Kerala Court November 1990 Judgments
Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assess ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-1990
Reported in: [1993]88STC9(Ker)
K. Sukumaran, J. 1. Modern Bakeries (India) Limited made a daring debut in food industry. It gave to the consumer in neat and attractive packets its branded bread rich in nutrients and vitamins. Even the slicing had been done enabling an easy gulping or a quick enough toasting. With the development of the market for its products, it took to other items as well. Variety has its attractions whether it be in food, fabric or fashion. Bun was yet another product. It was placed on a par with the bread to all intents and purposes. It was so treated even by the Government initially. Later came a revision of its view by the Government. Bun is not bread but only a bakery product--was the new view taken by the Government. That view was expressed under an enabling power which the Government got under the amended Act of 1978--Section 59A. The change of view had serious impact on the fiscal position of the petitioner. It agitated its grievances along the hierarchy of statutory authorities. Even the ...
Tag this Judgment!Valsa Vs. Moore
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC576
Sreedharan, J.1. This is a petition under Sections 18 and. 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. Petitioner is the wife. She prays for a declaration that the marriage between her and respondent is null and void.2. The material averments made by the petitioner which are germane for disposal, are as follows : Petitioner then a spinster of 22 years of age was married by respondent, a widower aged 42, on 12-6-1978 at the C.S.I. Immanuel Church, Ernakulam. From the date of their marriage till 17-12-1980 she lived with respondent as his wife. At the time of celebration of the marriage respondent was by reason of his impotency legally incompetent to enter into the contract of marriage. The marriage was fraudulently brought about without disclosing the fact that respondent was impotent. He is a well to do lawyer practising at Parappanangadi. He had three grown up children; two daughters and a son. He having lost his wife, mother of the children, was eager to marry again. Petitioner's father is a...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindra S. More and anr. Vs. Sudarsan Chits (India) Ltd. (In Liquidat ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-1990
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas393(Ker)
Paripoornan, J.1. The respondents in C. C. No. 1009 of 1988-C in C. P. Nos. 8, 9 and 49 of 1981 are the appellants in this appeal. The claimant is the respondent in this appeal. C. C. No. 1009 of 1988 was filed by the respondent-company against the appellants on the basis of a demand promissory note executed by the appellants on December 4, 1975. The claim filed in this court is dated October 28, 1987. The claim was based on the original consideration and balance of account. The appellants filed a written statement in the claim dated January 22, 1989. Therein, the plea was that they were rendering professional services to the respondent-company, as narrated in the written statement, and which will be substantiated by a reference to the records, which are in the possession of the claimant. It was stated that the understanding between the parties was that no amount was to be repaid to the claimant-company. It was stated that the promissory note was executed only for company records. The ...
Tag this Judgment!N.S. Vijayaraghavan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-1990
Reported in: [1993]202ITR24(Ker)
V.S. Malimath, C.J. 1. The appellant demanded return of sale deed No. 1250 of 1967, dated April 5, 1967, in respect of Sy. No. 946 of Changazhassery village measuring 17 cents of land on the ground that it was only deposited as security in respect of the amounts due to the Income-tax Department and that there is no need for retention of the said security, there being no subsisting dues of the appellant. The request was turned down on the ground that the deposit of title deeds was made as a security towards the dues of the appellant's father, Sri B.N. Sreedharan Unni. As Sreedharan Unni still continues in arrears to the Department, the question of returning the document does not arise is the stand taken by the Department. The learned single judge has accepted the case of the Department and dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.2. As we were not satisfied with the materials placed before the court, we gave an opportunity to counsel for the Income-tax Department to produce materi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nirmal Liquors
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-1990
Reported in: (1991)92CTR(Ker)213; [1991]190ITR636(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue and as directed by this court in Original Petition No. 7453 of 1985, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal') has referred the following two questions of law for the decision of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the finding that 'reliance cannot be placed on the assessee's book results', the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Hon'ble Tribunal are justified in interfering with the addition made by the Income-tax Officer ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal is right in holding 'that it would be reasonable to determine the income of the assessee at Rs. 1,41,100 for this year', and is not the above finding unreasonable, unsupported by relevant materials and independent evidence and also unjustified ?' 2. The respondent is a registered firm, We...
Tag this Judgment!K. Joseph Jacob Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR464(Ker)
ORDER--Is not the date of making the order, but when it is communicatedHELD:An order of assessment comes into force only when it is communicated. This is not only by reason of s. 30, but also for a more fundamental reason, namely, that a party against whom an order is made must be put on notice of that order. The date of making or signing the order is not dterminative of its effect. At that stage, the order is only unilateral in s sense and not irrevocable, it becomes bilateral or binding only on communication. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAXAssessment--LIMITATION--Issue of demand notice beyond five years from end of the assessment year in which income was first assessableHELD:Exhibit P-1 order of assessment came alive only with exhibit P-1(a) and that was beyond the period of five years. There is no question of the order becoming effective by reason of the bar of limitation under s. 35(2). Chettur Sankaran Nair, J. 1. When does an order of assessment breathe into life is the question for co...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Travancore Rubber and Tea Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: (1991)91CTR(Ker)117; [1991]190ITR508(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. 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 right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 3,95,229 cannot be considered to be a revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in finding that the sum of Rs. 3,95,229 is not the income of the assessee for this assessment year and directing the Income-tax Officer to modify the assessment ?'2. The respondent, a public limited plantation company, is an assessee to income-tax. We are concerned with the assessment year 1977-78. The original assessment for the year was made on August 20, 1980. It was the subject-matter of an order under Section 144B of the Income-tax Act by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, The Income-tax Officer, in the draft assess...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanathan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ221Ker
Thomas, J. 1. Government of Kerala issued a Notification on 30.7.1981 declaring the Offices of 'Registered Accountants and Auditors' in the State of Kerala to be 'Commercial Establishments' for the purposes of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act'). Petitioners in all these Original Petitions, who are practising Chartered Accountants, challenge the validity of the notification. The officials of the Labour Department, as follow up measure, directed the Chartered Accountants to get their offices registered as establishments under the Act. Some of the petitioners challenged the notification as ultra vires to Articles 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The main attack is on the ground that Government have no power to declare office of a Chartered Accountant as commercial establishment.2. If the office of a Chartered Accountant is a commercial establishment, its employer is duty bound to make an application for registration certificate in respect of that e...
Tag this Judgment!AmeeruddIn Ahammed Vs. Mehurunesa Begum
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-21-1990
Reported in: II(1992)DMC588
John Mathew, J.1. The main point to be decided is whether theCourt which appointed a guardian Under the Guardians and Wards Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has the jurisdiction to scrutinise the accounts filedby the guardian and to direct him to pay the balance amount as determined bythe Court.2. In respect of the properties of the 1st respondent in C.R.P. 1920 of1986, who is the revision petitioner in C.R.P. 2266 of 1986, (who is hereinafterreferred to as the ex-minor) the District Court, Thodupuzha appointed hermother as her guardian in a guardians and wards petition, 4.65 acres of cardamom land belonging to the minor was in the possession of one A.M.A. Sultanas the power of attorney holder of the guardian. He assumed potion andmanagement of the property from 19-10-1972 onwards. The minor attained 21years of age on 10-2-1978. She filed I.A. 155 of 1979 for a direction to handover possess of the property along with the profits collected by the power ofattorney holder. Before ...
Tag this Judgment!Thomas John Vs. P. Kochammini Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ker132
Bhat, J.1. Revision petitioner is the second respondent in RCP 5 of 1986 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, filed by the landlords for eviction of the tenant as well as the alleged sub-tenant (revision petitioner) under the provisions of Section 11 of Kerala Act, 2 of 1965. Along with the eviction petition, the landlords applied for issue of a commission and a Commissioner was appointed ex parte. The Commissioner submitted a report. It is pointed out that the revision petitioner was present when the Commissioner inspected the premises. The report was filed in 1986. Four years later, the revision petitioner filed I. A. 1313 of 1990 to . set aside the report dated 22-2-1986 and to appoint a fresh Commissioner to undertake the work with the assistance of an expert engineer. The petition was opposed by the landlords and dismissed by the Rent Controller on the ground that there was no reason to set aside the report and that the petition was highly belated and devoid of bona f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »