Kerala Court March 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 Gift Tax Vs. K. Radhakrishanan Nair.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-1996
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Ker)439
V. V. KAMAT, J. :The Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred, under s. 26(1) of the GT Act, 1958, and ask for answer to the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the Notification dt. 20th July, 1977 of the CBDT would not apply to a case of valuation of a right to share the profits with the right to share in the assets of the firm ?'2. Reading the question it would be seen that what is required to be considered and answered is as to whether the notification (Annexure F) dt. 20th July, 1977 would govern the situation or not.3. The factual matrix is in a narrow compass. The assessee was a partner of a firm in the name and style of M/s Lakshman & Co. dealing with the cashew exports at Quilon. The year in question is 1978-79. Up to the end of the previous year, that ended on 30th June, 1977 his share in the profits was 6% and thereafter on a change in the constitution of firm it got reduced to 2% and in reg...
The Principal, Sree Narayana College Vs. Vice-chancellor, University o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Ker369
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Campus politics has always been a menace to our educational institutions. Time is overdue that academicians and educationists and administrators and all concerned are to see that the students are free from this evil which is slowly and steadily making an inroad into our educational system. Despite the perennial natural of those problems they have hitherto attracted little attention.2. Educational institutions are spiring boards for academic excellence and not for political exercise. Though right to education is not stated expressly as a fundamental right, it is implict expressly and flows from the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, having regard to the broad and expansive interpretation given by courts. Right to education has been treated as one of transcendent importance. It has fundamental significance to the life of the individual and the society at large. Articles 41, 45 and 46 of the Constitution of India show the ...
K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Vamadevan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: [1997(75)FLR273]; (1996)IILLJ557Ker
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The Managing Director of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation has filed this original petition challenging Ext. P3 order issued by the Authority under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972 (Act 27 of 1973)2. As per the said Act, allowing an application submitted by respondents 1 to 9, the Authority namely the 10th respondent quantified the subsistence allowance due to respondents 1 to 9 and directed payment.3. Challenging Ext. P3 the Petitioner contends that the law applicable to the employees under it governing payment of subsistence allowance is the provisions in the K.S.R. It is further contended in ground D that by reason of Agreement dated February 2, 1990 'the provisions of K.S.R. is applicable' to the employees in the matter regarding their service. On that count it is stated that the provisions in the Act are not applicable to the employees. Exhibit P6 is also brought to my notice whereby an order has been issued on April 13, 1992 stating...
P.i. John Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: [1997]223ITR257(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. This is a revision application under Section 78 ofthe Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991, against an order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Agricultural Income-tax and Sales tax, Kollam, datedSeptember 30, 1991, whereby the appellate authority dealing with thepenalty proceedings, while confirming the proceedings modified its levyas the taxing officer had imposed it for the period prior to the filing ofthe return. The question that comes up for consideration and consequentdecision before us is as to whether there can be any interference with theorder of imposition of penalty as such.2. The year in question is 1980-81. Rupees 46,960 was the declared net income in regard thereto on the basis of the return dated September 18, 1980. However, it is undisputed that as per the position of law, the petitioner did not remit the tax due on the admitted income which was the basis for the initiation of notice of proceeding under Section 17A(3) of the Act which was served on the...
institute of Social Welfare Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Ker45
Thomas, Ag. C. J.1. A scheme has been formulated for linking the main land of Cochin with a few of the Islands in the archipelago situated beyond the western backwaters. A body has been constituted for its implementation. The name of the said body is 'Goshree Island Development Authority' (its acronym is 'GIDA'). The scheme involves construction of bridges connecting those islands with the main land -- Ernakulam. It also envisages reclamation of an area of 362 hectares in the Vembanad lake abutting the Arabian sea. The cost estimated for this major scheme is roughly 328 crores of rupees. Propounders of GIDA were initially enthusiastic in implementation of the scheme. But such activities had to be slowpedalled when the public interest litigation was launched at the instance of a society registered claiming itself to be interested in the social welfare of general public. The Original Petition filed by them for a writ of prohibition restraining the authorities to stop the project for recl...
Ramla Haris Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3325
K. Shreedharan, J.1. Petitioner is the wife of Poozhikkal Haris, detenu No. 1388, detained in the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram pursuant to an order passed under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. Facts which led to the detention are as follows:- On 7-12-1994, the Customs Intelligence Officer attached to AIR Customs, Calicut Airport detained a passenger by name Mujeeb Rahman, who was waiting for security check for travelling to Sharjah. On examining his body, foreign currency of various denominations, including U.S. Dollars, Oman Riyals, Saudi Riyals, Kuwaiti Dinars, U.A.E. Derhams, Qatar Riyals and Bahrain Dinars, valued at 1.2 crores of Indian Rupees were recovered from him. Mujeeb Rahman gace a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act. According to him, one Saide of Kacheripady had arranged for a Visa for him to proceed to Sharjah on condition that he should carry ...
State of Kerala Vs. Mytheen Pillai Muhammed Kannu and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Ker261
Usha, J.1. The above three appeals are at the instance of State of Kerala. Challenge is against the judgment of Prl. Subordinate court, Trivandrum and Addl. Subordinate Court, Trivandrum in L.A.R. Nos. 76, 103 and 24 of 1985 respectively. The land acquisition reference arose out of acquisition proceedings for Vizhinjam Harbour Project. In L.A.R. No. 96/87 10.60 Ares of land inSy. No. 399/8-11 of Kottukkal Village belonging to the respondents were acquired as per notification dated 10-2-1979. In L.A.A. No 93/87 105.62 Ares of land in Sy. No. 399/ 8-9 belonging to the respondents were acquired under the same notification, whereas in L.A.A. No. 265/85 the area acquired would come to 45.93 Ares in Sy. No. 399/8-7. The award was passed in all the three cases on 27-3-1982 and possession was taken on 29-4-1982 in the case of L.A.A. Nos. 96 and 93/87 and 29-3-1982 in L.A.A. No. 265/87.2. The Land Acquisition Officer classified properties in L.A.A. Nos. 96 and 93 of 1987 and 265 of, 1987 under ...
Sunny Markose Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Ker379
1. Petitioner is the appellant. He challenges Ext. P2 order issued by the Government of Kerala. By Ext. P2 order, Government ordered that all arrack shops in the State will stand abolished from 1-4-1996. Presumably Ext. P2 order is issued in consonance with Article 47 of the Constitution of India. Appellant's attack of Ext. P2 is three fold. By abolition of all arrack shops from 1-4-1996, appellant's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is violated as he is working as Route Manager for distribution of arrack for the past five years and he is earning his livelihood by working as Route Manager. The second attack is on the ground that while arrack shops are to be abolished, toddy shops and shops selling Indian made foreign liquor are to continue and hence it is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The third attack is that the fermentation industry is regulated by the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and that Ext....
C.K. Swarnalatha Vs. K. Chandra Mohanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-1996
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas131(Ker)
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the complainant in C. C. No. 698 of 1991 on the file of the J. F. C. M.-1, Kannur, against the acquittal of the respondent. The complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and it was alleged that the respondent had drawn three cheques in favour of the complainant and when they were presented for payment, they were dishonoured and thus the respondent committed the offence under the Act. When this appeal came up for hearing before the learned single judge, the question arose as to whether a single complaint could be filed in respect of three cheques. The learned single judge disagreed with the view expressed in Crl. R. P. No. 734 of 1994 and was pleased to refer the matter to a Division Bench.2. We heard the appellant's counsel and also counsel for the respondent. The respondent herein was acquitted on the ground that the complaint was barred by time. The Magistrate held that as per Section 138(c), the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.K. Narayanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-1996
Reported in: [1997]223ITR169(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. These are two petitions for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, respectively, brought before us by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. With the help of learned senior counsel for the Revenue we have been taken through not only all the three orders in the quantum proceedings, but also, equally well, equal number of orders in the present proceedings arising under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act relating to the question of penalty.3. Although the Revenue has framed as many as 12 questions in Original Petition No. 3468 of 1995, since we are impressed only with two of them along with the aid of the third one from us, it would be an unnecessary burden on this judgment to reproduce all the 12 questions ad verbatim although it is customary.4. The factual matrix barely necessary for the above purpose would show that the assessee appears to be a jack of many trades such as fishing--probably dealing in the sale of fish and not in actual fishing as s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »