Kerala Court April 1991 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.
C.B.S. Gramaphone Records and Tapes (India) Ltd. Vs. P.A. Noorudeen
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-26-1991
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas494(Ker)
T.V. Ramakrishnan, J.1. Heard counsel on both sides. The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, filed a complaint under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. The complainant was described in the complaint as 'C. B. S. Gramaphone Records and Tapes (India) Ltd., Mullassery Canal Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-11, represented by its accounts officer, N. K. Krishnan, s/o. N. S. Krishna Iyer, aged 23 years'. The said complaint was filed on March 15, 1991. On the same day, the learned Magistrate returned the complaint passing an order to the effect that 'the complainant is neither the payee nor the holder in due course. Hence returned'. What is challenged in the criminal revision petition is the said order passed by the learned Magistrate.2. Along with the complaint, the petitioner-company has filed the dishonoured cheque and a certified true copy of the board resolution passed at the board me...
R. Ranganathan Vs. P. Kashiraj and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-12-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ker141
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. The plaintiff in a suit on pronote for realisation of Rs. 4,000/- with interest thereon is the appellant in the second appeal.2. The plaintiff alleged that the first defendant on 1-3-1978 executed Ext.A1 pronote in favour of the 2nd defendant and the second defendant on 16-10-1979 endorsed it in favour of the plaintiff for valid consideration. The plaintiff later sent notice to the defendant demanding payment. They did not send any reply. The plaintiff filed the suit for realisation of the amount.3. The first defendant filed written statement contending that Ext. A1 pronote was not executed by him and it was concocted by the plaintiff with the help of second defendant.4. The second defendant filed written statement alleging that he had not endorsed any pronote in favour of the plaintiff and Ext.A1, pronote was a fraudulent document cheated by the plaintiff and the first defendant.5. Plaintiff got himself examined as PW 1 and marked the pronote as Ext.A1, PW2 was...
S. Damodaran Pillai Vs. K. Nanthedu Bava
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-12-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ker212
ORDER1. Petitioner in insolvency petition 1/87 on the file of Munsiffs Court, Mavelikkara is the appellant in this miscellaneous second appeal. The appellant as the judgment-debtor in O.S.57/85 of Munsiff's Court, Adoor, was liable to pay substantial amount decree debt and as he was unable to pay his debt he filed the application. The Munsiff adjudicated the petitioner as insolvent. The decree-holder in O.S. 57/85, who was made the only respondent in the insolvency proceedings, challenged the order passed by the Munsiff, in A.S. 166/88. Additional District Judge, Mavelikkara allowed the appeal and the order passed by the Munsiff was set aside. The reason for setting aside the order was that under S. 10 of the Insolvency Act the petition could be filed only if the petitioner is unable to pay his debts and for a single debt the petition is not maintainable. This finding is challenged by the appellant herein.2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to understand the...
Krishnan Sreevalsan Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-12-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ584
ORDERB.M. Thulasidas, J.1. Petitioner was the accused in C.C. No. 505 of 1988 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, Attingal. He was represented by counsel in the case. The Court found him guilty, convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- by judgment dated 1-1-1991. His counsel applied for a free copy of the judgment under Section 363, Cr.P.C. By the impugned order, the memo filed by the counsel was rejected and a free copy was refused finding that there was breach of Sub-section (2) of Section 363, Cr. P. C.2. When an accused is sentenced to imprisonment, copy of the judgment shall immediately be given to him free of cost. On his application a certified copy of the judgment or when he so desires, a translation in his own language if practicable or in the language of the Court, shall be given to him without delay, and such copy shall in every case, if the judgment is appealable by the accused, be given free of cost (Sub-section (2) of Section 363, Cr. P. ...
Selvakumar (Legal Heir of Late Chellappan Chettiar) Vs. Commissioner o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-12-1991
Reported in: (1992)101CTR(Ker)16; [1992]193ITR470(Ker); [1992]63TAXMAN242(Ker)
T. L. VISWANATHA IYER J. - One Chellappan Chettiar of Mayyanad who was running an oil mill was an assessee on the files of the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Quilon. He was assessed for the years 1967-68, 1969-70 and 1971-72. There was a search of his premises thereafter, consequent on which the assessments were reopened under section 147(a). The assessee submitted fresh returns on July 30, 1977. He died thereafter on September 2, 1977, leaving behind him his wife, Chellammal, and 11 children of whom five were minors and six majors. Three of the daughters were also married. It was found in the course of the search that there were fixed deposits standing in the names of the wife and children of Chellappan Chettiar during the accounting year relevant to the assessment years 1967-68, 1969-70 and 1971-72 aggregating to Rs. 5,50,000, Rs. 2 lakhs during the year relevant to the assessment 1967-68, Rs. 3 lakhs during the year relevant to the assessment year 1969-70 and Rs. 50,000 in the third ye...
Saraskshy and ors. Vs. Krishnankutty and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-12-1991
Reported in: I(1992)ACC432; 1991ACJ1069
U.L. Bhat, J.1. The appellants in M.F.A No. 403 of 1986, who were petitioners before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, challenge the quantum of compensation granted to them, by seeking enhancement, whereas the appellant in M.F.A No. 381 of 1987, the insurance company, challenges the very jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the claim petition filed by the appellants in M.F.A. No. 403 of 1986.2. The appellants in M.F.A No. 403 of 1986 are the widow and children of Velayudhan Nadar, who died as a result of severe burns sustained by him in an accident. The deceased was an agriculturist and an independent contractor. He owned in front of his house, a double storeyed building. All the ten rooms in the building were rented out and one of the tenants was running a kerosene oil depot. On 17.12.1979, a tanker lorry belonging to the 1st respondent in M.F.A. No. 403 of 1986 brought kerosene to the above depot by about 8 p.m. It is the case of the appellants that deceased Velayudhan Nadar ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chandrika Educational Trust.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-12-1991
Reported in: [1992]193ITR557(Ker); [1992]65TAXMAN363(Ker)
G. H. GUTTAL, J. - In this petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Commissioner of Income-tax, 'the petitioner' - for short - urges that questions of law arise of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in I. T. Appeal No. 514 (Coch.) of 1982. He seeks an order directing the Tribunal to refer such questions to the High Court.The undisputed facts are these :The respondent-assessee, a public charitable trust, is a partner of two firms, Lathika Enterprises, Ernakulam, and Chandrika Enterprises, Irinjalakkuda.The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the respondent for exemption from income-tax under section 11(1) (a) and (b) on two grounds :(i) The income in the assessment year 1976-77, which is the relevant year, had not been applied for charitable purposes as required by section 11; and(ii) since the funds of the respondent invested in the two firms referred to above exceeded 5 per cen...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T. Abdul Majeed.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-12-1991
Reported in: [1992]193ITR339(Ker)
G. H. GUTTAL J. - In this petition by the Commissioner of Income-tax (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner'), the question which arises for consideration is whether any question of law arises out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated December 22, 1983, in Income-tax Appeal No. 321 (Coch.) of 1982, made under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The question arises out of the facts set out in paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3 below. The assessee is hereinafter referred to as the respondent.In a search of the respondents premises made on January 12, 1977, the books of account including the stock register and inventories were seized by the petitioner. The respondent filed his income-tax return for the assessment year 1977-78 (accounting year ending on December 31, 1976) declaring an income of Rs. 85,200. An examination of the books of account of the respondent revealed that the value of the closing stock for the assessment year in q...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Abdul Sathar Ismail Sait
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR697(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that, for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1975-76, the value of the residential property of the assessee is to be determined on the basis of rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ?'2. The question arising for decision in this case is similar to that decided by a Full Bench of this court in I. T, R. Nos. 311 to 315 of 1982 (CIT v. Antony Mendez : [1991]191ITR346(Ker) ). The rule concerned in that case was rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. After examining the provisions of Section 7 relating to valuation and Section 46 relating to rule-making power, the Full Bench of this court held that rule 1D was not mandatory. The ratio of the said decision applies with full force to rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, as well. The question referred for decision has, therefore, t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Damodar Corporation.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-1991
Reported in: [1992]193ITR272(Ker)
The judgement of the court was delivered byT. L. VISWANATHA IYER J. - The question which arose for decision before the Appellate Tribunal was whether the hotel by the assessee was 'plant' entitled to depreciation at 15% and to investment allowance. The Tribunal held against the Revenue. The application for reference has been rejected on the ground that the Madras Bench of the Appellate Tribunal had earlier refused to refer a similar question.After hearing counsel for both sides, we are satisfied that there is a question of law arising in this case. The facts as such are not in dispute. The only question is whether the hotel will constitute a 'plant' for the purpose of allowing depreciation. Thus, there is a pure question of law which has to be referred by the Tribunal under section 256(1).We, therefore, allow the original petition. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, is directed to draw up a statement of the case and to refer the following question of law for the opinion o...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »