Skip to content

Kerala Court April 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.

Apr 01 1996

James Jesudas Vs. Malabar Cements Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Decided on: Apr-01-1996

Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ14Ker

Koshy, J.1. The appellant in this case filed the original petition for a declaration that he is entitled to be appointed to the post of Foreman (Electrical) in the first respondent company. He is a Diploma Holder in Electrical Engineering and is working as a Foreman in Chittur Sugars, Palghat District. First respondent company is a Public Sector undertaking of the Kerala Government. When a temporary post of Foreman arose, the first respondent company, by requisition dated May 28, 1994 made a requisition to the Employment Exchange to send a panel of candidates to be considered for the post of Foreman (Electrical). Being a public sector undertaking, under the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) it is mandatory for the company to notify the vacancies to the Employment Exchange before filling up any vacancies in any employment. Section 4(1) of the Act says as follows :'After the commencement of this Act in any State or a...


Apr 01 1996

M. N. Mani (Executor for K. K. Vijayan and ors.) Vs. Commissioner of A ...

Court: Kerala

Decided on: Apr-01-1996

Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Ker)492

V. V. KAMAT, J. :These are the two petitions wherein in regard to the order dt. 24th Jan., 1990 of the Kerala Agrl. ITAT, Additional Bench, Kozhikode an application was preferred for making a reference under s. 60 of the Agrl. IT Act, 1950, which having been declined. There is a prayer for a direction of reference in regard to the following five questions :'(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case is the finding of the Tribunal that the income from 60.79 acres of unregistered coffee area is not included in the accounts of assessee supported by any material or evidence ?(ii) Was the Tribunal right in law in holding that the burden is really on the assessee to prove with evidence that the disclosure of income made by it is full and complete ?(iii) In the absence of any allegation or finding that the assessee has concealed any yield or income, was the Tribunal right in law in holding that addition of income from 60.79 acres is called for merely because in the statutory regi...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial