Kerala Court August 1997 Judgments
P. Ramesh Kumar Vs. Secretary, Kannapuram Grama Panchayat and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Ker95; II(1997)DMC399
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The petitioner is a resident of Kannapuram Amsom Desom. He was working in a Company in Tokyo in Japan during 1989-1996. He happened to fall in love with a Japanese lady employed in Japan and they decided to get married. Accordingly, when the petitioner's wife reached at Kannapuram Amsom Desom in India, their marriage was solemnised on 27-7-1996, according to the petitioner, in accordance with the customary rites prevalent in the Nair Community to which the petitioner belongs. The petitioner's wife is a Buddhist. It is further submitted by the petitioner that their marriage was solemnised under the 'Hindu Marriage Act 1955'. The petitioner, his wife and the newly born child want to go to Japan for employment purpose. For this purpose, the petitioner requires a Marriage Certificate relating to the marriage of the petitioner with his wife, Yumi Ito. The marriage was held on 29-9-1996. The petitioner made an application to the local authority. That was not cons...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Abdul Latheef and anr. Vs. Deputy Director of Income-tax, Investi ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-11-1997
Reported in: [1999]235ITR73(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The petitioners are the partners of Central Jewellery located at Door No. IX/1011, Vengara, Malappuram District. According tothe petitioners, the partnership business is constituted on August 9, 1996, as per exhibit P-1 and the business was commenced from August 9, 1996, as per exhibits P-1 and P-2. There was a search of the business premises of 'Central Jewellery' of which the petitioners are the partners, on November 21, 1996, by the Income-tax Department. Exhibit P-3 is the panchanama prepared by the fourth respondent containing the details of the recoveries effected pursuant to the search and seizure conducted on November 21, 1996. The second respondent initiated further proceedings and the petitioners have been co-operating with the Department in the matter. The second respondent on July 28, 1997, issued exhibit P-4 notice asking the firm for explanations and details in regard to certain matters. The petitioners were also required to be present to verify the tra...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary, K.J.H.S.W. Union Vs. Industrial Tribunal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: (1998)ILLJ574Ker
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. Petitioner challenges Ext.P1 award of the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam. Denial of employment to 7 workers was referred for adjudication. Management raised a preliminary objection stating that there is no valid industrial dispute as no charter of demands were placed before the management. Since there is demand by union and denial by the workman there is no industrial dispute. Tribunal accepted the above. Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sindhu Re-settlement Corporation Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal of Gujarat and Ors. (1968-I-LLJ-834). A Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in State of Madras v. C. P. Sarathy (1953- I-LLJ-174) (SC) formulated four propositions:(i) The Government should satisfy itself on the facts and circumstances brought to its notice in its subjective opinion that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended; (ii) the factual existence of a dispute or its apprehension and the expediency of making reference are matters entirely ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasumathy Vs. E.S.i. Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-07-1997
Reported in: (1998)IILLJ134Ker
Kamat, J. 1. The original applicant before the Employees' Insurance Court, Quilon is the appellant with a grievance that the E.S.I. Corporation contended that her application is barred by limitation under Section 77 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and the Insurance Court had jumped at it to accept the contention and to hold that the applicant knocked the doors of the Insurance Court beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 77(1-A) of the said Act having presented the application beyond the period of three years from the date on which the cause of action arose.2. The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 has come on the statute for providing benefits to the employees. A bare look at the mention of these benefits would show that the benefits contemplated are those to be seen in case of sickness, maternity benefits, employment insurance and other patterns in the process of the welfare of the employees by providing the insurance coverage for the benefit of the employees . ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Resins and Polymers
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-1997
Reported in: [1999]235ITR5(Ker)
K.K. Usha, J.1. This reference, at the instance of the Revenue, arises from a common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I. T. A. Nos. 719 (Coch.) of 1988 and 726 (Coch.) of 1988. The relevant assessment year is 1983-84. The following are the questions referred for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee derived any profit and gain from an 'industrial undertaking' to claim the benefit of Sections 80HH and 80J ?' 2. The facts relevant are as follows : The assessee is a firm carrying on the business in export of cashew kernels and shell oils. Claiming that it owns an industrial undertaking engaged in the manufactu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indian Resins and Polymers
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-1997
Reported in: (1998)148CTR(Ker)143
Mrs. K.K. Usha, J. This reference, at the instance of the revenue, arises from a common order of the Tribunal Cochin Bench, in ITA Nos. 719(Coach)88 and 726(Coch)88 Relevant assessment year is 1983-84. Following are the questions referred for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 80HH of the Income Tax Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 80J of the Income Tax Act ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee derived any profit and gain from an industrial undertaking to claim to benefit of sections 80HH and 80J?'2. The facts relevant are as follows: Assessee is a firm carrying on the business in export of cashew kernels and shell oil. Claiming that it owns an industrial undertaking engaged in the manufacture or production of an article or thing, it put forward a claim fo...
Tag this Judgment!Coffee Board Vs. Perfect Gunny Stores and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-01-1997
Reported in: [1999]96CompCas579(Ker)
C.S. Rajan, J.1. This is a petition filed by the applicant who is the 22nd respondent in the company petition to substitute it as petitioner in the company petition. The circumstances which compelled the 22nd respondent to file this petition are as follows : The applicant is the Coffee Board. The ex-managing director of the company under liquidation filedapplications for recording payments of amounts due to the creditors including secured creditors and prayed to this court to hand over possession of the company's properties from the liquidator and to dismiss the company petition. The applicant has detailed the background of the filing of this company petition which, according to the applicant, throws a cloud on the bona fides of the company. The company petition was filed on March 29, 1990. Without any stiff opposition from the company a provisional liquidator was appointed on April 4, 1990. Coming to know of these developments the Coffee Board got themselves impleaded in the company p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›