Kerala Court December 1998 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Dr. T.M. Paul Vs. City Hospital (Pvt.) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-1998
Reported in: [1999]97CompCas216(Ker)
K.V. Sankaranarayanan, J.1. These appeals are against the common judgment and decrees passed by the First Additional Sub-Judge, Erna-kulam, in O. S. Nos. 723 of 1992, 41 of 1993, 897 of 1992 and 901 of 1992. O. S. No. 723 of 1992 has been treated as the main suit and evidence recorded therein. The reference hereinafter to the ranks of the parties is according to their ranks in O. S. No. 723 of 1992 except otherwise indicated.2. The City Hospital Private Limited, the first defendant in O. S. No. 723 of 1992 is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act as per exhibit-A1 memorandum and articles of association and registered on July 12, 1971. The total share capital was originally Rs. 5 lakhs divided into 500 equity shares of Rs. 1,000 each later enhanced to Rs. 10 lakhs consisting of 1,000 equity shares. The number of members of the company is limited to 50. The articles of association provides for a board of directors consisting of not less than three and not ...
T.C. Mathai and anr. Vs. Principal Dist. and Sessions Judge and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1362
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The party-in person, who claims to be the power-of-Attorney holder of the appellants 1 and 2 petitioners in the Original Petition filed the O.P. for a mandamus directing the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Trivandrum to grant permission to Major K. Mathews as pleader for the counter petitioners 1 and 2 in Crl. R. P. 126/97 and to appear to act, to plead and do all other things on their behalf on the basis of the Crl. M.P. filed on 24-6-1998. It is the case of the power-of-Attorney holder that the ' appellants 1 and 2 are employed in Kuwait and appointed him as their power of Attorney by the deed jointly and registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Tiruvalla as document No. IV-384 on 14-10-1992. According to the power-of-Attorney holder he is empowered to act, to appear, to plead and to do all things for and on their behalf right up to the Apex Court in connection with their claim of Rs. 9,75,000/- from the second respondent K.S.G. Varghese. It is also ...
T. Retnadas Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1488
K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. These Criminal Appeals are preferred against the common judgment dated 10-9-1993 in C.C. Nos. 12, 13, 14 & 15 of 1988 passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The same person is the accused in all the above cases and he has preferred all these four Appeals Nos. 580 to 583 of 1993. Crl. Appeal No. 580 of 1993 is directed against the judgment in C.C. 15 of 1988, Crl. Appeals Nos. 581 & 582 of 1993 are filed against the judgments in C.C. Nos. 13 & 14 of 1988 respectively and Crl. Appeal No. 583 of 1993 is filed against the judgment in, C.C. 12 of 1988. Crl. Appeal No. 290 of 1994 is filed by the State seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded by the lower Court in all the above four cases.2. In all the above four cases, the appellant stood trial before the lower Court for the offences punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Sections 409, 467, 471 and 477A of t...
Kaikkara Construction Company Vs. Superintending Engineer, Harbour Eng ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker122
Mohammed, J.1. The main dispute involved in these appeals relates to the award of contract work for the second stage construction of breakwaters for the Thangassery Fishery Harbour Project. The contract was awarded to the existing contractor M/s. Kaikkara Construction Company who was one of the pre-qualified contractors participated in the tender for first stage of the work in respect of the same project.2. These two writ appeals arose from the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 6242 of 1998 declaring Ext. P7 decision of the Superintending Engineer, Harbour Engineering Project Circle, Kollam as illegal. The decision was that 'M/s. Top Constructions' was the sub-contractor of M/s. Paily Pillai and Sons and the tender documents in relation to IInd Stage work of the Project would be issued only to the pre-qualified contractors of Thangassery Fishery Harbour-- construction of breakwaters. W.A. No. 1765 of 1998 is filed by the fifth respondent in the writ petition; M/s. Kaikka...
B. Indira Rani Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Ker)362; [1999]237ITR20(Ker)
P.V. Narayanan Nambiar, J. 1. The petitioner is an assessee to income-tax on the file of the second respondent. She filed her return of income for the assessment year 1984-85 on July 19, 1985, before the third respondent declaring the net income at Rs. 13,43,720 of which Rs. 12,66,969 represented the income disclosed under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), within 15 days from the date of search and seizure conducted in the petitioner's business and residential premises on March 5, 1985. 2. The third respondent completed the assessment for the year 1984-85 under Section 143(3) of the Act on March 31, 1986, on a total income of Rs. 17,32,260 on making an addition of Rs. 50,000 being unexplained cash credit. The third respondent served, exhibit P-1 assessment order and demand notice dated March 31, 1986, on the petitioner. On appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the addition of Rs. 50,000 was confirmed as per exhibit P-2 or...
State of Kerala Vs. Sugathakumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ790Ker
Ar. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. Alexander Thomas, Government Pleader for appellants and Mr. P. Kesavan Nair for respondent.2. This appeal is by the State of Kerala challenging the judgment in O.P. 10208/1997 of a learned single Judge of this Court. The Writ Appeal was argued by both counsel appearing on either side at length. The respondent/petitioner in the O.P. filed the writ petition to quash Exts. P10, P16 and P17. Ext. P10 is the proceedings of the Government of Kerala, Vigilance Department dated September 16, 1996 placing the respondent under suspension pending disciplinary action against him, when the respondent was acting as a Director of ANERT. Ext. P16 is the order passed by the Government of Kerala dated June 16, 1997 reinstating the respondent in service without prejudice to the disciplinary action pending against him and in public interest. The respondent was also reverted to his parent department viz., Technical Education Department in public interest and the Director of T...
Triton Marinex and anr. and Arvind Verma Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALT(Cri)126; [2001]103CompCas90(Ker); 1999CriLJ1328
K.A. Mohammed Shafi, J.1. These applications are filed to quash annexure-E complaint and to set aside the process issued against the petitioners in C. C. No. 368 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Ernakulam. Crl. M. C. No. 2789 of 1998 is filed by the first and third accused and Crl. M. C. No. 2790 of 1998 is filed by the second accused in that case.2. The second respondent filed a complaint before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ernakulam, against the petitioners as accused Nos. 1 to 3 alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') alleging that a cheque for Rs. 51 lakhs issued by the second accused, on behalf of the first accused partnership firm of which the third accused is also a partner, as the managing partner, towards the discharge of the debt due to the second respondent bounced and the accused did not pay the amount in spite of the notice issued by the seco...
A. M. Sainalabdeen Musaliar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-1998
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Ker)647
P. SHANMUGAM, J.:Petitioner challenges the Constitutional validity of ss. 234A, 234B and 234C of the IT Act. The identical issue was raised before a Division Bench of The Karnataka High Court recently in the judgment in Dr. S. Reddappa & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1998) 149 CTR (Kar) 521 : . The Division Bench following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Khazan Chand vs . State of Jammu & Kashmir : [1984]2SCR858 and the judgment of Patna High Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. vs . CIT & Ors. : [1996]217ITR72(Patna) : held that the provisions for levy of interest under ss. 234A, 234B and 234C are compensatory in character and are not unconstitutional. I am in full agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. Hence, this original petition is dismissed....
A.M. Sainalabdeen Musaliar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR400(Ker)
P. Shanmugan, J.1. The petitioner challenges the constitutional validity of Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The identical issue was raised before a Division Bench of the Kamataka High Court recently in the judgment reported in Dr. S. Reddappa v. Union of India : [1998]232ITR62(KAR) . The Division Bench following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Khazan Chand v. State of Jammu and Kashmir [1984] 56 STC 214 and the judgment of Palna High Court in Ranchi Clnb Ltd. v. CIT : [1996]217ITR72(Patna) , held that the provisions for levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C are compensatory in character and are not unconstitutional. I am in full agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. Hence, this original petition is dismissed.2. However, the dismissal of this original petition will not in any way prejudice the right of the petitioner, if any, to move the Income-lax Department under the Samadhan Scheme or any other Sc...
P.P. Rajan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-1998
Reported in: [1999]236ITR815(Ker)
P. Shanmugam, J.1. The petitioner is a social worker having an income of Rs. 1,500 per month as an honorarium for the services rendered to an organisation. The petitioner is living in Mulanthuruthy which comes within the urban agglomeration of Cochin. In this original petition, he has sought for a declaration declaring that the provisions contained under the proviso to Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are illegal and unconstitutional and for a direction not to implement the conditions enumerated under the proviso to Section 139 of the Income-tax Act.2. The main contention of the petitioner is that the conditions set out in the proviso, namely, that a person in occupation of an immovable pro-perty exceeding a specified floor area by way of ownership, tenancy or otherwise within the city specified, and that the persons subscribing a telephone, have no nexus with the objective of assessment of income-tax. According to him, these conditions imposed against those persons who are own...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »