Kerala Court October 1996 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. P. Kunhiraman and Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-24-1996
Reported in: [1998]234ITR133(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. The questions, with reference to the assessment year 1987-88, that expect our answer are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and where a partner obtains a licence and carries on the business of abkari contracts, the Tribunal is right in law in holding--(i) it cannot be said that concerned partner has transferred the licence or the privilege to aid in favour of the partnership firm of which he is a partner (ii) such transfer, if any, is not prohibited under the Abkari Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to be treated as a registered firm under the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The assessee is a partnership firm consisting of fifteen partners engaged in arrack business, During the previous year ending March 31, 1987, relevant to the assessment year 1987-88, the seventh group arrack shops in Kumbala Range, Kasaragod district, were taken in auction for a sum of Rs. 18,17,227 by the par...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P. Kunhiraman and Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-24-1996
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(Ker)66
V. V. KAMAT, J. :The questions, with reference to asst. yr. 1987-88, that expect our answer are as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and where a partner obtains a licence and carries on the business of abkari contracts, the Tribunal is right in law in holding : (i) it cannot be said that concerned partners has transferred the licence or the privilege to aid in favour of the partnership firm of which he is a partner (ii) such transfer, is any, is not prohibited under the Abkari Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to be treated as a registered firm under the IT Act ?'2. The assessee is a partnership firm consisting of fifteen partners engaged in arrack business. During the previous year ending 31st March, 1987, relevant to the asst. yr. 1987-88, the VIIth group arrack shops in Kumbala Range, Kasaragod district were taken in auction for a sum of Rs. 18,17,227 by the partnership firm. However, the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.T. Mathew
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-23-1996
Reported in: [1998]233ITR770(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. All these five references really centre around our answer as to whether a valid trust is created and thereby the property and naturally the income therefrom gets transferred to the said trust. In other words, out of the following three questions expecting our answer, the fate would be determined by our answer to question No. 1. The three questions are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that there was a valid trust ? 2. If the answer to the above question is in the negative, whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in deleting the income from the Victory Offset Printers from the assessment of the assessee ? 3. If the answer to the second question is in the negative, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the Revenue's quantum appeal without going into t...
K.C. Ravindran Pillai, Advocate Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-23-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1231
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner is challenging the validity of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as unconstitutional. He is also seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 First Information Report submitted before the Special Judge for SC/ST Cases (Sessions Court), Manjeri.2. The allegation in Ext.P2 is 'petitioner has assaulted, one Ramachandran who belongs to Scheduled Castes community of Kallady by calling his caste name at a public place'. Petitioner denied the said incident. According to petitioner he has no connection with the fourth respondent, and he is totally a stranger to the petitioner. According to petitioner, he is not aware of his caste. His case is that a false complaint is lodged against him at the instigation of one Radhakrishnan to wreck vengeance on the petitioner for taking effective steps to prevent encroachment into the property which is put in the possession of receivers appointed by...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Majeed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-22-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ264; [1997(75)FLR663]; (1998)IIILLJ1044Ker
USHA,J. 1. Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act, 1995 (Act 30 of 1995) has brought in drastic changes to different provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Whether such amendment to Sub-section (I) and Explanation II of Section 4 and addition of Sub-section (4) to Section 4 and amendment to Sub-section (3) of Section 4A will have effect on pending proceedings is the issue raised in this appeal.2. Appeal is at the instance of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., challenging the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kozhikode in W.C.C. No. 150/1994. Respondents 1 and 2 are the claimants and third respondent is the employer. The son of respondents 1 and 2, who was a workman under the third respondent, died as a result of the accident which happened on March 16, 1994. The only contention taken in this appeal is that the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has committed an error in granting compensation on the basis of the provisi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A. Yonus Kunju
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-1996
Reported in: [1997]228ITR147(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. Tax Reference No. 55 of 1991 is already on the file of the registry of this court well nigh nearly for a period of six years by now. In addition it appears that by the order dated October 5, 1994, the original petitions referred to above are ordered to be placed for hearing along with the above income-tax reference. Obviously, this would create the situation of indefinitely elongating the life of this litigation because with regard to these original petitions, the provisions of Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, would necessitate calling upon the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal with a direction to refer afresh questions with regard to the same proceedings to this court. Our experience shows that in the process, the life of pendency of the income-tax reference of the year 1991 would get prolonged. In fact, this court in CIT v. Wandoor Jupiter Chits (P.) Ltd. (In liquidation) : [1995]213ITR73(Ker) , is seen to be very much conscious and at the same time expressing...
A.C. John Vs. the Divisional Forest Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ595
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Question involved in these Writ Petitions is as to whether an authorised officer of the Forest Department has got power to release the vehicle seized pending confiscation proceedings under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, hereinafter called the 'Act'. In all these cases, forest authorities took the view that pending confiscation proceedings, they have no power to release the vehicle, if the offence is believed to have been committed in respect of timber, charcoal, firewood or ivory, which is the properly of the Government.2. Chapter VIII of the Act deals with offences, penalties and procedure. Section 52 of the Act authorises Forest Officer or Police Officer, when there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any timber or other forest produce, to seize such timber or produce, together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing any such offence. Officer who is seizing the prop...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Asian Techs Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Ker)161; [1998]233ITR715(Ker)
ORDER OF TRIBUNAL--Divergence as regards factual aspect referred to Third Member.Ratio & Held:Even though there was disagreement between two members yet final order of Third Member was based on the basis that there was agreement between members and finding of fact was recorded accordingly, therefore, final order cannot be understood to follow as direct consequence of three orders of by three members since there is divergence regards factual aspect. Entire proceeding before Tribunal is liable to be set aside and quashed.Application:Also to current assessment years.A. Y.:1981-82 & 1982-83Income Tax Act 1961 s.254Income Tax Act 1961 s.260Reference--JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT--Alternative options available to High Court.Ratio:Even though the High Court and the apex court exercised advisory jurisdiction, it has to be understood on the basis that they have only two options in the process of dealing with the situations, either to answer the question of law or to call for a supplementary state...
Abraham Thomas Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-15-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2670]; (1997)ILLJ335Ker
P. Shanmugam, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the preliminary finding of the Labour Court in I. D.No. 118/95.2. The facts relating to the filing of the O.P are as follows: Seven managements of plantation estates denied employment to 22 persons. The Government of Kerala referred to the said dispute for adjudication before Labour Court. The petitioner- management raised a preliminary objection stating that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute referred. The said preliminary issue was decided overruling the objection of the management holding that the subject matter can be adjudicated by the Labour Court and the Government had the competency to refer the matter under I.D. Act. The said finding is under challenge.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute can only be an 'agricultural dispute' under the Kerala Agricultural Workers Act, 1974. He also contended that plantation owned by the owners will not be an industry under I.D. Act, but is only a...
Jose thengumpillil Vs. Secretary, Peruvanthanam Service Co-operative B ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Ker261
Ramakrishnan, J. 1. These two unnumbered appeals are posted before us on a reference made by Balasubramunyan, J. The question posed before the learned Single Judge and referred for decision is whether the orders challenged in the two appeals have the force of decrees attracting an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure or whether they arc merely orders conferring a right of appeal on the appellant under Order XLI1I Rule 1 C.P.C. Being a question relating to the practice to be followed generally by the Courts in the matter of entertaining appeals, the learned Single Judge was of the view that there should not be any confusion on the question and as such it is only proper to refer the question to a Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the question. Incidently, the learned Judge has also pointed out in the order of reference the correctness of the decision reported in Ali v. Muhammed Ali (ILR 1995 (3) Ker 383). As such it is necessary to consider the correc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »