Kerala Court August 1997 Judgments
Ktc, Tyres (India) Ltd. Vs. Kavitha Auto Parts
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-29-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Ker147
C.S. Rajan, J. 1. In these cases a common question arises as to whether the claims of the Company are barred by operation of the law of limitation. It is admitted that in all these cases the cause of action in enforcement of the claims on behalf of the Company arose three years before the proceedings started for winding up of the Company. Therefore, it was argued on behalf of the respondents that the Company is not entitled to enforce a claim which was already barred at the time of commencement of the winding up proceedings. The trend of decisions in this respect is that a barred claim cannot be revived by the commencement winding up proceedings and that the Official Liquidator is not acquiring any new right to enforce the claims of the Company. But Shri. Mony, the learned counsel for the Official Liquidator argued on the strength of a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Kerala Fisheries Corporation v. P.S. John, 1996 (1) KLT 814 (FB) that these claims are not barred. The que...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Joseph Vs. Munsiff Court, Ernakulam and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-29-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Ker109
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The petitioner is Chairman and Convenor of the Sub Committee constituted by the Executive Committee of the Diocese of North Kerala for the conduct of the election of the Bishop-pric panel for appointment of a new Bishop to the Dioceses of North Kerala, Church of South India. The existing Bishop will retire on 25-12-1997 and the office of the Bishop will become vacant on the next day. Therefore the election has to take place immediately. The council shall elect a panel not less than two and not more than four persons. The petitioner being the Chairman and Convenor of the Sub Committee has called for nominations. The last date fixed for filing nomination was 14-7-97. The election was to be held on 27-8-1997. It is alleged that certain disgruntled members of the Church are attempting to thwart the process of election to the Bishop-pric panel and have instituted civil suits before different courts. It is also alleged that 'it is understood that some others are ...
Tag this Judgment!Satyabhama Vs. Rama Chandran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-28-1997
Reported in: I(1998)DMC148
T.V. Ramakrishnan, J.1. On the basis of the arguments advanced before us/ the points arising for decision by the Full Bench are the following :(1) Whether a revision petition filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act') is liable to be treated and numbered as a civil revision petition or a criminal revision petition and(2) Whether the Family Court Act as a Civil Court or as Criminal Court while disposing of applications filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 7(2) of the Act ?2. As regards the first question/ a Division Bench of this Court as per its order dated 10.7.1997 has held that a petition filed under Section 19(4) of the Act is liable to be treated and numbered as a CRP. The difference may not be of much practical importance as far as the scope of the revisional jurisdiction is concerned since the same has been delineated in Section 19(4) of the Act. But, as regards the second point, ...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Wahab Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-27-1997
Reported in: [1998]232ITR624(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. The petitioner is an 'assessee' under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The question raised in this writ petition relates to the correctness and legality of an order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 264 of the Act.2. The facts involved in this case are briefly summarised thus ; For the assessment year 1980-81, the first respondent passed exhibit P-1 order of assessment fixing the total income of the assessee as Rs. 1,31,810 and the total tax payable as Rs. 70,483. As against it, the assessee filed an appeal and by exhibit P-2 dated December 12, 1983, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the appeal. The petitioner filed a further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as I. T. A. No. 231 (Coch) of 1984. It was allowed as per exhibit P-3. Consequently, the application of the assessee for rectification under Section 154 was allowed, as a result of which the depreciation in respect of buses had been fixed at the rate...
Tag this Judgment!S. A. Wahab Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)145CTR(Ker)453
P. A. MOHAMMED, J. :The petitioner is an assessee under the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act). The question raised in this writ petition relates to the correctness and legality of an order passed by the CIT under s. 264 of the Act.2. The facts involved in this case are briefly summarised thus : For the asst. yr. 1980-81 the first respondent passed Ext. P1 order of assessment fixing the total income of the assessee as Rs. 1,31,810 and the total tax payable as Rs. 70,483. As against it, the assessee filed an appeal and by Ext. P2 dt. 12th December, 1983, the AAC rejected the appeal. The petitioner filed a further appeal before the Tribunal as ITA No. 231/Coch/1984. It was allowed as per Ext. P3. Consequently, the application of the assessee for rectification under s. 154 was allowed, as a result of which the depreciation in respect of buses had been fixed at the rate of 40 per cent. Subsequently the first respondent issued Ext. P4 order giving effect to Ext. P3 order thereby allowing refu...
Tag this Judgment!Godan Namboothiripad Vs. Kerala Financial Corporation, Vellayambalam a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Ker31
Patnaik, J.1. The sixth respondent in O.P. No. 7098/94 is the appellant herein. By the impugned judgment, the learned single Judge upheld the contention of the first respondent herein, the Kerala Financial Corporation and directed the continuance of revenue recovery proceed against the appellant herein to recover the loan amount together with interest advanced by the first respondent to purchase and ply a transport vehicle.2. The first respondent Corporation sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,26,900/- to one Gopinatha Menon on 21st September, 1974 for purchase of a transport vehicle. The loan was to be repaid by instalments. But the said Gopinatha Menon defaulted to pay the amount. In consequence of default in payment, the vehicle was seized by the Corporation on 11th November, 1980. The appellant thereafter executed an equitable mortgage in respect of 62 cents of land on 2nd December, 1980. On that day he confirmed the deposit of title deeds with the Corporation. In pursuance of the agreement...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala State Transport Workers Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. S. Pankaj ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)IILLJ158Ker
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. The first respondent in this original petition was removed from service as charges issued against him were proved in a domestic enquiry. His removal from service was referred for adjudication. The Industrial Tribunal found that the enquiry was not fair and proper. But, the management was allowed to adduce fresh evidence. Meanwhile, the first respondent filed an application for subsistence allowance under the provisions of the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972. In view of the decision in Kerala State Co-operative Employees Association v. Labour Court, 1984 1 ILR Ker 294, the Labour Court awarded subsistence allowance as prayed for. This is challenged in this original petition.2. It is submitted by the petitioner that the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act is not applicable in the instant case. The petitioner was holding managerial or administrative post and, therefore, the Act is not applicable. Again, it was contended that the above Act is applicable only i...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Krishnan and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-21-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ207
N. Dhinakar, J.1. This Criminal R.P. is posted before this Bench for hearing on the orders of the Hon'ble The Chief Justice.2. Petitioners are A1 and A2 and they were tried before the trial Court along with 2 others for charges under Sections 471, 420, 467, 468, 120-B and 201 read with Section 34, IPC. While the trial court acquitted the other two accused (A3 and A4) it convicted the petitioners for the charges under Sections 471, 420, 120B and 201 read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and 2 years for the offences under Sections 471 and 420, IPC respectively and 6 months each for the charge under Sections 120-B and 201 read with Section 34, IPC with a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. The petitioner were acquitted of the charges under Sections 467 and 468, IPC. As stated earlier A3 and A4 were acquitted of all the charges framed against them. Aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Narendran Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-19-1997
Reported in: [1999]235ITR236(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The petitioner has filed this original petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing exhibits P-4 and P-6 notices issued by the second respondent, the Tax Recovery Officer. Exhibit P-4 is a notice issued under Sections 222 and 223 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, demanding a sum of Rs. 5,91,829 being arrears of income-tax due from Wynad Financing Corporation. Exhibit P-6 is a further communication issued by the second respondent stating that since the firm is defunct, the petitioner and others are jointly and severally responsible to clear the arrears as partners of the defunct firm. It is also stated that coercive measures for recovering the arrears by attachment and sale of movable properties are proposed to be initiated. The petitioner was also given an opportunity to pay the said amount. According to the petitioner, he was not a partner of the firm, 'Wynad Financing Corporation', who is the assessee in default. It is stated that the petitioner's wife was one...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Supriya Enterprises
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-1997
Reported in: [1998]232ITR887(Ker)
K.K. Usha, J.1. These reference cases arise out of a common order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I.TA Nos. 10 and 11/Coch of 1988, filed by the assessee and I. T. A. Nos. 141 and 142/Coch. of 1988 filed by the Revenue. The relevant assessment years are 1985-86 and 1986-87. The following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion at the instance of the Revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in reducing the addition of Rs. 51,86,290 made for the assessment year 1985-86 to Rs. 5,00,000 and the addition of Rs.23,97,200 for the assessment year 1986-87 to Rs. 3,00,000 ?'2. The assessee, a registered firm with 20 partners, entered into an agreement with Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. on July 18, 1982, for sale of the company's Skinnerpuram Estate having an extent of 698.92 acres to the assessee or its nominee for a consideration of Rs. 210 lakhs. An amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was paid as ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »