Kerala Court February 1993 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. Kanam Latex Industries (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-1993
Reported in: (1993)111CTR(Ker)79; [1993]203ITR542(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 assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The respondent which is a private limited company is an assessee to income-tax. We are concerned with the assessment year 1980-81. The business of the company is centrifuging rubber latex. The assessee claimed that the business involves manufacture or production of articles and things and so, the company is entitled to deduction under Section 80J as well as under Section 80HH in respect of a unit working at Nagercoil in Kanyakumari district, which has been declared as a backward area. The Income-tax Officer rej...
A.K. Mohammed Vs. the Project Director (S.E.), CochIn and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Ker328
Sreedharan, J.1. Writ petitioner in O. P. 9589/1992 is the appellant. He is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 25-1-1993, by which Original Petition has been dismissed. The issue urged before us relates to the interpretation of Section 49 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. The short facts germane for the decision of this appeal are as follows.-- Respondents 15 to 19 in the writ petition are the owners of property comprised in Survey No. 371/1 of Aluva Village. Building, bearing door No. 1 / 312 of Choornikkara Panchayat, is situated in that property. The land owners were conducting a Saw Mill in that property. The machinaries therein were sold to the writ petitioner as per Exhibit Rule 15(b) dated 30-4-1971. On the same day, the writ petitioner took the shed, where the machineries were installed, for running the Saw Mill on lease. The duplicate copy of the lease deed dated 30-4-1971 is Exhibit p. 2. As per the terms of th...
Dr. George Peter Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-1993
Reported in: (1993)111CTR(Ker)152; [1994]205ITR79(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. This batch of eight revisions are connected cases. Identical questions arise for consideration in all of them. T. R. C. No. 140 of 1991, T. R. C. Nos. 11, 14 and 15 of 1993 are filed by one, Dr. George Peter. T. R. C. Nos. 141 of 1991, 12, 13 and 16 of 1993, are filed by one, Shri George Oommen. Dr. George Peter and Shri George Oommen are brothers. They are partners of a registered firm, namely, Good Hope Plantations. The firm originally owned two rubber estates, viz., the New Good Hope Estate and the New Hope Estate. On August 1, 1979, the New Good Hope Estate was partitioned between the two brothers and the firm Good Hope Plantations continued with the New Hope Estate. A settlement deed was brought into existence by Shri George Oommen by which a trust was created. The scope of the trust and other matters connected therewith are in controversy.2. For the purpose of this batch of eight revisions, it is sufficient to notice the following facts :In this batch of ei...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Dr. K.C. Mammen, Malayala Manorama
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-1993
Reported in: (1993)111CTR(Ker)125; [1993]203ITR528(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The Revenue is the petitioner herein. The matter arises under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The respondent is an assessee to wealth-tax. We are concerned with the assessment year 1979-80. The assessee was a partner in a firm, Messrs. M. M. Corporation. The firm owns a house at Bangalore. While valuing the interest of the assessee in the firm, the claim of the assessee for exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) was negatived by the Wealth-tax Officer on the ground that the house was not owned by or belonged to or held by the assessee. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, on the basis of a circular issued by the Board, held that the assessee will be entitled to 1/8th share in the total exemption of Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 5(1)(iv). In second appeal, the Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee will be entitled to exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, in respect of his share in the building owned by the firm. Thereafter, the Revenue filed an ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Union Saw Mills and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-1993
Reported in: [1993]203ITR581(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The Revenue is the petitioner herein. The original respondent was an unregistered firm--an assessee to income-tax. We are concerned with the assessment year 1975-76. Since the firm stood dissolved, additional respondents Nos. 2 to 6 have been impleaded as parties in the original petition. The accounting period ended on March 31, 1975. During the previous year which ended on March 31, 1975, the assessee closed down its business, retrenched all its employees and sold the mill. Consequently, the assessee paid retrenchment compensation of Rs. 93,504 and Rs. 1,19,869 towards gratuity to the employees. The Income-tax Officer held that the above amounts cannot be claimed as deduction since they were paid on the closure of the business. They were not expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business. The said assessment was upheld in appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In second appeal, the Appellate Tribunal agreed with the aut...
Paulose Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-1993
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ491Ker
Mathews P. Mathew, J.1. The petitioners in these Original Petitions are advocates. They challenge the procedure adopted by the 1st respondent-State Government for selection of candidates for appointment of Presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunals proposed to be set up at Idukki and Palghat and seek to set aside the selection. Section 7A of the Industrial Disputes Act prescribes the method of appointment and qualifications for the Presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunals as follows-'7A. Tribunals (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Industrial Tribunals for the adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter, whether specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule (and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under this Act).2. A Tribunal shall consist of one person only to be appointed by the appropriate Government.3. A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the ...
Nelliampathy Tea and Produce Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Agricult ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-1993
Reported in: (1993)111CTR(Ker)93
K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. :The revision petitioner is a public limited company. It is an assessee under the Agrl. IT Act. The respondent is the Revenue. We are concerned with the asst. yr. 1980-81. The assessment for the year 1980-81 was completed on 21st March, 1986. The Commr. of Agrl. IT initiated suo motu revisional proceedings under s. 34 of the Act as per notice dt. 18th October, 1989, as in his view a sum of Rs. 2,31,239 has not been considered for assessment. He took the view that the income from coffee was fixed at Rs. 5,76,892 as against Rs. 8,08,131 conceded by the assessee. The revision petitioner/assessee objected to the initiation of the said proceedings. It also contested the matter on the merits. One of the objections taken was that the proceedings were initiated not within a reasonable time and so unjustified or barred. The Commr. of Agrl. IT, by proceedings dt. 30th March, 1991, set aside the assessment order made by the assessing authority for the year 1980-81 on 21st Ma...
ZaIn Salt Vs. Intex-painter, Interior Decorators, Civil Workers, Maint ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-12-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2213
ORDERL. Manoharan, J.1. This petition under Sections 397, 401 and 482 of the Cr. P. C. (for short 'The Code') seeks to set aside Annexure H order on M. P. No. 3095/92 in C. C. No. 513/91 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the IInd Class, Aluva and to quash C.C. No. 513/91.2. The petitioner entrusted the interior decoration and furnishing work of the petitioner's office with the 1st respondent. Misunderstanding arose between the petitioner and the 1st respondent regarding the work done. Respondents 1 and 2 filed Annexure-A complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, Aluva alleging that the petitioner has committed offences punishable under Sections 418, 232, 342, 506(1) and 294 of the I.P.C. The learned Magistrate referred the same under Section 156(3) of the Code. The police registered it as Crime No. 100/90 and referred the case by Annexure R-3 report and issued notice on 12-2-1991 to the second respondent. The 2nd respondent, thereafter filed a protest complaint ...
Haneefa Vs. State by Sub-inspector of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2125
ORDERL. Manoharan, J.1. Appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 51 of 1991 who is the accused in Sessions Case No. 68 of 1990 of the Assistant Sessions Judge (Principal), Palakkad is the revision-petitioner. The learned Judge found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'), convicted him and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 29,000/-; in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 2 years. He challenged the said conviction and sentence in Crl. Appeal No. 51 of 1991 before the Sessions Judge, Palakkad. The said appeal was dismissed.2. PW 1, Sub-Inspector of Police, Palakkad Town North Police Station while on patrol duty on 5-9-1990 at 5.45 p.m. along with police constables, found the accused near the Government Victoria College. On seeing the police party, he retreated which created suspicion and...
The Superintendent of Police Vs. Shri FirozuddIn BasheeruddIn Alias Fi ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2775
K.T. Thomas, J.1. Petitioner (Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Cochin Unit) Prays for a direction that a sessions case now pending before the 2nd additional sessions court, Ernakulam, be tried by the 3rd or 4th additional sessions court, Ernakulam, as those courts have been created for trying cases investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'the CBI'). Learned single Judge before whom the petition came up felt that the question involved must be decided by a Division Bench.2. The case originated as crime No. 229/89 of Kasaragod Police Station. It relates to the death of one K. M. Hamsa and hence this case is described as 'Hamsa murder case'. The following points are not disputed; 'Hamsa murder case' was investigated and charge sheeted by the CBI pursuant to a direction issued by the Central Government under Section 5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 with the consent of the State Government as provided in Section 6 of the s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »