Kerala Court December 1997 Judgments
Rajeswaran Vs. Chief Judicial Magistrate
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-1997
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ575Ker
A.S. Venkatachala Moorthy, J.1. The unsuccessful petitioner in O.P. No. 14039 of 1997 on the file of this Court is the appellant herein.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal can be stated as under. At the relevant time the appellant was working as U.D. Clerk in the Court of Honorary Special Judicial Magistrate of II Class, Kozhikode. The Honorary Special Judicial Magistrate of II Class, Kozhikode submitted a report on October 7, 1996 alleging dereliction of duty against the appellant. Thereafter by order dated October 14, 1996 in proceedings No. A3-5774/96, the appellant was placed under suspension with effect from the said date. The appellant was served with a memorandum of charges dated January 29, 1997 for which he submitted his explanation dated February 24, 1997.3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode initiated enquiry and by proceedings No. A3-5774/ 96 dated March 3, 1997 appointed Sri P. Madhavan, Judicial Magistrate of First Class II (Mobile) Koz...
Tag this Judgment!Janaky Vs. Achuthan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-1997
Reported in: 1(1998)ACC345
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. This appeal has to be straight away allowed, in view of the amendment to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Sub-section (3) of Section 166 was deleted by the amendment by Act 54 of 1994 which came into force on 14.11.1994. Under the old Section 166(3), no application for compensation shall be entitled to unless it is made within six months after the occurrence of the accident. The proviso to the said section also provides that the Claims Tribunal may entertain the application after me expiry of six months, but not later than 12 months if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. The said section, as already noted, has been deleted. Therefore, there is no limitation in preferring the claim petition.2. The Supreme Court also, in a recent decision reported in Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayavargiva : AIR1996SC2155 , held that me benefit of the amending Act is al...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.P. Baburaj
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-1997
Reported in: [1998]234ITR718(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J. 1. These two income-tax references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), are coming up for decision at the instance of the Revenue. The questions of law referred to us for decision are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in deleting the levy of interest under Section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having found that P.A. Abdul Muthalif Rowther v. ITO : [1976]102ITR694(Ker) and : [1993]203ITR389(KAR) are in support of the Revenue's contention and also in the light of the observation of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Lally Jacob v. ITO [1992] 197 ITR 459 (first paragraph) wherein the Full Bench distinguished CIT v. G. B. Transports : [1985]155ITR548(Ker) and found the same inapplicable to a similar case under consideration, the Tribunal is justified in relying on CIT v. G. B. Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Metal Industries Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-1997
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Ker)645
P.A. MOHAMMED, JThese reference cases are coming up before us at the instance of the Revenue. The questions referred to us for decision are as follows:'I. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the assessee filed the return only on 7th Jan., 1986, the Tribunal is factually right in assuming that the assessee filed the return within the time allowed under s. 139(4) and in deciding the question accordingly?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to carry forward the loss?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and considering the grounds raised and the return having been filed only on 7th Jan., 1986, did the Tribunal consider the real question that arose for consideration in its correct perspective?4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the decision reported in Burdwan Wholesale Consumers Co-operative Society vs . CIT : [19...
Tag this Judgment!Sivarajan K. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Ker98
ORDERK. Narayana Kurup, J.1. Heard counsel on both sides.2. Having regard to the nature of the direction I propose to issue while disposing of the C.R.P., I am of the opinion that notice to respondents 3 and 4 is not necessary.3. Petitioner claims to be the winner of First Prize in the 1993 November draw of 'Periyar Lotteries'. There is a dispute regarding the ownership of the lottery tick ;t. He has filed a suit for declaration that he is the owner of the prize winning lottery. In that suit, the petitioner paid 1/10 of the court fee. Pending suit, he has filed an application under Order 33 Rule 1 C.P.C. for adjudging that he is an indigent person. That application stand returned with the endorsement 'Original Suit 2/97 is pending. So there is no provision to receive thispetition. Hence returned'.4. The endorsement has no legal authority. The mere pendency of the suit is not a ground to return the application filed under Order 33 Rule 1 C.P.C. to sue as an indigent person. Once such an...
Tag this Judgment!George P. Varghese and anr. Vs. G. Daniel and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-1997
Reported in: 1998ACJ585; AIR1998Ker120
Ar. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Heard both sides. This appeal is directed against the award dated 10-11-1995 in O.P. (M.V.) No. 208/1990 on the file of the II Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Koliam. The owner and the driver of the vehicle No. KBV 3496 are the appellants in this appeal. The accident took place at about 9.30 a.m. on 28-8-1989. It is the case of the claimants that when the deceased Alexander reached the north-western side of Kottarakkara K.S.R.T.C. Bus Stand, a car bearing registration number KBV 3496 driven by the second appellant herein negligently and with enormous speed, came from East to West and dashed against him and thereby the accident occurred. He sustained severe head injuries and he took treatment in the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. The police also have registered a case in connection with the accident involving the death of Alexander as Crime No. 262/89. The first appellant is the owner of the vehicle. The 8threspondent is the insurer. Appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Padinjarekkara Agencies P. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-1997
Reported in: [1999]235ITR551(Ker)
K.K. Usha, J.1. The references are at the instance of the Revenue. They arise out of a common order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in G. T. A. Nos. 8, 44 and 9/Coch. of 1986 relating to the assessment years 1973-74, 1975-76 and 1980-81, respectively. Following are the common questions referred for the opinion of this court under Section 26(3) of the Gift-tax Act :.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the positive findings by the Gift-tax Officer that 'assessee has been selling the products at a lower rate than the market rate', 'the sales 'represent transfer for inadequate consideration coming within the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act', the Tribunal is justified in law and fact in interfering with the assessment ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in relying on the decision of the High Court rendered under the Income-tax Act in the case of the a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›