Kerala Court July 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.
S. Sivaramakrishna Iyer Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR358(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee to wealth-tax, 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 is right in law in confirming the valuation of the shares held by the assessee in Peninsular Plantations Ltd., for the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that by order dated December 31, 1975, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had directed the adoption of the purchase price of the assessee as the market value ?' 2. The respondent is the Revenue. The matter arises in connection with wealth-tax proceedings. We are concerned with the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60. The respective valuation dates are March 31, 1957, March 31, 1958, and March 31, 1959. The net wealth of the assessee included a block of...
Premier Cable Company Ltd. Vs. Govt. of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-1990
Reported in: 1991LC532(Kerala); 1991(51)ELT242(Ker); [1992]193ITR719(Ker)
K. Sukhumaran, J.1. A question touching the law of limitation arises for decision in this appeal. In a sense, it has general application. Though many principles are settled in that area, nice distinctions were sought to be made out on behalf of the appellant. Driven to the wall, the appellant had necessarily to take an extreme position necessity is the mother of invention.2. The plaintiff lost its suit for a declaration that the levy of central excise was without the authority of law. The levy was made by an order dated 4-3-1975 and despatched to the plaintiff on 22-3-1975. In essence, the controversies centred round the inclusion of the cost of paper covering in the rectangular aluminium strips. The assessing authority in the order Extn. 81 took the view that duty was leviable only under Item 27(b). According to the appellant, duty was imposable only under Item No. 68 relating to rectangular aluminium conductors.3. The levy was complained against in an appeal, filed belatedly on 10-1-...
The Board of Trustees of the CochIn Port Trust Vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Ker1; 1991(52)ELT3(Ker)
P.K. Shamsuddin, J.1. Plaintiff in O. S. No. 268 of 1982 on the file of the Court of Additional Sub-Judge, Cochin, is the appellant. Suit was for recovery of money.2. Plaintiff had called for quotations for the purchase of tractors and among the various parties the defendant submitted its quotation for the supply of tractor as specified in the tender notice. After communication between the parties, a purchase order accepting the quotation of the defendant was issued subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Ext. A 1 dated 6-1-1979 is the purchase order issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. Defendant supplied the tractors and payment was effected on 13-11-1979 to the defendant towards the value as per the bill. In the bill issued by the defendant, excise duty at 12/2% and 5% special excise duty on basic excise duty were added. Plaintiff averred that on enquiry it was disclosed that the defendant had actually paid the excise duty on a concessional rate and that the actua...
State Vs. Moidu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-1990
Reported in: 1991(51)ELT34(Ker)
B.M. Thulasidas, J.1. This reference under Section 395(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tellicherry in respect of an order of committal passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class, Cannanore.2. The above case arose on a complaint filed by the Superintendent of Special Customs Preventive Unit, Cannanore against one A. Moidu of Azhiyoor under Section 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on the allegation that he was found in unauthorised possession of 7.600 kgs., of opium for sale on 26-1-1989 at 12.30 hrs. The accused was apprehended while travelling in bus KRZ 3804 from Bombay to Tirur.3. I heard Shri T.V. Prabhakaran as amicus curiae and Shri K. Prabhakaran, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel as also the Additional Public Prosecutor.4. The Sessions Judge has stated, that the officers empowered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act to investigate into offences and prosecut...
State Superintendent, Special Customs Preventive Unit Vs. Moidu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ800
ORDERB.M. Thulasidas, J. 1. This reference Under Section 395(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tellicherry in respect of an order of committal passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class, Cannanore.2. The above case arose on a complaint filed by the Superintendent of Special Customs Preventive Unit, Cannanore against one A. Moidu of Azhiyoor Under Section 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on the allegation that he was found in unauthorised possession of 7.600 Kgs., of opium for sale on 26-1-1989 at 12-30 hrs. The accused was apprehended while travelling in bus KRZ 3804 from Bombay to Tirur.3. I heard Shri T. V. Prabhakaran, as amicus curiae and Shri K. Prabhakaran, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel as also the Additional Public Prosecutor.4. The Sessions Judge has stated, that the officers empowered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act to investigate into offences and ...
