Kerala Court September 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.
Kumaran Vaidyar and ors. Vs. K.S. Venkiteswaran and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-20-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ker26
ORDER1. The question which arises for consideration in this petition is whether a civil court possesses the power to review, suo motu, its concluded finding on an issue in a suit.2. The defendants Nos. 7, 8 and 9 in O.S. No. 218/86 on the file of the Munsiff, Ottappalam, impugn the order dated 16-2-1989 made by the learned Munsiff. By the impugned order, the learned Munsiff, without any application by either party, and suo motu, reviewed his order dated 25-11-1988 by which he had held that the question whether the defendant No. 7 is a tenant of 11 acres and 75 cents 'did not arise' for consideration, and therefore declined to make reference to the land Tribunal under Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.3. The suit is for partition and separate possession of 8/28th share of plaintiffs property. Partition is claimed against the defendants 1 to 6. The 7th defendant urged, in the written statement, that he was a tenant of 11 acres 75 cents out of the suit property. The lease was ...
T.J. Thankamany and ors. Vs. Kerala State Represented by District Coll ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-20-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ker80
K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J. 1. The main question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the provision for higher solatium under the amended Land Acquisition Act applies to an award made subsequent to 24th of September, 1984 even though the acquisition commenced prior to the said date. The appeals also raise another question regarding the applicability of Section 23(1-A) providing additional amount of compensation to awards made in such acquisition proceedings. The facts in brief may be stated as follows :By notification dt. 11-7-1978 an area of 5.75 ares of land in Sy. No. 368/18-B2 of Aryad South Village was acquired for the Alleppey Town By-pass of National Highway 47. The award was passed on 28-11-1979. The land acquisition officer fixed land value at Rs. 1543/- per are. Dissatisfied with the award claimants sought reference to the court below. In the claim statement filed by the 3rd claimant it was contended that the acquired land is situated in an important loca...
M. Manohar Kammath Vs. M. Ram Mohan Kammath and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-20-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ker128
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. This case comes up before us on a reference made by Krishnamoorthy, J. The reference has occasioned since the learned Judge felt that the view expressed in Gopalan v. Chellappan, 1988 (2) KLT 433, conflicts with the view taken in the decision Kochunarayanan v. Aravindakshan, 1974 KLT 301. Obviously for an authoritative pronouncement on the question and to avoid the conflict, our noble and learned brother, Krishnamoorthy, thought an excathedra decision by a Division Bench of this Court on the question is necessary.2. The question raised is under the Kerala Stamp Act (Act 17 of 1959), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The short facts are these:3. In execution of a decree, the judgment-debtor produced a document. He produced it with a petition to receive the same. The decree-holder contended that the document cannot be received as it is not properly stamped. The decree directed the judgment-debtor to put the decree-holder in possession of the suit property. The a...
K. Meenakshi Amma Vs. Sreerama Vilas Press and Publications (P.) Ltd. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-20-1991
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas285(Ker)
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of a learned single judge of this court in Application No. 253 of 1990 in C. P. No. 28 of 1984. The said application was filed under rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, by a shareholder of the company for an order declaring the election of directors and managing director of the company (Sreerama Vilas Press and Publications (P.) Ltd., Quilon) held on March 10, 1990, as illegal, void and inoperative.2. These are the facts : The applicant is a shareholder of the company. There was a winding up order by the company on November 4, 1976. Subsequently, the company court approved a scheme for revival of the company. As a consequence of that order, the board of directors as on the date of the winding up petition was revived. A general body meeting of the company was held on April 19, 1985, and a new board of directors was elected. On February 25, 1986, another general body meeting was held wherein a resolution was passed remo...
M.A. Unneeri Kutty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-20-1991
Reported in: (1991)91CTR(Ker)186; [1992]198ITR147(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner herein is an assessee to income-tax. This petition is filed under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following four questions of law, formulated in paragraph 15 of the original petition, for the decision of this court :' 1. Whether, in a case where the creditor is identified and the creditworthiness of the creditor is established, the assessee has any burden to further establish the source of that creditor ?2. Whether the Tribunal was not bound by its earlier order of remand and if so, whether the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the legal effect of the proved repayment of the credit to the creditor as ruled in its earlier order?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the two cash credits of Rs. 75,000 in the name of Smt. K. Pathukutty Umma and Rs. 25,000 in the name of Sri V. Abdukutty were not genuine, but constituted t...
Teecee Pharma Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-20-1991
Reported in: [1992]198ITR434(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner herein is a firm. It is assessed to income tax. We are concerned with the assessment year 1976-77 for which the accounting period ended on March 31, 1976. The respondent is the Revenue. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of pharmacouticals. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee put forward a plea that goods worth Rs. 1,56,174 got damaged and that the same should be excluded from the value of the closing stock. The Income-tax Officer held that the assessee claimed that they were maintaining day to day stock register. In that case, they could have written off the stock when it was found damaged and it was not done so and the same was not mentioned in the stock details furnished to the hank. It was further found that the key of the godown was with the bank and that the bank never intimated the damage to the goods in writing. The plea of the assessee to exclude goods worth Rs. 1,56,174 from the closing stock was declined. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Genuine Coffee and Tea
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-19-1991
Reported in: [1992]198ITR105(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions of law have been referred for the decision of this court :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of Section 43 of the Partnership Act, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the dissolution of the partnership was effected only on the date of preliminary judgment, viz., December 19, 1981, and not on December 26, 1978, the date of service of summons in the suit and that the assessee-firm had not been dissolved during the accounting period and that registration cannot be refused on the ground that the firm had been dissolved ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in finding that the firm was genuine, and that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in refusing registration till the date on which, according to the Income-tax Officer, the firm was dissolved '2. The respondent is a firm. It is an assessee under the...
Leelamma Ambikakumari and anr. Vs. Narayanan Ramakrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-18-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ker115
P. Krishnamoorthy, J.1. Defendants in a suit for realisation of balance sale consideration are the appellants. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are as follows: According to the plaintiff, he entered into an agreement of sale with the defendants on 22-6-1981 for selling the plaint schedule property, 3 cents of land and an unfinished building therein, for a total consideration of Rs. 16,000/-. It was provided in the agreement that Rs. 4000/ -was paid as advance on that day. But, as a matter of fact, only Rs. 1000/- was paid to the plaintiff and the balance Rs.3000/- was reserved with the defendants for paying off a debt due from the plaintiff to the Development Corporation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Original period of the agreement was up to 22-9-1981 and according to the plaintiff it was extended till 18-12-1981. Plaintiff alleged that by undue influence and fraud the defendants got executed a sale deed Ext. A2 on 21-12-1981 in which the sale considera...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Navajyothi Agencies.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-18-1991
Reported in: (1992)102CTR(Ker)83
K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. :At the instance of the Revenue, the 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,(i) the CIT(A) is justified in interfering with and reducing the additional made by the ITO ?(ii) the addition by the ITO is justified in law and facts ?(iii) should not the Tribunal depending upon the decision of the High Court in the connected case decide the case on merits ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal right and had relevant materials in deleting the addition sustained by the CIT(A) ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and in fact in holding that the facts of this case are identical to the facts of the case in the case of M/s. Nirmala Liquors and deciding the case following the 'ratio' in that case and is not the decision, approach and reliance on so called ratio unrea...
Catalysts and Chemicals India (West Asia) P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-17-1991
Reported in: [1992]197ITR486(Ker)
K.A. Nayar, J.1. The income-tax referred case arises out of the appellate order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1971-72. The assessee-company came into existence under a collaboration agreement between A. Laljee Sons and Company, a firm in India, and Catalysts and Chemicals Inc. (CCI), a company in the U.S.A. On June 29, 1977, three books of manuals containing the information regarding the technical details in production of catalysts were received by the Indian firm. The manuals were for the exclusive use of the Indian company and no portion thereof may be disclosed to any of the persons and in the assessment year 1971-72, the assessee-company claimed development rebate and depreciation at the rate of 15% on Rs. 18.75 lakhs being the amount paid by the assessee to the CCI. The Tribunal determined the cost of the manuals at Rs. 25,000 and allowed depreciation and development rebate thereon. But, by judgment dated April 2, 1982, in I.T.R. Nos. 103 and 104 of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »