Kerala Court October 1998 Judgments
C. Ammini Amma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker179
ORDERC.S. Rajan, J. 1. The petitioner is the widow of late Theppil Bhaskaran Pillai, popularly known as Thoppil Bhasy, a well-known freedom fighter, political sufferer, political leader and eminentdramatist. Her application for getting freedom fighters pension from the Central Government was turned down by the first respondent. The petitioner has produced Exhibits P-1 to P-9 to prove the claim of the petitioner for getting freedom fighters pension due to the petitioner's later husband, Exhibit P-1 is the excerpts of the speech made by the then Speaker Sri. P.P. Thankachan on a reference made after the death of the petitioner's husband who was a Member of the Legislative/Assembly of the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin State and later in the Kerala State. Exhibit P-1 refers to the role of the petitioner's husband as a freedom fighter who took part actively in the Freedom Struggle in the erstwhile Travancore State. Exhibit P-2 is a letter addressed to the petitioner from the District Collecto...
Tag this Judgment!Perfetti India Limited and anr. Vs. Food Inspector and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ223
ORDERK.A. Mohammed Shafi, J.1. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 in S.T.C. No. 25/1996 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kottayam have filed this application under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. to quash the entire proceedings initiated against them.2. The 1st respondent Food Inspector, Kottayam Municipality filed a complaint against the four accused including the petitioners herein before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kottayam alleging offences punishable under Sections 2(ia)(m), 7(i), 16(1)(a)(i), 17(i)(a)(ii)(b) and Appendix B.A. 25-02-01 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act alleging that the Ist accused sold the food article 'Center Fresh Liquid Filled Chewing Gum' to the Food Inspector which was: found to be adulterated as it did not conform to the standard prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and accused Nos. 2 to 4 are responsible for the 1st accused to sell the adulterated food article. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizan...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. UssaIn Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ630
S. Marimuthu, J.1. This appeal is directed challenging the conviction and sentence delivered by the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode Division in S.C. No. 178 of 1993.2. The prosecution case is that on 11-6-1993 at about 11.30 A.M., the Sub Inspector of Police attached to Kozhikode Town Police Station, examined as PW1, received reliable information that the accused was indulging in the sale of brown sugar at the Beach Road, Kozhikode. Therefore, with his party, he proceeded in a jeep. In the Beach Road, he saw yet another person standing near the accused. On seeing the jeep, the another person ran away from that place and the accused also began to walk towards the south. PW1 intercepted the accused and questioned him. The accused admitted that he had been indulging in the sale of brown sugar and he is in possession of sale proceeds and also 2 packets of brown sugar. Then he put a question to the accused as to whether he is willing to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magis...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-1998
Reported in: [1999]237ITR217(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J. 1. As directed by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (briefly, the 'Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following questions, relating to the assessment year 1985-86, for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act is valid and with jurisdiction ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case-- (i) is not the order of the Tribunal finding that 'the tenancy arrangement was a genuine one' as against the earlier finding of tenancy 'on a hypothetical basis' one amounting to review and hence against law ?(ii) is not the order against the decision reported in CIT v. Gokul Chand Agarwal : [1993]202ITR14(Cal) and CIT v. Ramesh Electric and Trading Co. : [1993]203ITR497(Bom) 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal which fixed the quantum at Rs. 15 lakhs and 'in fixing th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kerala Shipping Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-1998
Reported in: [1999]106TAXMAN577(Ker)
Om Prakash, CJAt the instance of the revenue, the Tribunal referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court:'Questions in R.A. Nos. 316 & 317 (Coch.) of 1991:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that Explanation 2 was operative with effect from 1-4-1968 to 31-3-1981, the assessee is eligible for weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 ?Question in R.A. No. 5:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of the relevant provisions and also in the light of the decisions in CIT v. Southern Sea Foods (P) Ltd. : [1983]140ITR855(Mad) ; CIT v. C. Tharian & Sons : [1987]166ITR607(Ker) and CIT v. K Ravindranathan Nair : [1988]170ITR411(Ker) , the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding,-(i) the expenses incurred, namely, agency fees paid to foreign agents will fall under section 35B(1)(b)(ii);(ii) the expenses incurred, namel...
Tag this Judgment!Commssioner of Income Tax Vs. Ram Baradur Thakur Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-1998
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Ker)627
OMPRAKASH, C.J.:As directed by this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (briefly 'the Act'), the Tribunal referred the following questions, relating to the asst. yr. 1985-86, for the opinion of this Court:' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal under s. 254(2) of the IT Act is valid and with jurisdiction2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case :(i) is not the order of the Tribunal finding that 'the tenancy arrangement was a genuine one' as against the earlier finding of tenancy 'on a hypothetical basis' one amounting to review and hence against law(ii) is not the order against the decision reported in CIT vs . Gokul Chand Agarwal : [1993]202ITR14(Cal) and CIT vs . Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. : [1993]203ITR497(Bom) 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal which fixed the quantum at Rs. 15 lakhs and 'in fixing this quantum has proceeded on a hypothetical basis that there exi...
Tag this Judgment!Bharathiya Coffee Workers Catering Service (P) Ltd. Vs. Indian Coffee ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker169
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. The defendant Company challenges a decree for prohibitory injunction restraining it from using or continuing to the use the name 'Indian Coffee House' to its catering establishments. The suit was filed by the respondent Co-operative Society. According to the Co-operative Society the Society was formed of the erstwhile employees of the Indian Coffee Board and according to them with the help of the Coffee Board they formed themselves into a Cooperative Society and were running coffee houses which are in reality hotels naming the establishments 'Indian Coffee House' as distinct from the establishments which were being run by the coffee Board in the name of 'India Coffee House'. The Managing Director of the defendant Company was originally a member of the plaintiff Society and was also its Secretary for a number of years. The plaintiff Society was registered in its original name in the year 1958 and the Indian Coffee Houses were started. After the Managing Direct...
Tag this Judgment!Ouseph Mathew and Company Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR668(Ker)
A.S. Venkatachala Moorthy, J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm. It was assessed to income-tax for the first time for the assessment year 1974-75 granting registration to it under Section 185 of the Income-tax Act by order dated March 6, 1975. Subsequently, assessments were completed for the years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 and the firm was allowed continuation of registration up to the assessment year 1980-81. For the purpose of considering the issue that is involved in this original petition, it is not necessary to mention the entire factual details. Suffice it to say, that the petitioner filed return for 1978-79 and the assessment for the said year was pending. At that stage, the petitioner filed a petition before the Settlement Commission to have the case settled in terms of Section 245C of the Income-tax Act. The Settlement Commission by order dated January 25, 1991, cancelled the registration given to the petitioner for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 under the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Ouseph Mathew and Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Ker)79
A. S. VENKATACHALA MOORTHY, J.:The petitioner is a partnership firm. It was assessed to income-tax for the first time for the asst. yr. 1974-75 granting registration to it under s. 185 of the IT Act by order dt. 6th March, 1975. Subsequently, assessments were completed for the years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 and the firm was allowed continuation of registration upto the asst. yr. 1980-81. For the purpose of considering the issue that is involved in this Original Petition, it is not necessary to mention the entire factual details. Suffice to say, that the petitioner filed returns for 1978-79 and the assessment for the said year was pending. At that stage, the petitioner filed a petition before the Settlement Commissioner to have the case settled in terms of s. 245C of the Indian IT Act. The Settlement Commissioner by order dt. 25th Jan., 1991 cancelled the registration given to the petitioner for the asst. yrs. 1975-76 and 1976-77 under the provisions of s. 184(7) of the Act. However...
Tag this Judgment!Ernakulam North Development Co-ordination Council Vs. Union of India ( ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-24-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker131
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J. 1. Petitioner is a society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literacy Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 with the objects of comprehensive development of Ernakulam North Railway Station and improving the facilities and safety measures of passengers. According to the petitioner, Trivandrum-New Delhi Express via. Ernakulam Junction should stop at Ernakulam Town Station.2. It is stated in the counter affidavit that considering the operational efficiency and saving of time by twenty minutes it was decided to cancel stop at Ernakulam Junction and to re-route the train K. K. Express through Ernakulam Town Station with a stop therein. But thereafter, considering the various representations including representations from various Parliament Members and representations from Island area etc. and considering the convenience of general public, it was re-decided that original stop at Ernakulam Junction will be maintained. For the convenience of those ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »