Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1991(33)LC547(Kerala)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. These are connected appeals. The revenue is the appellant in all of them. A common question of law regarding the scope and impact of Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 arises for consideration. The judgments which are appealed against are the one rendered in O.P. Nos. 1573 of 1989, 6716 of 1989, 6997 of 1989, 6210 of 1989 and 7306 of 1989. The same Judge disposed of all the Original Petitions. The main judgment was delivered in O.P. No. 1573 of 1989. The decision rendered therein was followed in the other cases. The judgment in O.P. No. 1573 of 1989 is reported as Asoka Rubber Products v. Collector of Central Excise 1989 (2) K.L.T. 369 : 1989 (25) ECR 356 Kerala. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments, the revenue has come up in appeals.2. For the purpose of this batch of appeals, it will be sufficient to state the facts in the main case, O.P. No. 1573 of 1989. The main aspects projected for consideration in all the cases are the same. The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1991Ker209; [1992]75CompCas619(Ker)
Sukumaran, J. 1. Vijaya Bank Ltd., had its branch and activities in Cochin, among other places. Consequent on the enactment of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance 1980, later replaced by Act 40 of 1980, the assets and rights became vested in the Vijaya Bank, the plaintiff in the case. 2. Messrs. Joshi Trading Company was one of the constitutents of the Bank. That firm had extensive dealings in rubber. It can be conveniently referred to as the firm. The firm had availed of various facilities from the Bank, including the pledging of goods and borrowing on the security of the goods pledged. 3. The 1st defendant had a variety ofbusiness activities. The partners of the firm were partners of D.B. Khona & Sons, well entrenched in business as shipping and clearing agents. In the light of the business transactions the Bank had with the firm, it entered into an arrangement with the 1st defendant for the storage of the goods, evidenced by Ext. A3 letter date...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1990LC598(Kerala); 1991(52)ELT357(Ker)
Thomas, J.1. The Collector of Customs demands payment of interest on the duty amount for certain goods which have been warehoused, even though duty for those goods was subsequently withdrawn by the Government. The Collector does not allow the petitioner to remove the goods from the warehouse until payment of interest on the duty amount which was payable earlier. The importer, who is called upon to pay the interest, has filed this Original Petition in challenge of the aforesaid demand made by the Collector of Customs.2. Petitioner-Company is engaged in manufacture of a product which is one of the constituents for making textile goods. 'Wood pulp' is necessary for manufacture of that product. So, the petitioner imported wood pulp America from abroad. As the imported goods arrived at Cochin Port, petitioner for his own reasons did not pay the duty. However, the Customs officials had to keep the goods in the warehouse. Petitioner executed bonds under S. 59 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for sho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1991CriLJ262
ORDERK.A. Nayar, J.1. Of the two prayers made in the Original Petition the first is to quash Exts. P2 and P3 order of the 1st respondent. The first of these orders was passed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 17-1-1990 directing the petitioner to abstain from house No. ICE-3-12 of Kiltan Island belonging to Shri K. P. Abdulla, the 4th respondent and Ext. P3 order dated 18-1-1990 is also passed by him directing the Station House Officer to implement Ext. P2 order. Both these orders have been withdrawn by the 1st respondent by communication dated 22-1-1990. Exts. P2 and P3 orders admittedly are not in existence now. Hence there is no force in the prayer for quashing Exts. P2 and P3 as the same have already been withdrawn. The second prayer is for a writ of mandamus or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to afford necessary protection to the petitioner and her three children for residing in the house of Kiltan Island. Petitioner says that she and her children have ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1992)ILLJ353Ker
Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The petitioner was working as a Finger Print Expert in the Police Department at Kottayam when he was arrested and remanded to the Sub Jail, Pathanamthitta on August 18, 1980 as an accused in Crime No. 94/80 of the Aranmula Police Station. The incident in respect of which he was arrested and detained took place on August 15, 1980, when, it is stated, eleven persons, including the petitioner, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in his house and abused one Abdulla, Secretary of the Kalbor Jama Ath, and pelted stones at his house on account of some differences of opinion arising in the Jama Ath. This was met with counter action by the other faction, namely the sympathisers of Abdulla. A clash resulted in the course of which one person died, A crime case was registered wherein the petitioner figured as the eleventh accused. He was arrested on August 18, 1980 and remanded to the Sub Jail by the Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class, Pathanamthitta on August 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1991]189ITR534(Ker)
K. P. RADHAKRISHNA MENON J. - The facts :The petitioner is one of the legal representatives of late A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar who was an assessee on the files of the third respondent, the Income-tax Officer. He expired on February 19, 1966, when the proceedings for assessment for the years 1119, 1120 and 1122 to 1125. (Malayalam Era) under the Travancore Income-tax Act, 1950-51 to 1956-57 under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, were pending. Deceased Thangal Kunju Musaliar, while alive, had approached the Central Government for settlement of his tax liabilities on mutual agreement. The liabilities for the assessment years 1119 and 1120 (Malayalam Era) were settled as per proceedings of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India by order No. 74(29) II/57 dated September 25,1957 and, as per that settlement, late Musaliar was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 9,15,458 including penalty. The tax amount for the assessment years 1122 (Malayalam Era) to 1956-57 was settled, as is seen from the seco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1984]189ITR534(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The facts :2. The petitioner is one of the legal representatives of rate A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar who was an assessee on the files of the third respondent, the Income-tax Officer. He expired on February 19, 1966, when the proceedings for assessment for the years 1119, 1120 and 1122 to 1125 (Malayalam Era) under the Travancore Income-tax Act, 1950-51 to 1956-57 under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, were pending. Deceased Thangal Kunju Musaliar, while alive, had approached the Central Government for settlement of his tax liabilities on mutual agreement. The liabilities for the assessment years 1119 and 1120 (Malayalam Era) were settled as per proceedings of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India by order No. 74(29)11/57 dated September 25, 1957 and, as per that settlement, late Musaliar was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 9,15,458 including penalty. The tax amount for the assessment years 1122 (Malayalam Era) to 1956,-57 was settled, as is seen from the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1991]188ITR568(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee co-operative society is not entitled to claim exemption under Section 80P(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with regard to the income from letting out a portion of the building belonging to the assessee ?' 2. The respondent is the Revenue. We are concerned with the assessment year 1978-79. The previous year ended on June 30, 1977. The assessee derived income from letting out a part of the building owned by it, the other part being occupied by the assessee for its own business purposes. The Income-tax Officer initially allowed deduction of Rs. 20,000 under Section 80P(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The matter was taken up in suo motu revision by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Income...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1991]71CompCas1(Ker)
K. John Mathew, J.1. C.P. No. 29 of 1989 is a petition under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956, filed by Vardhaman Publishers Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Vardhaman') for rectification of share register of Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Mathrubhumi'). C. P. No. 30 of 1989 is a similar petition filed by Dharmayug Investments Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Dharmayug' ). C. P. No. 42 of 1989 is a petition filed by three shareholders of Mathrubhumi (hereinafter referred to as the share transferors) who transferred their shares to Vardhaman and Dharmayug. That is also a petition under Section 155 of the Companies Act, for rectification of share register of Mathrubhumi. C. P. No. 46 of 1989 is another company petition filed by Vardhaman for similar reliefs in respect of some other shares of Mathrubhumi purchased by them.2. Mathrubhumi is a company registered as a public company limited by shares on February 15, 1922, under the Indian Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1991]70CompCas437(Ker)
S. Padmanabhan, J. 1. The provisions of Sections 51 - 54 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, embody a code of principles about contracts involving reciprocal promises. Section 52 only postulates that if the order of performance is fixed in the contract itself, such order has necessarily to be followed because that is the order which the parties wanted and agreed to be followed. If no such order is fixed, the reason of the thing or the nature of the transaction shall furnish the guidelines regarding the order of performance. Section 54 deals with the effect of default as to that promise which should be first performed in contracts consisting of reciprocal promises. If the promises are such that one of them cannot be performed or its performance cannot be claimed until the other has been performed and the promisor of the promise last mentioned fails to perform it, such promisor cannot claim performance of the reciprocal promise and he must make compensation to the other for all loss that t...
Tag this Judgment!