Kerala Court June 1993 Judgments
C.N. Surendran Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-29-1993
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ840Ker
T.V. Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The question arising for consideration in this original petition is whether under the provisions of the Kerala Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1969 (for short 'the Act'), an employer is liable to pay contribution on twice the wages payable to an employee who actually works on a day which he is entitled to treat as a holiday with wages?2. The petitioner was the contractor of Toddy Shop No. 12 in the Quilon Range at Pullikkada in Quilon, during the year 1983-84. Under the Act, every employer is liable to pay contribution to the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund constituted under Section 3 of the Act at the rate fixed as per Section 4 on the amount of 'wages' payable to the employees engaged by him in the manner provided in the Act. The Toddy Welfare Fund Inspector is to determine the quantum of contribution payable following the procedure prescribed in Section 8 of the Act. As per the final order of assessment passed, the petitioner's liability for contribution for th...
Tag this Judgment!S. SainuddIn Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1993
Reported in: [1994]205ITR555(Ker)
K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, has referred the following questions of law for a decision of this court :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in coming to the conclusion that the agreement entered into between the applicant and his children on August 23, 1976 is not a valid and genuine document ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has misconstrued the documents produced before it, viz., the agreement dated August 23, 1976, the release deed dated February 28, 1985, plantation tax assessment, compromise order of the sub-court in arriving at the conclusion that they do not disclose the transfer of possession of the property by the applicant to his children ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not deciding the issues regarding the yield esti...
Tag this Judgment!Aziz Alias Kallu Azi and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ2407
K.T. Thomas, J.1. On 3-3-90 a Sub-Inspector of Police received information that four persons were dealing in narcotic drugs at Beach Hotel, Fort Kochi. He proceeded to the place and arrested four persons including the two appellants and seized 'charas' from them (11.60 grams from the first appellant and 11 grams from the second appellant). The seized articles were produced before the Magistrate Court from where they were forwarded to the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory attached to the Government of Kerala. On analysis, they were identified to be 'charas'. The case was charge-sheeted and after trial the Sessions Court convicted the appellants of the offence under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'). Both were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 11 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh each. Third and fourth accused were acquitted.2. P.W. 1 is the Sub-Inspector of Police. He spoke of the case that he received information f...
Tag this Judgment!Parvathi Amma Vs. Government of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1993
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas494(Ker)
K.B. Balakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner in this case claims the benefit of the Kerala Co-operative Agricultural Rural Debt Relief Scheme, 1990 (for short 'the Scheme'). This claim is opposed by the fourth respondent on two counts. Firstly, it is contended that the loan was sanctioned prior to April 1, 1986, and hence she is not entitled to the benefit of the Scheme. Secondly, it is alleged that the loan was not availed of for any of the purposes mentioned in the Scheme.2. At first, I shall consider the question whether a person who has availed of a loan prior to April 1, 1986, is entitled to waiver of the loan amount under the provisions of the scheme. This Scheme came into force on November 15, 1990. It is intended to benefit poor agriculturists, artisans and persons engaged in small scale industries who are affected by the drought conditions during the years 1986, 1987 and 1989. The Union Government declared these years as bad crop years and decided to give relief of waiver of loans a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Sursingh Jairam Asher
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1993
Reported in: [1994]205ITR513(Ker)
K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, 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 and had materials in holding that the induction of the new partners was in the interest of the business and hence the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 5(1)(xiv) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ?'2. The respondents in these references are the assessees. We are concerned with the assessment year 1975-76. The assessees were partners in the firm Messrs. Jairam and Sons, each having one-third share. The partnership business was started in 1958. One son of each of the partners was introduced in the partnership on October 27, 1973, and each of them was given half share of his father. The sons contributed Rs. 15,000 each. The original partners were assessed to gift-tax on the ground that they have forgone 16-2/3 per ce...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kishorekumar Shamji
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1993
Reported in: [1994]205ITR485(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred as many as six questions for the decision of this court. The statement of the case is dated February 22, 1988. There are five annexures to the statement of the case. They are : (i) the assessment order dated January 29, 1980 ; (ii) the order passed under Section 271(1)(c) dated March 4, 1982 ; (iii) the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated October 11, 1982 ; (iv) theorder of the Tribunal dated November 26, 1983 ; and (v) the order of the Tribunal dated January 11, 1985.2. The very first question referred to this court, specified in paragraph 6 of the statement of the case, reads as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and particularly in the light of the facts mentioned in the enclosure to the reference application, the Tribunal is right : (i) in holding that the assessee is not liable to a penalty under Section 271(1)(...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Podimattom Wines
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1993
Reported in: [1994]205ITR450(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 was right in law and fact in holding that the interest on advance payment is not taxable and the assessee following the mercantile system of accounting does not become entitled to it 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and fact in holding that the interest becomes taxable in the year in which the Excise Department gives credit to the assessee ?' 2. The respondent is a firm. It is an abkari contractor. We are concerned with the assessment year 1983-84, for which the accounting period ended on March 31, 1983. The firm had deposited a sum of Rs. 9,86,190 in March, 1980, with the Government as advance kist. The interest due on this amount for this year amounted to Rs. 39,448. Admittedly, t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. M. Subaida Beevi.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1993
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(Ker)107
K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. :At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal 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 holding that the transfer of the agricultural lands situate within the municipal limits of Kayamkulam did not give rise to income by way of capital gains ?'2. The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. We are concerned with the asst. yr. 1973-74. The assessee had agricultural lands situate in the municipal limits of Kayamkulam. They were acquired by the Government. The compensation awarded was brought to tax by way of capital gains, by the assessing authority. The plea of the assessee was that there was no capital gains, since the agricultural lands were situate within the municipal limits. In appeal, the Tribunal accepted the plea. It did so by placing reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Manubhai A. Sheth vs . N. D. Nirgudkar, Second ITO : ...
Tag this Judgment!M.O.H. Iqbal Vs. M. Uthaman and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-1993
Reported in: [1995]82CompCas726(Ker)
K.T. Thomas, J. 1. The petitioner is the managing director of a public limited company. He is being prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'), on the allegations, inter alia, that he issued a cheque in favour of the complainant (first respondent herein) which was dishonoured by the drawee-bank as the drawer did not have necessary amount in his account, and that a notice was issued to the petitioner to which no reply was even sent.2. As the magistrate before whom the complaint was filed took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the petitioner, he filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), for quashing the complaint.3. Three vivid points have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that the complaint is liable to be quashed, They are : (1) the offence was committed by the company and not the petitioner ; (2) pro...
Tag this Judgment!Tharian Joseph Vs. K.P. Viswanathan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ82
Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. This Contempt Case has been filed on 10-3-1993 by the petitioner, who is a practising advocate, inviting the High Court's attention to certain remarks made by the respondent, Sri K. P. Viswanathan, Minister of Forests, Government of Kerala, on 6-3-1993 while inaugurating a seminar on 'Agastyavanam' biological park in Y.M.C.A. hall at Ernakulam. The function was organised by the Forest Department, Kerala Government. On the next day, i.e., 7-3-1993, the speech, as recorded by the news-reporters, was published in various newspapers. The 'Mathrubhumi', Malayalam Daily (Cochin Edition) in its report, Ext. P.1, as explained in the Contempt Petition reported that 'the Minister and another person (said to be the Mayor of Cochin) were having grievance against High Court Judges, in that several decisions of the High Court Judges put the Forest Department to great trouble according to the strong language used by the Minister. In spite of deep thinking, he was not able to un...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »