Kerala Court November 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.
Sudarsan Chits (India) Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Smt. Uma Sharma and o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-1990
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas381(Ker)
K. John Mathew, J. 1. This is a claim for realising Rs. 3,273 made up of the principal amount of Rs. 1,595,74 and, interest thereon. The official liquidator, who is the provisional liquidator of Sudarsan Chits (India) Ltd., is the claimant. The claim is for the respondents' liability in the kuri prized money drawn by the first respondent in kuri No. JG7/16. Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are impleaded as sureties for the debt.2. On behalf of the first respondent a counter-statement was filed raising the contention that the claim is barred by limitation. It was also prayed that in case the plea of limitation cannot be accepted, this court may waive the interest and allow the respondent to pay the principal amount in three bimonthly instalments.3. Admittedly the last instalment was paid by the respondent on January 29, 1980. Winding-up petition of the claimant company was filed on January. 2, 1981, and winding-up order was passed on October 13, 1981. Subsequently, the order of winding-up wa...
Velimalai Rubber Co. Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR385(Ker)
D.J. Jagannadha Raju, J.1. This is an original petition filed by an assessee under the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), to quash exhibit P-4 order dated March 9, 1988, passed under Section 17A(3) and to quash the order passed in revision exhibit P-6 confirming exhibit P-4 order.2. The short facts relevant for decision of this original petition are as follows : The petitioner is a registered company and is an assessee under the Act. For the assessment year 1987-88, it had to file a return on or before June 1, 1987, as per Section 17(1) of the Act. On May 28, 1987, it had applied under Section 65 for extension of time for filing the return up to September 15, 1987. No communication was received for exhibit P-1 application filed under Section 65 and the assessee was under the impression that its request was granted. Then, on August 22, 1987, a return was filed paying the admitted tax of Rs. 7,11,669 on the basis of self-assessment. The petitioner wa...
N. Rajamoni Amma and K. Janardhanan Pillai Vs. Deputy Commissioner of ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-1990
Reported in: [1991]72CompCas728(Ker); (1991)91CTR(Ker)83; [1991]192ITR90(Ker)
K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J. 1. petitioner in Original Petition No. 7470 of 1989 and the petitioner in Original Petition No. 7471 of 1989 are respectively, the appellants in these writ appeals. Original Petition No. 7470 of 1989 was treated as the main case. The said judgment was followed in Original Petition No. 7471 of 1989. Identical points arise for consideration in both the cases. The petitioners in the original petitions were directors of one Rajmohan Cashews (P.) Ltd., Quilon. There are four directors in the company. They are : (1) Smt. N. Rajamoni Amma (petitioner in Original Petition No. 7470 of 1989),(2) Sri K. Janardhanan Pillai (petitioner in Original Petition No. 7471 of 1989),(3) Sri R. GopiRathan Nair, and (4) Smt. R. Geetha Vasanth {wife of R. Gopinathan Nair). The petitioner in Original Petition No. 7470 of 1989 was a director in the said Rajmohan Cashews (P.) Ltd. from the very inception, that is from July 20, 1970, to February 14, 1981. Mr. K. Janardhanan Pillai (peti...
Kar Mobiles Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-02-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR324(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner in Original Petition No. 4994 of 1990, a public limited company, is the appellant in this writ appeal. In the original petition, the prayer was to quash exhibit P-9 order passed in revision by the second respondent-Commissioner of Income-tax, dated November 17, 1988. The appellant is an assessee to income-tax. For the assessment year 1971-72, the appellant filed the return of income on October 15, 1971. The assessment was originally made on March 27, 1974. Subsequently, there were appeals and the matter was finally decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on January 31, 1986. The Income-tax Officer gave effect to the order of the Appellate Tribunal on April 16, 1986. The assessee claimed interest for the period from April 1, 1971, to the date of issue of the refund order of the Income-tax Officer, on the entire advance tax paid amounting to Rs. 13,46,950 and the tax deducted at source, viz., Rs. 1,680 and the amounts paid on April 27, 1974 and ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Unnikrishna Menon
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-02-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC487
Pardeep Pillay, J.1. Revision petitioner, the Union of India, represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras challenges the judgment in A.S. 21 of 1986 and A.S. 1 of 1987 of the 1st Additional Sub Judge, Trichur. The Sub Judge dismissed the appeals upholding the compensation granted by the trial Court in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs.The case of the plaintiffs is that as the railway authorities failed to provide them berths and seats despite reservations in their favour considerable hardship and distress resulted and on account of it they suffered physically and mentally during the journey from New Delhi to Trichur in an overcrowded compartment. Plaintiffs reserved their seats and berths in 126.KK. Express from New Delhi Railway Station. The train left New Delhi Railway Station on 18-10-1981 and reached Trichur on 20-10-1981 and plaintiffs travelled without the assured berths and seats.2. One of the contentions of the defendant is that the SubJudge, Trichur had no ...
Zacharias Vs. Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC530
Shamsuddin, J.1. Plaintiffs in OS No 402 of 1980 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kottayam, are the appellants. The suit is for the share of the 2nd plaintiff out of the properties of the defendants or for recovery of Rs. 10,000/- with interest.2. 1st plaintiff is the husband and the 2nd plaintiff is the wife. 1st defendant is the father and the 2nd defendant is the mother of the 2nd plaintiff. It is the plaintiff's case that at the time of the marriage of the 2nd plaintiff, defendants promised to pay Rs. 20,000/- in satisfaction of her claim for share and out of the said amount Rs. 10,000/- was paid by way of ornaments and the remaining Rs. 10,000/- was due from the defendants. Suit is for recovery of the said amount.3. In the written statement filed by the defendants, they contended that the entire sthreedhanam was paid at the time of marriage of 2nd plaintiff and that no amount was due to the 2nd plaintiff by way of sthreedhanam.4. On a consideration of the evidence in the case, the co...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Latha Jayaraj and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC581; 1991ACJ298
K. Balanarayna Marar, J.1. The insurer is the appellant. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the legal representatives of one Jayaraj who died in a motor accident which happened on 8.10.1987. He was riding a scooter from Angamaly to Alwaye. When he reached Thottakkattukara the lorry KLN 5458 owned by 6th respondent and driven by 5th respondent dashed against the scooter as a result of which Jayaraj sustained serious injuries and subsequently succumbed to the injuries or. the same day. His wife, daughter and parents moved Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam claiming an amount of Rs. 2,61,750/- as compensation. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 resisted that application. Written statement was also filed by appellant disclaiming liability and contending that its liability is limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Tribunal after evidence and hearing both parties awarded an amount of Rs. 1,46,250/-. Aggrieved by that award the insurer has come up in appeal.2. Heard counsel for appellant.3. The main grievance o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›