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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhadra Enterprises.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-1991
Reported in: [1992]193ITR178(Ker)
T. L. VISWANATHA IYER J., - We are satisfied that the question of law raised by the petitioner do arise for consideration out of the order of the Tribunal. The Income-tax officer had set out the reasons why he rejected the accounts of the assessee and estimated the income. Particularly, he has referred to the reasons why he was estimating the sale, production and labour charges. He also gave the basis for the estimation of the income with reference to the income which the assessee had derived in the subsequent assessment year. The Tribunal does not appear to have adverted to the various aspects which the Income-tax Officer has relied on. We are, therefore, satisfied that there are questions of law arising for consideration. The questions raised by the petitioner in paragraph 7 of the original petition truly reflect the controversy between the parties. They have to be referred to this court for opinion.We, therefore, allow this original petition. We direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribu...
N.C. Kumaresan Vs. Ameerappa Overruled
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-1991
Reported in: 1991CivilCC661; ILR1991(3)Kerala333
K.T. Thomas, J.1. In view of the conflicting views on interpretation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act"), Thulasidas J. has referred this case to a Division Bench. Balakrishnan J. has held in Mahadevan Sunil Kumar v. Bhadran [1991] 1 KLJ 335 ; [1992] 74 Comp Cas 805, 807 that :"... it is clear that cause of action for filing the complaint may arise on several occasions and the payee or holder in due course is entitled to present the cheque at any time within a period of six months from the date on which it was drawn and for filing the complaint, he should have served notice of such dishonour to the drawer ; the payee or holder in due course can make a second presentation of the cheque and, if other conditions are fulfilled, he can launch a complaint on the basis of the second dishonour of the cheque as the cheque would remain valid for a period of six months."2. Padmanabhan J., without noticing the decision in Mahadevan Sunil Kumar's case [1992]...
E.S.i. Corpn. Vs. Raj Cashew Company
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-1991
Reported in: (1992)ILLJ206Ker
Bhat, J.1. This appeal is directed against common judgment in I.C. Nos. 73, 76, 79, 80 and 81 of 1983 on the file of the Employees' Insurance Court, Quilon. Of the five cases, relief was granted to the applicant in four cases. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation being aggrieved by the relief so granted has filed the appeal.2. Common respondent herein is a private limited company running cashew factories at various places. The respondent paid holiday wages to the workers. Employees' State Insurance contribution was levied and paid on the holiday wages also during the years 1981 and 1982. The respondent filed five applications before the Employees' Insurance Court seeking refund of the contribution so paid on the basis of wages paid for holidays and in the alternative seeking a direction to the Corporation to adjust the amount so paid towards future subscription. The respondent contended that holiday wages are not wages as defined in Section 2(22) of the Employees' State Insurance...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.M. Moosa
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR654(Ker)
G.H. Guttal, J. 1. The application of the petitioner under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for a reference of a question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal was rejected by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by its order in R. A. No. 239/(Coch) of 1985. The Commissioner of Income-tax who is aggrieved by that order urges that a question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal and that it ought to be referred under Section 256 of the Act. 2. The question relates to the assessment of the income of A. M. Moosa, the respondent, who was a partner in the business establishment known by the name M/s. Bharath Sea Foods. On December 1, 1975, by a deed of dissolution, K. S. Mohammed and Smt. M.L. Karthikai Kumari retired from the partnership business. The partnership deed records that, as from the date of dissolution and upon the retirement of the two partners, 'the partnership business of M/s. Bharath Sea Foods stands dissolved and shall always been deemed to have b...
Visalakshi Vs. K.P. Sivaraman
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-08-1991
Reported in: II(1992)DMC356
U.L. Bhat, J.1. The appellant is the above appeal who is thepetitioner in the two Miscellaneous Petition is the wife of the respondent.2. They were married on 17-6-1982 and fell out in 1986 and thereafterthey have been residing separately. In June 1986, both parties together filed apetition before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Hosdurg Under Section 13 ofthe Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for a decree of divorce based on theirconsent. The case was adjourned for the statutory period of six months at theend of which the wife realied from the consent and the petition was dismissed.In 1987 the husband filed OP 32 of 1987 before the Subordinate Judge's Court,Hosdurg seeking decree of divorce Under Sections 13(1)(1) and 13(1)(a) that is,on grounds of adultery and cruelty. The petition was resisted by the wife, butwas allowed by learned Subordinate Judge on the ground of adultery underSection 13(1)(1) of the Act. The ground of cruelty urged was negatived. Thedecree for divorce was passed on...
S. Mahendran Vs. the Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, Thiruvanant ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-1991
Reported in: AIR1993Ker42
Balanarayana Marar, J. 1. This is a 'public interest litigation'. It has far-reaching consequences regarding the faith of 'Sabarimala' temple, a temple of great antiquity, visited by more than 20 lakhs of persons every year from all parts of India. The question posed is, whether it is open to ail women, irrespective of their age, to trek the hill and worship of the temple, and how far is it permissible as per existing 'acharas', beliefs and custom ?2. A petition was sent by one S. Mahan-daran, K. P. S. Bhavan, Perunnai, Changana-cherry, to one of us (Paripoornan, J.) which was converted into an original petition and treated as public interest litigation. He complained of young woman trekking Sabari hills (Sabarimala) and offering prayers at the Sabarimala Shrina. That is contrary to the customs and usages followed in the temple, according to him. Special treatment is alleged to have been given to wives of V.I.Ps. He pointed out a specific instance of the first rice-feeding ceremony of ...
Madhavan Vs. Leelamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ker245
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. The tenant against whom an order of eviction under Section 11(4) (iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was passed by the Rent Control Court which has been confirmed by the appellate authority is the revision petitioner. The landlady purchased two shop rooms in a big building having 9 shop rooms. In one of the shop rooms, the landlady was also doing some business. She purchased 3 shop rooms including the 2 rooms occupied by the revision petitioners in this case and C.R.P. No. 446/91.2. The landlady filed an application under Section 112(4)(iv) of the Act. Section 11(4) (iv) of the Act provides thus :-'if the building is in such a condition that it needs reconstruction and if the landlord requires bona fide to reconstruct the same and if he satisfies the Court that he has the plan and licence, if any required, and the ability to rebuild and if the proposal is not made as a pretext for eviction'.The landlad...
Sathyaseelan and ors. Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2941
K.T. Thomas, J.1. A pretty damsel was snared into a trap by her employer and two other men and killed her by filling her mouth with lethal poison. Her corpse was disposed of in a far away jungle as denouement of the plot. This is the hub of the prosecution story. Among the three conspirators, two became accused and the third was transposed as approver on being tendered with a pardon. Sessions Court convicted the two accused arraingned before it. They have filed these two appeals separately.2. The story narrated by the prosecution is punctuated with love, sex, adultery, deception etc. Appellant -- Sathyaseelan (Al) was proprietor of a weaving mill in which men and women were employed. Geethakumari was one of the employees in the mill. Al's wife was not a healthy woman and the spouses had no issues. Al utilised opportunities to flirt with Geethakumari and eventually cultivated illicit sexual relationship with her by impressing upon her that he would marry her. The wife of the appellant h...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Trivandrum Club
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-02-1991
Reported in: [1995]211ITR448(Ker)
K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J. 1. A common question arises in these references at the instance of the Revenue. The question is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law and in fact in holding that the assessee-club should be assessed in the status of association of persons and since an association of persons is not an entity chargeable to wealth-tax, the assessee-club is not chargeable to wealth-tax ?'2. The respondent is a members' club by name Trivandrum Club, Thiruvananthapuram. The Wealth-tax Officer treated the club as an individual and subjected it to wealth-tax for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1979-80. On appeal, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) held that the assessee is an association of persons and not taxable under the Wealth-tax Act. In consequence, the assessment was cancelled. On further appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals). While considering the as...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kerala Nut Food Co.,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-02-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR585(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. In this batch of 12 referred cases, a common question arises for consideration. These cases have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, at the instance of the Revenue, and as directed by this court in 0. P. Nos. 8381, 8382, 8384, 8387, 8388, 8450, 8451, 8676, 8677, 8712, 8713 and 8737 of 1984 (see [1990] 185 ITR 150)-The referred cases arise out of R. A. Nos. 106 to 114, 117 and 118 and 120/(Coch) of 1983 in ITA Nos. 333 to 337, 340 to 343, 348 and 349 and 360/(Coch) of 1981. The applicant in all the cases is the Revenue. The respondents in this batch of 12 referred cases, are six different assessees. The Appellate Tribunal disposed of the 12 appeals (ITA Nos. 333 to 337, 340 to 343, 348, 349 and 360/(Coch) of 1981) by a common order dated February 26, 1983. Though there are six different assessees, the assessment years involved in this batch of cases are 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81. The Revenue filed applications und...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »