Kerala Court March 1990 Judgments
Yoosuf Sagar Abdulla and Sons (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-1990
Reported in: (1990)86CTR(Ker)1; [1990]185ITR371(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. At the instance of an assessee, a private limited company, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal') has referred the following three questions of law for the decision of this court:'(1) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act was valid ? (2) Whether the amounts misappropriated by the directors of the company should not be treated as business loss in computing the income of the applicant ? (3) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee had not established that it has incurred the loss ?' 2. The references relate to six years--1968-69 to 1973-74. The respondent is the Revenue. In July, 1976, the business premises of the assessee (a private limited company) as well as the residence of some of its directors were raided by the Revenue. Certain documents and letters were seized. A statement was recorded from Mr. Damodaran Nambiar (a resi...
Tag this Judgment!B. Parameswaran Bharathan Vs. the Tahsildar, Quilon
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ker13
ORDERK.A. Nayar, J.1. This petition is to quash Ext. P2 proceedings of the Tahsildar, respondent, rectifying the original order imposing building tax on the petitioner. The petitioner constructed a multistoried building bearing numbers M.C. XVI/330 to 345 in East Village in Quilon Municipality. After the construction of the building, sometime in April 1982, he filed a return on 7-4-1986 as required under the Kerala Building Tax Act. The valuation of the building was also ascertained in the form of a building tax valuation report by the Firka Revenue inspector. Thereafter petitioner was assessed by Ext. P1 dated 31-3-1987 to pay an amount of Rs. 1,85,983.20 which he paid. A return was filed pursuant to the notice issued under Section 7(3) of the Act dated 30-12-1985. In the return in form No. II filed on 7-4-1986 the date of occupation was shown as 5th Sept. 1982 and the monthly rent of the building was shown as Rs. 24,360/-. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and the Revenue Inspecto...
Tag this Judgment!Pochappan Narayanan and ors. Vs. Maniyadan Gopalan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ker154
Malimath, C.J.1. This writ petition is filed by the tenants challenging the decision of the District Judge of Tellicherry in R.C.R.P. No. 40 of 1988 rendered under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which has come before us on a reference made by Justice Chettur Sankaran Nair on the ground that the view expressed by the learned single Judge of this Court in the case reported in 1989 (2) KLT 549 between Mohammed Kunju v. Rajamma appears to go against the tenor of the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in 1975 KLT 542 between C. V. Xavier v. Francis Lenard Pappali. The relevant facts necessary for a disposal of this case maybriefly be stated as follows.2. The first respondent is the landlord and the first petitioner and the 2nd respondent are the tenants under him, of the premises in question which is used for non-residental purposes. The landlord made an application for evictio...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Padmavathy and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC70; 1990ACJ751
K.T. Thomas, J.1. The question raised in this appeal has some moments for victims in motor accidents. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the new Act'), came into force on July i, 1989, containing Section 140 in which the amount of compensation for 'liability without fault' in accident cases has been fixed at twenty-five thousand rupees in respect of death and twelve thousand rupees in respect of permanent disablement. The question raised is this :'Whether the victim (or his legal representatives) in a motor accident which happened before the said date is entitled to compensation as provided in the new Act ?'2. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in this State have awarded compensation according to the amounts fixed in the new Act and appeals have been filed against such awards in which the aforesaid question alone has been raised. When we heard arguments in this appeal, we had the assistance of arguments addressed by some of the standing counsel engaged by insurance com...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Lt ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-27-1990
Reported in: (1990)86CTR(Ker)40; [1990]185ITR398(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue (Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin), certain questions of law which proceed on common basis have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the decision of this court herein. Income-tax References Nos. 446 to 451 of 1985 relate to the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. Income-tax References Nos. 481 and 482 relate to the assessment years 1975-76 and 1977-78 and Income-tax Reference No. 23 of 1990 relates to the assessment year 1976-77. These are connected cases. The following three questions of law have been referred for the decision of this court in Income-tax References Nos. 446 to 451 of 1985:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated under Section 201 of the Income-tax Act are unwarranted and invalid in law ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that- (i) no operations have been carri...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Meenakshy and ors. Vs. Smt. Vellakutty Alias Kamala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ker148
1. Defendants c1, 5 and 12 are the appellants. The appeal is direct against the preliminary decree and judgment passed by the Sub Court, Palghat in O.S. No. 76 of 1979. The suit was for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs 1/6 share in the plaint schedule properties with her share of future mesne profits.2. Gopalan father of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 and husband of the 1st defendant died in 1968. Plaintiff and defendants I to 5 are his legal heirs. They are governed by Hindu Mithakshara Law being members of the Ezhava community. They belonged to an undivided Hindu joint family. Items 1 to 8 are properties set apart to the share of Gopalan in a partition between himself, his two brothers Keli and legal heirs of Andi Muthuin 1955 and items 1 to 29 were set apart to Gopalan in another partition between himself and Keli and the legal heirs of Andimuthu. Item No. 30 was purchased by Gopalan in 1963 from out of the income from items 1 to 29. After the death of Gopala...
Tag this Judgment!Adam Vs. Mammad
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-1990
Reported in: II(1991)DMC214
Pareed Pillay, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed the suit for damages alleging that the defendant relied from the agreement to give his daughter in marriage to the third plaintiff. The Sub Judge dismissed the suit.2. Defendant contended that there was only a proposal or enquiry regarding the marriage and that no agreement as such was entered into between the parties and so the plaintiffs cannot claim any amount as damages.3. The true position of a Muslim Marriage is expounded in Abdul Khadir v. Salima (8 Allahabad 149) thus:-'Marriage among Muhammadans is not a sacrament, but purely a civil contract; and though it is solemnised generally with recitation of certain verses from the Kuran, yet the Muhammadan Law does not positively prescribe any service peculiar to the occasion. That it is a civil contract is manifest from the various ways and circumstances in and under which marriages are contracted or presumed to have been contracted. And though a civil contract, it is not ...
Tag this Judgment!George and ors. Vs. the Circle Inspector of Police, Mannarghat and ors ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Ker298; (1990)IILLJ502Ker
Paripoornan, J. 1. The petitioners, three in number, in O.P. No. 957 of 1990-L, are the appellants in this writ appeal. This case belongs to the class of cases which is now known as 'Police Protection Cases'. Respondents 3 to 5 are Secretaries of three Trade Unions (I.N.T.U.C., S.T.U. and C. I. T. U.). The first respondent is the Circle Inspector of Police, Mannarghat and the second respondent is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mannarghat. The petitioners/appellants are the joint owners in possession of 11.311/2 acres of land in Survey No. 130/1A in Arakurussai amsom desom in Mannarghat Taluk. They claim to be in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the above rubber plantation from 1986 onwards. It is stated that the petitioners/appellants sold the right to cut and remove the old rubber trees from the estate to M/s. Bappu and Moidu, by agreement dated 14-1-1990. The agreement was for slaughter tapping of 2250 rubber trees. The trees have to be cut and removed on or before 14-3-1990. As p...
Tag this Judgment!Fr. Joseph Vilengetil Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR63(Ker)
K.A. Nayar, J. 1. Even though very many questions have been raised in the original petition, the short question argued before me at the time of hearing of the case is whether the benefit of Section 54E of the Income-tax Act is available to the petitioner in the circumstances of this case 4.12 acres of land situate in Kadama Village at Kanayanoor Taluk belonging to the petitioner were acquired under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort, Cochin, for the construction of the new Dairy Plant at Tripunithura. Advance possession was taken onNovember 19, 1982, under Section 19 of the Act. The transfer took place under that section. The compensation payable for the acquisition was paid to the petitioner in two instalments. An advance payment of Rs. 3,11,065 was made on March 11, 1983 and, out of this, an amount of Rs. 3,10,300 was invested by the petitioner on August 20, 1983, in the National Rural Development Bonds (Second Issue). The award in respect of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammed Haneefa Rowther Vs. Sara Umma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-20-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ker94
P.K. Shamsuddin, J.1. This appeal and the cross appeal are directed against the final decree and judgment in I.A. No. 3548/1976 in O.S. No. 74 of 1974 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Palghat. A preliminary decree was passed on 20-12-1975 directing the plaint A schedule Items 1 to 15 and 17, C schedule item 6 and the movables shown in Ext. C1(a) and Ext. C1(b) to be divided into 72 equal shares, and allotment of 7 such shares to the plaintff, 14 shares to the 1st defendant and the remaining shares to defendants 2 to 7 jointly. There was also a direction against the 1st defendant to account for the value of 6 cart loads of paddy to the other sharers. The 7th defendant was also directed to pay Rs. 496/ - to the 1st defendant being the share in the fixed deposit amount withdrawn by her and also the respective shares due to the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6. There was also a direction against the 1st defendant to pay mesne profits to the plaintiff and defendants 2 to7 f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »