Kerala Court February 1993 Judgments
T.K. Madhavan Vs. Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-1993
Reported in: [1995]82CompCas753(Ker)
L. Manoharan, J.1. Petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, is to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 471 of 1991 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam. Photo copy of the complaint is annexure A-4.2. According to the petitioner, the son of the petitioner had business transactions with the second respondent and the third respondent, a Sub-Inspector of Police, who is a friend of the second respondent got the son of the petitioner to the police station and made him execute annexure A-1 receipt under duress purporting to be one for Rs. 58,200. Then the petitioner was taken to the police station by the third respondent on April 17, 1991, learning that the petitioner has an account with the Union Bank of India, Sbuth Chittoor, and the third respondent at the behest of the second respondent made the petitioner sign a blank cheque leaf under threat and coercion. Later the petitioner received annexure A-2 notice dated June 21, 1991, intimating that steps under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.C. Jacob
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-1993
Reported in: [1993]203ITR972(Ker)
K. S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for the decision of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the remand of the case to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is justified ? 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal is vitiated for non-exercise of the jurisdiction and authority vested in it in accordance with law ?' 2. The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. We are concerned with the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. Identical questions arose for consideration in both the years.3. We heard counsel. It is seen that the respondent-assessee has claimed deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The dispute between the assessing authority and the respondent centred round the question of capital employed in the business. According to the assessee, it will include borrowed funds. The Revenue held tha...
Tag this Judgment!Devaki Amma and ors. Vs. K.P. Sreedharan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Ker348
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. Defendants 3, 5 to 8 and 12 to 15 in a suit for redemption of a mortgage and for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property are the appellants. They are the legal representatives of the deceased second defendant. The respondent is the plaintiff.2. The plaint schedule property, having an extent of 68 cents with a building thereon, was mortgaged to one Kumara Pillai for an amount of Rs. 294/- on 7-1-1923 ME. The first defendant is an assignee of the rights of Kumara Pillai under the mortgage as per deed dated 6-12-1954, and be settled his rights over the plaint schedule property and three others to the second defendant by the deed of settlement Ext. Dl, dated 6-11-1964. The suit was filed meanwhile for redemption and recovery of possession, in the year 1961.3. A preliminary decree for redemption was passed on 22-11-1962. The plaintiff thereafter filed LA. No. 5885 of 1965 for the passing of final decree. At the initial stages, the only objection of ...
Tag this Judgment!Vardhani Plantations (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1993
Reported in: [1993]203ITR827(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of an assessee to agricultural income-tax, the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvanantha-puram, 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 law in holding that the payment of remuneration to directors was not allowable under Section 5(j) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 ?'The respondent is the Revenue. The matter arises under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. We are concerned with the assessment year 1984-85. The assessee which is a company claimed that it is entitled to deduction of Rs. 1,20,000 paid towards the remuneration of its directors. The assessing authority, by order dated July 30, 1985, held that the amount claimed is fabulous and is not in any way connected with deriving of agricultural income. It was a clear act of diversion of income from the company and so cannot be allowed. The assessee filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Agrl. Income Tax and Sales Tax Vs. Vardhani Plantation ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1993
Reported in: (1993)112CTR(Ker)181
K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. :At the instance of an assessee to Agrl. Income-tax, the Agrl. Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram 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 law in holding that the payment of remuneration to Directors was not allowable under s. 5(j) of the Agrl. IT Act, 1950 ?'2. The respondent is the Revenue. The matter arises under the Agrl. IT Act. We are concerned with the asst. yr. 1984-85. The assessee, which is a company, claimed that it is entitled to deduction of Rs. 1,20,000 paid towards the remuneration of the Directors. The Assessing Authority, by order dt. 30th July, 1985, held that the amount claimed is fabulous and is not in any way connected with deriving of agrl. income. It was a clear act of diversion of income from the company and so, cannot be allowed. The assessee filed an appeal from the aforesaid order of assessment before the Dy. Commissioner (A...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sosamma Vs. Rajendran and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-1993
Reported in: [1994]80CompCas503(Ker); 1993CriLJ2196
L. Manoharan, J. 1. This petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code is to quash annexure A-1-complaint. The petitioner is the accused in C. C. No. 368 of 1992 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Nedungundam. Annexure A-I-complaint was filed by the first respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act'), and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation was that the petitioner borrowed Rs. 30,000 on May 8, 1992, from the first respondent promising to repay the same on May 13, 1992, and issued a cheque with date May 13, 1992. The cheque when presented was returned unpaid with the endorsement 'funds insufficient'. The first respondent further alleged that only then he could know that he was cheated and deceived with the intention of not paying the amount. It is further alleged that, a notice demanding the amount was issued within time ; but was returned without acceptance by the petitioner with the endorseme...
Tag this Judgment!Appavu Sundaram Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-1993
Reported in: [1993]203ITR743(Ker)
ORDER--Deduction of tapping expenses--Quantum to be allowed--Question as to adequacy thereof a question of fact--Tribunal elaborately dealt with the issue considering all relevant material upholding order of lower authorities--No interference in revisionHELD :The total extent of the rubber estate, their situation and yield in blocks, the tapping expenses claimed for the number of days and the figures relating thereto, the yield per block, etc., have been discussed in detail and the Tribunal held that the amounts allowed by the assessing authority towards tapping expenses for all the years under appeal before the Tribunal is comparatively higher than that covered by the guidelines. It was also held that there is no justifiable ground for interference by the Tribunal. As the final fact finding authority the Tribunal, after adverting to the relevant factors in that regard, has concluded that the tapping expenses allowed is adequate-may be comparatively higher than that ordinarily allowed ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajagiri Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-1993
Reported in: [1993]203ITR663(Ker)
K.S. Paripoobnan, J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company. The respondent is the Revenue. The matter involved herein relates to the assessment year 1978-79 for which the previous year ended on June 30, 1977. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year, the assessee had transferred certain shares of other companies held by it. The entire sale consideration was received by the assessee on June 29, 1977. The board of directors passed a resolution to transfer the shares on June 27, 1977. The blank transfer certificates were produced before the Registrar of Companies for getting his approval on June 27, 1977. They were signed by the transferor and handed over to the broker on June 28, 1977. The Revenue took the view that the transfer of the shares took place during the previous year ended on June 30, 1977. The assessee contended that the transfer of shares was registered in the books maintained by the company only after the close of the accounting year, i.e., after Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. Elembilery Estate
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-1993
Reported in: (1994)120CTR(Ker)43; [1993]203ITR638(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. These are connected cases. The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax is the petitioner in both the original petitions. The common assessee is the respondent in both the cases. The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, representing the Revenue in these two original petitions, filed under Section 60(3) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, has prayed for a direction to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Kozhikode Bench, to refer the following questions of law, formulated in paragraph 7 of the original petitions, for the decision of this court. This was necessitated, since the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, by a common order dated April 3, 1984, for the years 1975-76 and 1976-77, declined to refer the questions of law for the decision of this court :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing to allow registration to the firm when the partnership deed was defective ?(ii) Whether, o...
Tag this Judgment!Kopparakandathil Narayanan and ors. Vs. the Dist. Collector and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ3718
ORDERT.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. Petitioners did not comply with the terms of the bail bond executed to ensure the attendance of the accused and in respect of which they stood sureties. The accused did not appear on a date fixed for hearing, whereupon the court forfeited the bail bond and directed the petitioners to pay a penalty of Rs. 1500/-. It would appear that the case was subsequently withdrawn; but proceedings for enforcement of the forfeited bail bond and payment of the fine of Rupees 1500/- were pursued under the Revenue Recovery Act (R.R. Act). The notices, Exts. P2 to P6 were issued to the petitioners. They are challenged on the ground that the amount cannot be recovered under the provisions of the R.R. Act.2. Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays down the procedure for forfeiture of bail bonds and for imposition of penalty. It further provides that the amount can be recovered as if it were a fine imposed by the court. Section 421 lays down the modes of rec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »