Kerala Court July 1990 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. S. Ratnam Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-1990
Reported in: (1991)97CTR(Ker)166; [1991]188ITR494(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law for the decision of this court :'1 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the notification dated March 29, 1979, is effective from April 3, 1979, only ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in view of the fact that the point under consideration was not the subject-matter of appeal before the first appellate authority, the Tribunalwas right in invoking the theory of merger and in holding that the order of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act is without jurisdiction ?' 2. The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. He is engaged in the export of prawns to foreign countries. We are concerned with the assessment year 1979-80 for which the accounting period ended on March 31, 1979. The assessee was claiming deduction on account of his liabilit...
Abdul Rasheed Vs. K.S.R.T.C.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-1990
Reported in: (1991)IILLJ485Ker
Thomas, J.1. Degree holders and Diploma holders in the cadre of Asst Executive Engineers in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') have been classified into two categories for the purpose of further promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineers, The relevant clause in the Regulations formulated by the Corporation which made the aforesaid classification has been assailed in this Original Petition filed by two Diploma holders.2. The petitioners and the fourth respondent are now Asst. Executive Engineers in the Corporation. Their next promotion is to the cadre of Executive Engineers. While petitioners are diploma holders the 4th Respondent is a graduate in Civil Engineering. Clause 5(1) of the K.S.R.T.C. Civil Engineering Staff (Method of Appointment) Regulations (for short 'the Regulations') reads thus:Executive Engineer Method of Recruitment(1) By Selection from among Asst. Executive Engineers with minimum 3 years experience in case of Degree holders and ...
Mathai Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-1990
Reported in: [1991(62)FLR15]; (1991)IILLJ392Ker
Sreedharan, J.1. Petitioner is a pensioner now aged 70. Petitioner's first wife, Elamma, was the nominee approved by the respondents for the purpose of family pension. She died on February 22, 1984. Thereafter he contracted a second marriage with one Lakshmikutty Amma of Arakkal house. He submitted an application before the second respondent for substituting his second wife, Lakshmikutty Amma in the place of his deceased wife as nominee for receiving the benefit of family pension on his death. That application was returned with the endorsement that family acquired after retirement is not eligible for pension. This was done presumably on the basis of the provisions contained in Rule 90(6)of Part III K.S.R. The Note 2 of the Rule stated that marriage after retirement will not be considered for these rules. Petitioner submits that the provision contained in this Rule is discriminatory and it has no legs to stand.2. On behalf of the first respondent a detailed counter affidavit has been fi...
C.D. Rajan Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-1990
Reported in: 1991(34)ECC99; [1990(60)FLR299]; [1991]81STC330(Ker)
K. Sukumaran, J.1. By Notification dated July 2, 1982, the Government clarified, among other things, that enamel ware (made of steel sheets and covered with enamel coating for domestic purpose) would come under entry 45 of the First Schedule. That was, however, changed by the Government when it issued exhibit P2 dated April 23, 1984. The Government took the view that enamel iron utensils would come under entry 121 of the First Schedule. This view is challenged in the original petition.2. There are contentions which are directed against the very constitutional validity of Section 59A.3. Other contentions need not be enquired into, if, on a proper interpretation of the entry, we come to the conclusion that the interpretation given by the Government is correct.4. The petitioner is dealing in enamel ware and, according to him, they are made of steel covered with enamel coating. The details of the manufacturing process involved in enamelled articles are given in paragraph 5. According to th...
Basheer Ahammed Vs. Collector of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-1990
Reported in: 1991(31)ECC375; 1992(61)ELT583(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. Sri C. Kochunni Nair, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel took notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. The learned Government Pleader took notice on behalf of the 4th respondent.2. Exts, P2, P3 and P5 are under challenge. Ext. P2 is an order of the first respondent, passed under Sections 111(d), 112(b)(1) and 119 of the Customs Act, 1962, for short, the Act, confiscating bundles of smuggled goods, 58 bags of rice and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the petitioner firm, a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on Sri K.A. Ahmed and a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on Sri K.P. Hussain.3. Ext. P3 is the order of the Customs Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal [Appeal No. CD(MAS) 146/80] thereby confirming Ext. P2. The petitioner then moved the Appellate Tribunal get the questions of law arising out of the appellate order, referred to the High Court, under Section 130(1). This application was rejected. The petitioner thereupon moved this court under Sub-section ...
Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Office ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR521(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. This appeal is by the assessee against the dismissal of its writ petition, The assessee had challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax refusing substantially its prayer for waiver of the interest levied under Section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The learned single judge did not find any merit in the writ petition and dismissed it. The judgment is reported as Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. v. ITO : [1984]145ITR266(Ker) .2. The assessment year in question is 1975-76 corresponding to the accounting year ending March 31, 1975. The appellant is a company owned by the State of Kerala, running thirty-four cashew factories in the State. The appellant is an assessee on the files of the first respondent, the Income-tax Officer, C-Ward, Trivandrum. The return for the assessment year 1975-76 was due on July 31, 1975, under Section 139(1) of the Act. The appellant applied for and obtained extension of time for furnishing t...
Santosh and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ570
L. Manoharan, J.1. Georgena Stephen, a widow aged 52 years was found lying dead on 17-1-1985 in a cot in the northern room of Stephen Cottage situated in Attipra Village, Trivandrum Taluk. The three accused were tried by Sessions Judge, Trivandrum. They were found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 449, 392, 201 and 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. Each accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 120(B), rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 449, rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 392, rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 201 and imprisonment for life under Section 302, I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, accused 2 and 3 filed Cri. Appeal 374 of 1985 and the first accused filed Cri. Appeal 375 of 1985.2. Prosecution case can be summarised as follows : Georgena Stephen's husband died about five years prior to the occurrence. She had tw...
Sovereign Spices Vs. Additional Sales Tax Officer I and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-26-1990
Reported in: [1991]81STC160(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The reliefs prayed for in the original petition read :'(a) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the first respondent to refund the sum of Rs. 5,00,000 (rupees five lakhs only) collected towards the sales tax dues for the provisional assessment year 1988-89 with 6 per cent interest, to the petitioner-firm forthwith ;(b) to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent, authorising to retain the amount of Rs. 5,00,000 with the department and quashing the same ;(c) to award the cost of this petition to the petitioner ;(d) to grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court be deem fit and proper to grant.'The provisional assessment for the period from April, 1988 to February, 1989 (exhibit P1) was set aside by the appellate authority as is seen from exhibit P2 order. The operative port...
Sigma Agencies (P) Ltd. Vs. P.V. Thomas and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ker102
ORDERChettur Sankaran Nair, J.1. Shorn of frills and embroidery, the question that comes to sharp focus in this petition is, whether Ext. P4 order of remand made by this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, revising an order made under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is 'void'. Special leave to appeal against that order was declined by the Supreme Court. Invoking the jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioner seeks to quash Ext. P6 order made pursuant to the order of remand, Ext. P4.2. Mother of first respondent-landlord, filed an application for eviction, R.C.P. 134/77 on the ground of bonafide need, the ground under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter called 'the Act'. The application was allowed by Ext.P1 order dated 23-12-1977. On appeal, the appellate authority remitted the case to the Rent Controller. Both sides filed revision petition against that order. The re...
Kaekkandi Choyi and anr. Vs. Ayimbadi Meethal Amoo and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ker145
Malimath, C.J.1. This is the tenants' writ petition challenging the order made by the District Judge, Kozhikode, in Rent Control Revision Petition No. 100 of 1986. This case has come up before us on a reference made by Justice Chettur Sankaran Nair on the ground that an important question as to whether the District Judge acting as a revi-sional authority under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Act 2 of 1965) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), having set aside the order of the Appellate Authority finding that in the meanwhile the Court of the Subordinate Judge has ceased to be the Appellate Authority can himself record findings as an Appellate Authority.2. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this case may briefly be stated as follows: Respondents 1 to 6 made an application before the Court of Rent Controller, Payyoli, for eviction of the petitioners, invoking Sections 11(2), 11(3) and 1 l{4)(i) of the Act. The Rent Control Court by its order dated ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »