Kerala Court December 1995 Judgments
N. Balakrishna Panicker Vs. State of KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Ker)554
MRS. K. K. USHA, J :The petitioner, an assessee under the Agrl. IT Act, seeks to raise the following question for the decision of this Court :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income from the 38.73 acres of rubber estate which was given on lease by the petitioner to M/s Dwarka Enterprises, a partnership firm as per lease deed dt. 1st Oct., 1984 can be treated as the personal agricultural income of the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Agrl. IT Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Agrl. ITAT was right in law in holding that giving on lease of 38.73 acres of rubber estate by the petitioner to the partnership firm namely M/s Dwarka Enterprises is a diversion of income by the petitioner to the lessee firm and the actual recipient of the income from the 38.73 acres of rubber estate is the petitioner and not the partnership firm?'2. The petition relates to the asst. yr. 198...
Tag this Judgment!V. Gopalakrishnan Nayanar and anr. Vs. K.V. Sasidharan Nambiar and anr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1302
K.T. Thomas, Actg. C.J.1. A Rotary club instead of embarking on implementation of its professed programmes, has unfortunately got itself embroiled in litigious squabbles both in civil and criminal Courts. This matter is one of the side turns of the latter.2. Criminal case was launched by the President of the Rotary club through a complaint filed against its vice President, Secretary and Treasurer alleging offences under Sections 406 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate before whom the complaint was filed has chosen to conduct an enquiry envisaged in Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'). During such enquiry the Magistrate issued a notice to the accused calling upon them to produce certain documents such as the account book etc., pertaining to the club. Accused who entered appearance, resisted the direction to produce the documents on the ground that they cannot be so compelled in view of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. But learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Joint Regional Transport Officer, Alwaye Vs. K.K. Joshi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ker142
Thomas, Actg. C.J.1. The question to be determined in these two cases is the same and hence we thought it convenient to dispose of them by this common judgment.2. Petitioners in both cases are owners of one 'Light Motor Vehicle' each and they have applied for registration of their vehicles before the Registering Authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). In one case, the Registering Authority dismissed the application as per Ext. P4 order against which the applicant filed Original Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. A learned single Judge allowed the Original Petition and directed the Registering Authority to register the vehicle. That judgment is now being challenged by the Registering Authority in the appeal before us. The other case is the Original Petition filed by the other applicant on the ground that the Registering Authority has not passed order on his application and hence prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the Registering Authority to...
Tag this Judgment!M.V.R. Industries Limited and ors. Vs. Intelligence Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-1995
Reported in: [2003]133STC93(Ker)
K.T. Thomas, Ag. C.J.1. All these writ appeals can be disposed of together as the question involved in all of them is the same. Appellants are cashew exporters. When the revenue intelligence officials inspected the factories of these appellants, stock of raw cashewnuts was noticed by them and they were required to produce the accounts by the intelligence officer. But they failed to produce the accounts and therefore penalty has been imposed on them. The orders imposing penalty have been challenged in revisions before the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kollam (second respondent). Appellants moved for stay of recovery of the penalty amount. But second respondent, having found that the appellants have a prima facie, case, directed them to pay 50 per cent of the penalty amount during the pendency of the revisions. Those orders have been challenged by the respective exporter in the original petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned single ...
Tag this Judgment!Pushpi Jose and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ker210
K.T. Thomas, Ag. C.J.1. The question commonly raised in these cases pertains to the validity of a Government order extending the life of the managing committees of certain co-operative societies in Kerala. Our answer to the said question seems to be sine qua non for disposal of the original petitions. Hence we would first proceed to consider the said question and then we can decide the incidental issues, if any, arising in individual cases.2. Government of Kerala published a notification purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 101 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (for short the Act) as G.O. (P) 156/95/Co.op. dated 6-11-1995 it will hereinafter be referred to as 'the notification'). A directive issued by the Government of Kerala is published as per the notification that Section 28(1) of the Act shall apply to all primary co-operative societies where elections are due before 30-4-1996 with the modification that the words three years in the sub-section shall stand substitu...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. George and ors. Vs. Jacob Mathews and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1299
ORDERN. Dhinakar, J.1. The question to be decided in this Crl. M. C. is whether the Magistrate, after having decided to act and initiated action under Chapter XV of the Crl. P. C, can revert back to Chapter XV of the said Code.2. A few facts, which need for deciding the above said question can be summarised and stated as follows.3. Petitioners are A1, A2 and A9 in C. M. P. No. 8654 of 1993 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla, instituted on a private complaint filed on 19-11-1993 for an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34, I. P. C. In the said complaint 9 persons including these petitioners are shown as accused. A7 and A8 are the daughters of A1 and A2. A9 is the other daughter. A3 to A6 are the close friends of A1.4. The allegation in the said complaint is that in order to settle the earlier dispute between the 1st respondent in this petition (complainant in C. M. P. No. 8654 of 1993) and the 1st petitioner, 7 signed blank cheques were g...
Tag this Judgment!Haridasan Mathilakath Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-18-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ker157
ORDERP.A. Mohammed, J.1. The apex Court as early as in the year 1978 declared that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right coming within the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution. (Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597). Once it is recognised as a fundamental right, all the requirements prescribed for the preservation of that right shall be observed 'stricto sensu'. The procedure regulating the travel must be fair and reasonable. The passport is a document which regulates the right to travel abroad. At least one High Court in India has declared that the inordinate delay in issuing the passport tantamounts to refusal of passport. (Ikhlaq Mohammed v. Union of India, AIR 1983 Him Pra 75). Of course, it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Ordinarily, if there is inordinate delay in issuing the passport this Court will not approve it.2. The petitioner in this case is the adoptive father of a minor child called 'Sidharth Haridasan'. By Ext. P1 order,...
Tag this Judgment!V. Kunhambu and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-15-1995
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(Ker)396; [1996]219ITR235(Ker)
B.N. Patnaik, J.1. These are references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of an assessee. The assessment years in question are 1980-81 and 1981-82. The questions referred are as follows :' 1. Whether there was any material for the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal to the effect that there was excess stock of Rs. 1,50,000 as on March 31, 1980, and March 31, 1981 ?2. Whether there is any material for the Appellate Tribunal for its conclusion that there was excess physical stock to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs as on the date of the search, viz., July 25, 1981, in the absence of physical verification 3. Whether there was any material for the Tribunal to sustain the addition of Rs. 1,50,000 towards 'difference in closing stock' in the assessment order when the stock declared in the four different trading accounts was supported by proper inventories and no difference was established in those inventories ?4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Sali Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-15-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)ALT(Cri)80; 1996CriLJ1225
P.V. Narayanan Nambiar, J.1. The father of detenu Mohammed Sali Ansar, who has beer, detained under Sections 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the COFEPOSA Act'), seeks a Writ of Habeas Corpus to set his son at liberty.2. On 11-8-1994, an unaccompanied baggage was cleared by the detenu from the Trivandrum Airport on payment of duty. While the goods were taken to a metador pick-up van, it was in tercepted by the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Trivandrum and a few of his subordinates. As the Officers have entertained a reasonable belief that the unaccompanied baggage contained contraband goods which are not declared, the entire goods were taken to the Customs House where the baggage was opened and inspected. On inspection, it was found that the baggage contained undeclared articles, the total market value of which was estimated at Rs. 26,22,220/-. But, the detenu ha...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. India Cements Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-12-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ959
K.K. Usha and B.N. Patnaik, JJ.1. All these appeals under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, have been preferred by the Union of India owning Southern Railway, represented by its General Manager against the order dated 16.1.1995 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, in O.A. No. 469 of 1994, and other similar cases. By the impugned order, the Tribunal rejected the contention of the appellant on the question of bar of the claim made by the respondent herein on the ground of limitation. Since common questions of law in all the appeals have been raised, this common judgment is being passed in all the cases.2. The respondent herein filed applications before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, claiming various sums of money as compensation towards damages said to have been caused to the consignment of cement sent through railway from Thalaiyuthu to Kottayam on 27.6.1991. The respondent stated that notice of claim of compensation under Section 78-B of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »