Kerala Court June 1990 Judgments
Kalpaka Bazar and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-26-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR617(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The first petitioner is a firm carrying on retail-cum wholesale business in textile goods. The second petitioner isa partner of the firm, Messrs. Kalpaka Enterprises, whereas the third petitioner is a partner of another firm, Messrs. Kalpaka Departmental Stores. The firms, Messrs. Kalpaka Bazar, Messrs. Kalpaka Enterprises and Messrs. Kalpaka Departmental Stores, are situated in the same building bearing Calicut Corporation door No. VII/974.2. From the facts stated in paragraph 5 of the original petition, it is clear that Messrs. Kalpaka Enterprises and Messrs. Kaipaka Departmental Stores are sister concerns of the first petitioner-firm. Three other sister concerns are known as Messrs. Kalpaka Tourist Home, Messrs. Unnerikutty and Messrs. Kalpaka Oil Industries. On the showing of the petitioners themselves, the administrative office of all these business concerns is accommodated in the building bearing door No. VI/948, Mootolikandy Road.3. The premises of ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Poyilakkada Fisheries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1990
Reported in: (1991)92CTR(Ker)4; [1992]197ITR85(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. At the instance of 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 Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who held that purchase tax of Rs. 2,86,436 was allowable as a deduction in the assessment? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who held that the entire business of the assessee was eligible for the allowance under Section 80J ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who held that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance on the diesel generator and transformer?' 2. The respondent/assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Sasidharan Vs. Reserve Bank of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1990
Reported in: (1992)ILLJ349Ker
Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. Petitioners challenge the proceedings Ext.P3 by which they were reverted from the posts of Statistical Assistants to their substantive post of Clerk, Grade I. They had been appointed as Statistical Assistants on a purely temporary ad hoc basis, in connection with the All India Debt and Investment Survey 1981- 82 organised at the instance of the first respondent, Reserve Bank of India. The basis on which selection to the post was made is set forth in Ext.R1(b) communication dated 24th August, 1981, which shows that the survey work, for which purpose the petitioners were selected, was expected to continue for 10-12 months, that all the appointments were purely on temporary and ad hoc basis and that those appointed will be reverted to their original status immediately on completion of the survey work. The relevant portions of Ext. R1(b) read:'2. The field work of the survey will commence in January, 1982 and the Regional Cells will have to he set up by about the fir...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. K. Radhakrishnan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1990
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas437(Ker)
S. Padmanabhan, J. 1. Fishing boat Chitralekha belonging to the plaintiff was insured with the appellant-first defendant under a marine insurance policy valid from January 12, 1978, to January 11, 1979. The policy included a special condition by way of warranty ( monsoon cover) prohibiting fishing operations during the monsoon season from June 1, 1978, to August 15, 1978, outside the limits of Neendakara port. While engaged in fishing operations by about 6.00 a.m. on March 9, 1978, due to engine failure and weather conditions, the boat was washed off and lost in the sea. The crew was saved by fishermen. These are admitted facts.2. In the suit claiming over Rs. 93,000 under the policy, the main defence (the only one which was pressed into service before me other than regarding quantum) was violation of the special condition which exonerated and discharged the insurer. On the evidence, the trial court found that the boat did not go beyond the port limits and hence it did not violate the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chackola Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR532(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following four questions of law for the decision of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in confirming the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 1,79,286 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in directing that a payment will be an admissible deduction in the assessment year 1981-82 in an order relating to the assessment year 1980-81 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the limit under the proviso to Clause (ii) of Section 36(1) of the Act does not apply to the deduction in respect of customary bonus paid to the employees ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in finding that such customary bonus does not fall under the purview of the Bo...