Swapna Vs. Thankavelu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-23-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC438
Krishnamoorthy, J.1. Appeal is by the plaintiff who is the wife of the defendant. The suit was for return of the plaint A schedule ornaments and B schedule utensils or in the alternative to recover the value thereof from the defendant. The plaintiff was the wife of the defendant and they have been divorced. According to the plaintiff while they were residing together, on 25-2-1979 when she received information that her brother was seriously ill in the hospital at Coimbatore, she had to go there and before going to see her brother she had entrusted the ornaments to the custody of her husband on that day. Consequent to the illness brother died and after her return the relationship between the parties became strained and later they were divorced. The plaintiff filed the suit for return of the ornaments and other utensils or in the alternative for the price.2. Defendant raised various contentions and contended that she had not entrusted any ornaments or utensils with him and that her broth...
Valiyakathodi Mohammed Koya Vs. Ayyappankadu Ramamoorthi Mohan and ors ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ140; AIR1991Ker47
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. Appellant is a body aged 12 years. He met with an accident. It was on 24-2-1984 at about 9.30 a.m. The unfortunate event happened under these circumstances. Appellant was walking along with the side of a road. A bus which was stationery was in the process of alighting passengers. A moving bus behind the static bus was trying to go forward. Meanwhile, a car driven by the 1st respondent herein wanted to overtake both the buses. This was done with utmost carelessness and with high speed. In this process, the car hit the appellant and he sustained injuries.2. Respondents 1 and 2 contested the matter by filing a written statement. The case of the respondents is that the accident was unavoidable and it was inevitable. This they said on the basis that the boy -- the appellant wanted to cut across the road from the front side of the first bus and he did it suddenly and in that process, the boy collided with the left mud guard portion of the car. The driver of the car st...
The Reserve Bank of India, Trivandrum Vs. Raj Engineering Contractors
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ker326
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. This appeal arises from O. P. (Arbitration) No. 150/82 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Trivandrum between the appellant and the respondent in regard to the contract for the construction of Class III Staff Quarters and ancilliary structures at Silver Oak Plot, Trivandrum.2. Certain disputes and differences arose and those disputes were referred for arbitration and the arbitrator filed his award on 18-5-1982. Respondent wanted the court to pass a judgment and decree on the award filed by the arbitrator. Appellant filed objection in the matter and contended that the award is vitiated under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and prayed that the award may be set aside or it has to be remitted for fresh consideration. The court below considered the question as to whether there is any ground under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award. The court below found that there is no ground to set aside the award a...
Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. Vs. P.J. John and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ88
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation is the appellant. Appeal is against the award in O.P. (MV) No. 540 of 1987. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and circumstances revealed in the case, awarded an amount of Rs. 2,80,950/- together with interest at 12 per cent per annum from 9.7.1987 till the date of realisation and proportionate costs. This amount was directed to be paid by the appellant herein, the second respondent in O.P. (MV) No. 540 of 1987.2. Two questions arise for consideration in this appeal. Appellant submitted that the award is not justifiable for the simple reason that the Tribunal's finding that the driver of the appellant's vehicle was negligent is incorrect. The second contention is that the Tribunal has grievously erred in fixing the quantum of damages. It is submitted that it is not only arbitrary but also unreasonable. We have to consider the above two questions on the facts and circumstances of the case. T...
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. John
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC277
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation is the appellant. Appeal is against the award in O.P. (MV) No. 540 of 1987. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and circumstances revealed in the case, awarded an amount of Rs. 2, 80, 950 together with interest at 12% per annum from 9-7-1987 till the date of realisation and proportionate costs. This amount was directed to be paid by the appellant herein, the second respondent in O.P. (M V) No. 540 of 1987.2. Two questions arise for consideration in this appeal. Appellant submitted that the award is not justifiable for the simple reason that the Tribunal's finding that the driver of the appellant's vehicle was negligent, is incorrect The second contention is that the Tribunal has grievously erred in fixing the quantum of damages. It is submitted that it is not only arbitrary but also unreasonable. We have to consider the above two questions on the facts and circumstances of the case. These ar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »