Kerala Court July 1997 Judgments
P. T. Mathew Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-1997
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(Ker)216
G. SIVARAJAN, J. :The petitioner, being aggrieved by Ext. P1 notice issued by the first respondent, the TRO under r. 85 of the Second Schedule to the IT Act, 1961, and further proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext. P1, has filed this original petition seeking for a direction to quash Exts. P1 notice and Ext. P6 order of attachment and for a declaration that the petitioner is not a legal representative of the deceased assessee Z. M. Paret and that no tax recovery proceedings could be taken against the petitioner and his properties in respect of the tax due from late Z. M. Paret. There is also an alternate prayer for a direction to the first respondent to consider and investigate the claim petition Ext. P10 and also the objection Exts. P2 and P5 and dispose of the same according to law.2. The case of the petitioner in this original petition is that the petitioner is not the legal representative of deceased Z. M. Paret for recovery of amounts due from whom Ext. P1 notice is issued. It is ...
Tag this Judgment!Birla Tyres Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-11-1997
Reported in: [1998]111STC390(Ker)
K.K. Usha, J.1. These revision petitions are at the instance of the assessee, Birla Tyres, Ernakulam. It is aggrieved by the common order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Palakkad dated November 3, 1995 in T.A. Nos. 44 and 45 of 1955. The questions of law raised in these revision petitions are similar and they are as follows :(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, the finding of the Tribunal that the appellants had attempted to evade the tax due under the KGST Act on the transactions in pursuance of which the stocks of rubbers were being transported is correct or sustainable ?(ii) Assuming without conceding that the relevant documents and records which constitute the material evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the transaction which occurs and the movement of the goods were not available at the time of checking the vehicles, has not the Tribunal committed a grave error in disregarding such documents when ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Namboodiripad N.D.P.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-1997
Reported in: (1998)ILLJ170Ker
C.S. Rajan, J.1. The first respondent, who is the petitioner in the Original Petition retired from service as a Judge of the High Court of Kerala with effect from August 1, 1980. The pension and other retirement benefits of the High Court Judges are determined on the basis of Part-III of 1 Schedule of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 as amended by the amending acts, 1986 and 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Accordingly, the basic pension payable to the first respondent was fixed at Rs. 17,300/- per annum as per Ext.P1 dated September 8, 1986. The Union of India issued order dated April 16, 1987 (Ext.P-2) rationalising the pension structure of employees who retired before January 1, 1986. Ext.P-2 contains a table showing the revised rate of pension payable regarding the existing pensioners. ExtP-2 stated that separate orders would be issued by the respective administrative authorities with regard to the revised pension of retired High Court and Supreme...
Tag this Judgment!Varkey and Anr. Vs. St. Mary's Catholic Church and Ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Ker337
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. The suit O.S. 202 of 1983 was filed by the appellants herein in a representative capacity seeking a declaration of the right of the Periyappurathu family to have their family members alone buried in the eastern first row of the cemetery established and maintained by the first defendant church, a further declaration that the first defendant church is not entitled to permit burial of those who are not members of Periyappurathu family and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from permitting or carrying out burial of dead bodies of persons who do not belong to the Periyappurathu family in the plaint schedule property which is shown as I cent on the eastern side of the 14 cents which is the cemetery of the first defendant church. In addition to the church, the Bishop who was the head of the denomination was impleaded as defendant No. 2. The kaikars of the first defendant church were also impleaded as defendants 3 and 4. Additional defendants 5...
Tag this Judgment!C.C. Dinesh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-1997
Reported in: (1998)ILLJ35Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner is a workman under the 2nd respondent in Federal Bank Ltd. While working as Clerk at Ernakulam Girinagar Branch, he was served with two charge sheets. Enquiry was conducted and he was found guilty. Since the Industrial Dispute I.D.No 8/96 concerning the workman is pending, an application under Section 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act was filed for permission for dismissal. After an enquiry the above application was allowed subject to petitioner's right in challenging the dismissal order. Since the dismissal order had already been effected, the present O.P. has actually become infructous. His remedy lies in raising an industrial dispute. Further finding in the order in granting the permission will not be res judicata. Under Section 11 A, the petitioner will get enough opportunity to prove his contentions against the procedure and validity of the findings in the enquiry as well as the proportionality of the punishment. The jurisdiction under Section 33(1) ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.P. Khader Haji
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-1997
Reported in: [1998]234ITR461(Ker)
K.K. Usha, J. 1. This reference is at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin. It arises out of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I. T. A. No. 19 (Coch of 1987). The relevant assessment year is 1982-83. The following are the questions referred for opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, (a) the Tribunal is justified in cancelling the assessment (b) the Tribunal is right in deleting the addition without further enquiry 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, should not the Tribunal have remitted the case to the officer for a de novo consideration ?' 2. The assesses is a non-resident. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1982-83, the assessee had purchased certain immovable properties for a consideration of Rs. 4,76,000. The Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since the assessee did not compl...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Vs. Panampunna Estates.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-1997
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(Ker)225
K. K. USHA, J. :The reference is at the instance of Commr. of Agrl. IT. It arises out of an order passed by the Kerala Agrl. Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam in AITA No. 56 of 1982. The relevant assessment year is 1972-73 for which the accounting year was from 1st April, 1971 to 31st March, 1972. The following questions are referred by the Tribunal to this Court pursuant to a judgment of this Court in OP 6249/90 :'(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment for the year 1972-73 dt. 29th March, 1976 and served on the assessee on 12th November, 1976 is valid and legal in law (ii) Is the service of the assessment form on the assessee on 5th April, 1976 has any bearing in the matter ?'2. The assessee firm filed its return of agricultural income for the first time in respect of the asst. yr. 1972-73. The return was filed before the Agrl. ITO, Kottayam on 13th February, 1973. A notice under s. 18(2) was issued on 11th September, 1975 and the pre-assessment noti...
Tag this Judgment!Ambattu Gopalakrishnan and ors. Vs. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Ker63
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. On the basis of the directions in Ext.P1 order of this Court the election was conducted in Peringode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and petitioners were successful in the election. The seventh respondent filed a dispute under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act challenging the election. The election was set aside by Ext. P9 order. Apart from the various contentions raised by the petitioners one of the major contention is regarding jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. Petitioners' contention is that the order was passed by the Special Grade Inspector and not by the Registrar, Joint Registrar or Assistant Registrar and that the Arbitrator who is a Special Grade Inspector has no jurisdiction to deal with the dispute. Since the matter relates to jurisdiction of the Arbitrator in passing the award, instructions were taken by the Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 6. Advocate Sri P. C. Sasidharan appeared for the seventh respondent.2. In the counter-affidavit f...
Tag this Judgment!V.P. Jayanarayan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-1997
Reported in: (1998)IILLJ1034Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner's termination of service was challenged and he raised an industrial dispute under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, as can be seen from Ext. P1 representation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Tri-vandrum. By Ext. P2 management contended that he was appointed for a temporary period and he had worked in the Bank only for 195days. Therefore provisions of Section 2A (sic.) will not be applicable. Therefore there is no industrial, dispute. The contentions in Ext.P2 were objected to by Ext. P3 letter. After failure of conciliation, failure report was sent. By Ext.P4 his request for reference was rejected stating that the workman has not put in 240 days service. He had appeared in test for regular recruitment but failed to quality. In effect the contention of the management was accepted on merit and found that petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The Government had gone into merits of the case and passed the order. Section 2(9) of the Ind...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Varadaraja Iyer Vs. Ammukutty Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Ker7
ORDER1. This is a petition filed under Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short 'the Code') to amend the decree passed by this Court in AS 311 of 1980 on 28-6-1986. Respondents have opposed the prayer stating that this Court has no power to allow the same since the decree and judgment passed by this Court have merged in the order passed by the Supreme Court dismissing the SLP (Civil) No. 1678 of 1987 filed by the respondents. In this connection, learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court to contend for the petition that once a SLP is dismissed whether in limine or on merits after hearing the respondents, the decision of the Supreme Court would preclude this Court even from correcting the decree in exercise of the power conferred on it under Section 152 of the Code :1. State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle (1996) 3 SCC 463 : (1996) 3 JT (SC) 567 : (AIR 1996 SC 3069). 2. S. N. Dharma Sangam Trust v. Swami Prakasananda (1997) ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›