Tag this Judgment!Shertallai Taluk Co-op. Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. Vs. Deputy Labour Comm ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1990
Reported in: (1992)ILLJ560Ker
Malimath, C.J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition is Shertallai Taluk Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd., a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The third respondent Smt. C.A. Vijayam was its paid Secretary. On the ground that she has committed certain misconduct pending disciplinary proceedings, she was kept under suspension on January 17, 1979. The said decision did not make any provision for grant of any subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. The third respondent made an application under Section 4 of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Subsistence Allowance Act') for grant of subsistence allowance to her in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. That application was opposed by the petitioner on various grounds, inter alia, contending that the third respondent is not an employee as defined in Section 2(a) of the Subsistence Allowance Act, she having been emp...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Fashion Fabrics
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1990
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ801Ker
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation isthe appellant. The respondent is an establishment covered under the provisions of theEmployees' State Insurance Scheme and StateInsuranceAct, shortly called 'theAct.' 2. Regional Director of the Corporation conducted a test inspection on 1 3.12.1980. Thetest inspection reveals that certain amounts paidas wages by the applicant had escaped frompayment of contribution. A demand was made for payment of the same by the appellant herein.The respondent denied the liability and challenged the demand under Insurance Case No. 183of 1982 before the Employees' InsuranceCourt, Alleppey.3. The Court, after considering the various circumstances and after examining the records produced before it, found omission in the matter of contribution and directed payment of the same. In regard to omission of payment of contribution of temporary employees, the Court observed thus :-'.....It is the look out of the ESI Corporation to see that all the...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Radhakrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC190
Padmanabhan, J.1. Fishing boat 'Chitralckha' belonging to the plaintiff was insured with the appellant-first defendant under a marine insurance policy valid from 12-1-1978 to 11-1-1979. The policy included a special condition by way of warranty (monsoon cover) prohibiting fishing operations during monsoon season from 1-6-1978 to 15-8-1978 outside the limits of Neendakara Port While engaged in fishing operations by about 6.00 a.m. on 9-3-1978, due to engine failure and weather conditions, the boat was washed off and lost in the sea. The crew was saved by fishermen. These are admitted facts.2. In the suit claiming over Rs. 93, 000/- under the policy, the main defence (the only one which was pressed into service before me other than regarding quantum) was violation of the special condition which exonerated and discharged the insurer. On the evidence, trial court found that the boat did not go beyond the Port limits and hence it did not violate the special condition. The suit was decreed. ...
Tag this Judgment!Nambarukandi Marakkar Vs. Nallithodi Thavalaparambil Appu and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ker1
P.K. Shamsuddin, J.1. 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 9 of 1982 on the file of the Sub Court, Kozhikode is the appellant. The suit was for specific performance of an agreement of sale.2. The plaint schedule property is a shop building. As per an agreement Ext. A1 dated 27-10-1981, between the plaintiff and 1st defendant, 1st defendant agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 24,000/-. A sum of Rs. 7,000/- was paid as advance on the date of agreement. It was also agreed that the sale deed would be executed and registered within six months. Plaintiff was already in possession of the shop room in the ground floor as a lessee. After the agreement, the 1st defendant made negotiations with the 2nd defendant for sale of the plaint schedule property. When the plaintiff came to know about this, he filed O.S. No. 601 of 1981 before the Munsiffs Court, Kozhikode-II for an injunction, restraining the 1st defendant from selling the property to any other person. A temporary ...
Tag this Judgment!Annamma Chacko and anr. Vs. Tiruvalla Municipality and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ker18
ORDERK.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The lands in dispute are admittedly included in the detailed town planning scheme for the development of the central area of the Thiruvalla Municipal town. That this scheme was approved by the Municipal Council only after considering the objections and suggestions made by the persons who would be affected by the scheme is beyond dispute. The Municipal Council thereafter submitted the scheme to the Government for sanction. The said approved scheme was published in newspapers, enabling the public to raise objections or to make suggestions to the Government. The Government after considering the objections filed by affected persons, ultimately sanctioned a modified scheme and the same was published in the Gazette in February 1987 as is seen from G.O. Ms. 42/87/LAD dt. 11-2-87. A reference in this connection to the following averments in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 5 is advantageous.'......The Municipal Council, Thiruvalla vid...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »