Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1980]121ITR178(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. These writ petitions attack the constitutional validity of Section 2(6), 2(7)(e) and Part IV of the 1st Schedule of the Finance Act, 1973 ; and also Sections 2(2), 2(7)(b)(ii), 2(8)(e) and Part IV of the Finance Act, 1974. Section 2(6) and 2(7)(e) of the Finance Act, 1973, provides as follows : '2. (6) In the cases to which Sub-Paragraph I or Sub-Paragraph II of Paragraph A of Part III of the First Schedule applies, where the assessee has, in the previous year or, if by virtue of any provision of the Income-tax Act income-tax is to be charged in respect of the income of a period other than the previous year, in such other period, any net agricultural income, in addition to total income, and the total income exceeds five thousand rupees, then, in calculating income-tax under the first proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act or in charging income-tax under Sub-section (2) of Section 174 or Section 175 or Sub-section (2) of Section 176 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1980Ker109
Subramonian Poti, J. 1. A question of some importance arises for decision in this case. It concerns the consequence of the repeal by Section 7 of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 of the Acts mentioned in the Schedule. One of the Acts so repealed is the Travancore Nair Act 2 of 1100. That Act provides among other things, for dissolution of a marriage solemnised under the Act. It specifies grounds for dissolution of marriage and also prescribes the procedure by which the right to seek dissolution is to be exercised. The court to which proceedings would lie is also specified. The Hindu Marriage Act 1955 provides in Section 13, for dissolution of Hindu Marriages. The grounds for dissolution are specified in this Act and the procedure for seeking dissolution is also specified in the Act. The grounds for dissolution under the Hindu Marriages Act are not identical with the grounds for divorce in the Nair Act 1100.2. Notwithstanding the commencement of the Hindu Marri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1982Ker29
ORDERP. Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J. 1. These revisions are against orders of the Addl. District Judge, Mavelikkara in 6 revision petitions under Section 20 of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) disposed of by a common order covering these and some other cases. The revision petitioner in all these cases is the same. He is the landlord of a building. Respondents in these cases are tenants occupying various rooms of the building on rent. The revision petitioner, as landlord, sought surrender of those rooms. The respondents did not surrender. The petitioner moved petitions before the Rent Control Court seeking eviction of the tenants. In all these petitions he alleged as grounds for eviction, (1) arrears of rent (2) bona fide need of the petitioner for occupation of the building and (3) requirement of the building for the purpose of reconstruction. The Court is no longer concerned with the first of these pleas. The plea with regard to bona fide n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1981Ker266
ORDERM.P. Menon, J.1. The landlord was not present in Court when her eviction petition under Act 2/65 was taken up for trial, and the petition was dismissed for default. She applied for restoration and the Rent Control Court allowed the application, on being satisfied that there was sufficient cause to do so. The tenant appealed, but without success. His revision under Section 20 fared the same fate. And that is how he has come to this Court, under Section 115. C. P. C,2. The question whether a Rent Control Court has power to restore a petition dismissed for default was considered by this Court in Asher v. Raru (1979 Ker LT 260). The rival contentions were based on the provisions of Section 23 of the Act. Clause (h) of Section 23 (1) confers on the Rent Control Court the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court in the master of setting aside ex parte. orders; and Clause (k) ropes in the power of review also. Janaki Amma J. held that the power to restore was different from the power t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1982Ker12
Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. Idikki District Co-operative Bank Ltd. is a Society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Secieties Act, 1969. It has 14 branches and all the members of the Bank are primary societies. However the Bank receives deposits from individuals and also grants loans to individuals. The management of the Bank is vested in Board of Directors consisting of 11 elected members and 3 official members nominated by the Government. Of the 11 elected members three ceased to be Directors for one reason or another and so the remaining elected and non-elected members were managing the affairs of the Bank. The Board entered office on 1-7-1978, their term being three years, normally they would have had to go out on 30-6-1981.2. This Bank is insured under the Deposit Insurance Corporation Act 1961 (Central Act). Chapter X-A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act contains additional provisions of law regarding such insured co-operative banks. The Banking Regulation Act 1949 (Central A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1983CriLJ393
ORDERT. Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. The petitioner who is a resident of Bombay City seeks in this writ petition to quash the order of detention passed against him by the State of Kerala, the 2nd respondent herein (the 1st respondent being the Home Secretary, Government of Kerala) under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, on 29th April, 1980, with a further and consequential prayer to prohibit the two respondents from executing the said order. The petitioner is working in his father's concern M/s. Shantilal Kalidas Chokshi & Co., Gold and Silver Merchants, at Bombay.2. Petitioner's case:2nd November, 1979, the petitioner had been to Kolhapur to a firm by name Rathod Arts at Kolhapur. From there, at the suggestion of the said Rathod, for disposal of 120 kgs. of silver ornaments which he had taken from Bombay for sale, the petitioner proceeded to Bhatkal by car. He was not successful in selling the ornaments there. From B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1982(II)KLT440
U.L. Bhat, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed challenging an order dated 5-1-1980 in C. P. Nos. 480 of 1976 and 71 of 1978 passed by the Labour Court, Koz kode under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act).2. The petitioner in O.P. No. 566 of 1980 was working as the Manager of the Tellicherry branch of the North Malabar District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Limited, Calicut (for short the 'Society') (Petitioner in O.P. No. 1117 of 1980 and the first respondent in O.P. No. 566 of 1980). The petitioner in O.P. No. 566 of 1980 and the petitioner in O.P. No. 1117 of 1980 will be referred to herein as the petitioner and the first respondent-Society respectively. While so, the first respondent reverted the petitioner as Inspector. The petitioner filed an arbitration case before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies challenging the order of reversion and obtained an order of stay. On the strength of the stay order he continued in offi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1983]54STC222(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. Exhibits P3 and P4 which are impugned are orders of assessment made under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (the 'Act'), for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The petitioner had claimed exemption under Section 6A of the Act. The exemption was not granted for the reason that the petitioner failed to furnish the details under Rule 5A of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, 1957, made by the State Government (I shall call it the 'State Rules') under Section 13(3) and (4) of the Act. The contention of the petitioner-assessee is that the said rule made by the State Government has been superseded by Rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, made by the Central Government (I shall call it the 'Central Rules') under Section 13(1) in respect of transactions falling within Section 6A and accordingly insistence on' compliance with the provisions of Rule 5A of the State Government is unjustified.2. It has to be stated that the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1984Ker164
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The defendant in O. S. 193 of 1977 of the Munsiff's Court, Mavalikkara, is the appellant herein. The plaintiff in the suit is the respondent. The appellant is the tenant of a building belonging to the plaintiff-respondent. As per rental arrangement dated 8-10-1974, evidenced by Ext. A1, the building was let to the defendant, for one year. The agreed rent was Rs. 1.55 per day. After the expiry of the term, the defendant continued in occupation of the building. The plaintiff instituted O. S. No. 322 of 1975 for eviction and for arrears of rent. It was contended by the defendant in the said suit that there was no valid notice terminating the tenancy as contemplated by section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice terminating the tenancy in that case was Ext. 85. By Ext 85 notice the tenancy was terminated with effect from 8-11-1975. According to the defendant, the tenancy should be terminated on the day preceding the date of tenancy. The contention of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1985Ker277
Bhaskaran, C.J.1. Two important questions of law arise in this appeal: (1) If, in proceedings pending on the date of commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act 35 of 1969) (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act), which amended the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 (Act I of 1964) (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act), a tenant dispossessed of his holding in execution of a decree for arrears of rent, had claimed restoration of possession thereof, under Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act, 1967 (Act IX of 1967) (hereinafter referred to as the Temporary Act), whether the application for that relief is to be pursued under the provisions of that Act or under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964, as amended by Act 35 of 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Amended Act); and (2) whether for the purpose of Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Temporary Act, a deposit accompanying an application under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!