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.
Soman Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-1991
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ844Ker
Pareed Pillay, J.1. Case of the petitioner is that his promotions to various categories were denied and delayed for no fault of his and on account of it he has sustained substantial pecuniary loss. Government issued G.O. (RT) 276/87/F & CSD dated July 9, 1987 sanctioning notional promotion to the petitioner in the grade of District Supply Officer with effect from October 28, 1983 without the benefit of back arrears. This is evidenced by Ext. P.1. Ext. P1 shows that the Government restored the rank and seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of District Supply Officer just above Sri. Abdul Kalam and below Sri. Varghese Varkey. It is made clear that the petitioner would be given the benefit of notional promotion in the cadre of District Supply Officer with effect from October 28, 1983, the date on which his immediate junior assumed charge in that cadre, without the benefit of back arrears. Respondents issued Ext. P8 order on the representation made by the petitioner stating their inabil...
Paily Vs. Muthiah
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-06-1991
Reported in: (1992)IILLJ166Ker
K.A. Nayar, J. 1. The writ appeal is against the judgment in O.P.No. 1956 of 1990 by the workman, viz. Assistant Conductor of the second respondent who was charge sheeted and after domestic enquiry dismissed from service by the management which became subject matter of an Industrial Dispute No. 126/1986 adjudicated by the 2nd respondent, Labour Court, Ernakulam. The second respondent directed to reinstate the workman without benefit of back wages. Both the management and the workman filed writ petitions, viz. O.P.No. 1956/90 and O.P. 5762 of 1990 challenging the award - the management against the direction to reinstate the workman and, the workman against the order denying the backages. The learned Single Judge disposed of both the original petitions with the direction to reemploy the workman as Supervisor and not as Assistant Conductor. That means the dismissal of the original petition filed by the workman and modification of the award, in the original petition filed by the management...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Girishchandraharidas and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-05-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR833(Ker)
K. S. Paripoornan, J. 1. The above referred four cases involve a common question of law. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, ' the Tribunal') has referred the following common question of law in the said four cases for the decision of this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the mercantile system of accounting followed by the assessee, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in setting aside the assessment made under Section 143(3) read with Section 143(2)(a) on the basis of the original return filed ?'2. We are concerned with the assessment year 1975-76, for which the accounting period ended on November 13, 1974. The respondents are the members of a Hindu undivided family. Shri Haridas Ramji, the respon-dent-assessee in one of the cases, is the ' karta'. The other members of the Hindu undivided family are the wife and two sons. The family carried on the business of manufacture and sale of a soft drin...
K.P. Basi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-05-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR795(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. At the instance of an assessee to income-tax, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal') has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court :' In the light of the order/proceedings under Section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was the Appellate Tribunal justified in law in holding that the assessee concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income?'2. The respondent is the Revenue. We are concerned with the assessment year 1975-76, for which, the accounting period ended on March 31, 1975. The assessee was carrying on the business of money-lending with effect from December, 1973. His residence-cum-business place was raided on December 17, 1974. The said disclosed an excess cash balance with the assessee in the sum of Rs. 63,853.54. A sum of Rs. 35,000 was seized by the Department. Proceedings were initiated against the assessee under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ...
Ulahannan Rajan Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-04-1991
Reported in: I(1992)ACC50; 1992ACJ151; AIR1992Ker230
K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. First plaintiff, his wife Pennamma and their three children were traveling from Thiruvananthapuram to Kottayam by Madras Mail on 27-1-1981. After the train stopped at Kottayam railway station, 1st plaintiff and two of the children alighted. While Pennamma was getting down from the compartment holding the third child in hand the train started moving as a result of which she and the child fell down. Her mutilated body was removed from under the train and by that time she had breathed her last. The child wasseriously injured and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. First plaintiff in his individual capacity and as the next friend of the two children filed Original Petition 8/1982 before Sub-Court, Kottayam as an indigent person claiming an amount of Rs. 55,000/- as compensation. It is alleged in the petition which was subsequently converted into a suit and numbered as O.S. 319/1983 that the train suddenly moved ...
Raman Bhattathiripad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-04-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR671(Ker)
K. P. Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. According to the petitioners, the following questions of law do arise out of the common order of the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, refused to refer the questions for the opinion of this court and hence the petitions under Section 256(2) are filed, is the argument of the petitioners :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, any profits or gain could be said to arise from the exchange of two capital assets of equal value, namely, 50 cents and 41.25 cents plus Rs. 13,750 and, if so, could it be concluded in law that both the transferors were assessable for capital gains ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the value of 50 cents, being the capital asset transferred by Sankaranarayanan Bhattathiripad, would be the consideration received by the applicant ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding th...
Rajan and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-04-1991
Reported in: 1(1992)ACC664
Balanarayana Marar, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. First plaintiff, his wife Pennamma and their three children were travelling from Thiruvananthapuram to Kottayam by Madras Mail on 27-1-1981. After the train stopped at Kottayam railway station, 1st plaintiff and two of the children alighted. While Pennamma was getting down from the compartment holding the third child in hand the train started moving as a result of which she and the child fell down. Her mutilated body was removed from under the train and by that time she had breathed her last. The child was seriously injured and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. First plaintiff his individual capacity and as the next friend of the two children filed original petition 8/1982 before Sub Court, Kottayam as an indigent person claiming an amount of Rs. 55000/- as compensation. It is alleged in the petition which was subsequently converted into a suit and numbered as O.S. 319/1983 that the train suddenly moved forward...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bakul Cashew Company
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-03-1991
Reported in: (1992)101CTR(Ker)273; [1992]197ITR135(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'the 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 assessee is entitled to weighted deduction in respect of the expenses on salary and expenses to the staff engaged in the export sales ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in treating 75% of the salary and allowances to be eligible for weighted deduction and is not the order and the estimate at 75% unreasonable, unsupported by materials and based on conjecture and surmises ?' The respondent is a cashew company. It is an exporter. We are concerned with the assessment year 1977-78 for which the accounting period ended on November 30, 1976. Amongst others, the respondent-assessee claimed salary and allowances to the staff engaged in export sales in the sum of Rs. 43,000. Weighted ...
K.T. Thomas Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-03-1991
Reported in: [1992]197ITR53(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. The assessee is before us. The questions, according to the assessee, arising from the order of the Tribunal are : '(A) Whether the conclusion of the Tribunal that there was no sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the time allowed is perverse and contrary to law? (B) Whether the said conclusion is arrived at by taking into consideration irrelevant materials and excluding relevant materials (C) Whether, in arriving at the said conclusion, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law by not applying the settled principles of law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji : (1987)ILLJ500SC ?' 2. Facts relevant to decide the issue can briefly be stated thus : The assessee filed the appeals as if they are not barred by limitation. On the Department pointing out that the appeals were filed out of time, the assessee filed petitions to condone the delay in filing the appeals. But, at the same time...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›