respondent as a relief undertaking under the Kerala Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1961 (Act 6 of 1962) (hereinafter called the 'Relief Undertakings Act'). Exhibit P-l notification and exhibit P-2 notification, respectively, were issued under Sections 3 and 4 on March 2, 1976. Subsequently, the company was entrusted to the Kerala ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Thomas Stephen and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-05-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR736(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 thedecision of this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Section 36(1)(ii) is inapplicable to the case ?'2. The respondent is a company. It is an assessee to income-tax. We are concerned with the assessment year 1978-79, for which the previous year ended on December 31, 1977. A sum of Rs. 2,90,180 was paid by way of bonus to the workers during the previous year relevant to this assessment year. According to the Income-tax Officer, the said amount related to the prior years 1976-77 and 1977-78 and so was not allowable as a deduction. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the liability to pay bonus for the earlier years 1975 and 1976 arose only as a result of the agreement dated August 23, 1977, and the amount has been correctly debited to the accounts of this year. He deleted the disallowance. In f...
M.V. Paulose Vs. City Hospital (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-04-1990
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas362(Ker)
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. This appeal arises from winding up proceedings, C. P. No. 47 of 1989. A learned single judge of this court conditionally dismissed the petition. The petitioner is aggrieved. He files the appeals. The facts are these :2. The appellant submitted that the respondent-company owed a sum of Rs. 1,74,709.12 to the appellant. The appellant sent a letter marked in the proceedings as annexure B to the company requesting to pass a resolution authorising the cashier or accountant to allow the petitioner to draw Rs, 1,000 daily from the cash counter towards the above said dues. It is stated that the board of directors passed a resolution resolving to pay Rs. 5,000 to the petitioner every month, by resolution dated May 8, 1989. But, the company defaulted in payment. Therefore, a notice was sent to the respondent-company, exhibited as annexure C in the proceedings calling upon the respondent-company to pay the said amount to the appellant. The board of directors of the respond...
Goa Sea Foods Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-03-1990
Reported in: (1991)98CTR(Ker)1; [1991]189ITR431(Ker)
K. S. Paripoornan, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law arising out of its common appellate order dated March 6, 1986, and rendered in I. T. A. No. 758(Coch) of 1983 and I. T. A. No. 778(Coch) of 1983, for the assessment year 1978-79. In I. T. A. No. 758(Coch) of 1983 the assessee was the applicant. In I. T. A. No. 778(Coch) of 1983, the Revenue was the applicant. The following questions of law have been referred at the instance of the assessee and at the instance of the Revenue for the decision of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal:I. T. R. No. 83 of 2987 : 'Questions referred at the instance of the assessee : (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessment is not time-barred ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the word 'forward' used in Section 144B(2) is equivalent to the word 'recei...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »