Kerala Court February 1998 Judgments
Thomas K.D. and ors. Vs. District Labour Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-1998
Reported in: [1998(79)FLR612]; (1998)IILLJ584Ker
1. These review petitions are filed against the common judgment in W.A. Nos. 285 of 1997 and 289 of 1997. The appellants are the review petitioners. The appellants are conducting rice mills. Their case was that headload workers who belonged to respondents Nos. 3 to 6 were obstructing their work and they wanted police protection. When they approached this Court earlier for police protection, this Court granted police protection subject to the right of the union to take the dispute before the District Labour Officer, Perumbavoor under the Headload Workers Act. The original authority as well as the appellate authority found that the appellants had engaged 29 headload workers belonging to the union of the respondents and the authorities directed that they should be engaged for the purpose of unloading by the appellants. Challenging the orders of the statutory authorities, the appellants filed original petitions. The decisions of the statutory authorities were confirmed by the learned singl...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.V. Narayanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-1998
Reported in: [1998]233ITR330(Ker)
OM Prakash, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the provision contained in Section 80AB and the decisions in CIT v. P. K. Jhaveri [1990] 181 ITR 79 and CIT v. Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. [1987] 165 ITR 174, deduction under Section 80HH should be allowed without/before deducting investment allowance from the total income ?'2. The only question for consideration is whether for allowing deduction under Section 80HH, investment allowance has to be deducted from the total income.3. It is not disputed that the assessing authority worked out deduction under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at Rs. 2,50,224 after deducting investment allowance. The case of the assessee is that deduction under Section 80HH should have been worked out before deducting the investment allowance.4....
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishnan Vs. Sankaranarayanan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker177
ORDER1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. He filed the above revision against the judgment dated 28-8-1997 passed by the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 60 of 1995. 2. The petitioner is the tenant of a shop room wherein he is conducting a lea shop. The first respondent is the landlord of the building. He filed R.C.P. No. 19 of 1994 before the Rent Controller, Chavakkad for an order of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and on the ground that the tenant has sub-let the building to the 2nd respondent without the knowledge or consent of the landlord. The allegations in the petition in brief are as follows : 'The petition schedule building except the room on the northern side of verandha was taken on lease by the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- from 1980. Thereafter on the request of the tenant the landlord made some additional amenities and the rent was increased to Rupees 275/-. Subsequently as demanded by the tenant the landlord constructed a room on the northern sid...
Tag this Judgment!Marci Celine D'Souza and Anr. Vs. Renie Fernandez and Ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker280
D. Sreedevi, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 133 of 1985 of the Sub-Court, Kollam. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants and the second plaintiff and defendants 3, 4 and 6 are the respondents.2. The plaintiffs filed the above suit for setting aside Ext. A1 settlement deed executed by the first plaintiff in favour of defendants 1 and 2. The suit was filed by the second plaintiff for and on behalf of the first plaintiff on the allegation that the first plaintiff is mentally infirm and incapable of protecting his interests. According to the plaintiffs, Ext. A 1 is vitiated by fraud and undue influence and hence it is liable to be set aside. The plaintiffs also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from executing documents in respect of the plaint property.3. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit. The second defendant filed written statement through his power of attorney. They contended that the first plaintiff is not mentally derange...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Poulose and Mathen (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-1998
Reported in: [1999]236ITR416(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J. 1. This batch of income-tax reference cases at the instance of the Revenue relates to the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90. I.T.R. Nos. 92 and 93 of 1995 arise from I. T. A. Nos. 278/Coch. of 1989 and 801/Coch. of 1992 relating to the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 and I. T. R. Nos. 112 and 113 of 1996 arise from I. T. A. Nos. 913/Coch of 1990 and 507/Coch of 1991 relating to the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90. The common question referred to us for decision is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-see is entitled to claim depreciation on the assets taken over from the partnership firms at the revalued figure ?'2. An additional question has been referred to us for decision in I. T. R. Nos. 112 and 113 of 1996, which is as follows :'Whether Explanation 3 to Section 43(1) is attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case ?'3. The facts of the case are condensed thus : The assessee is a company kno...
Tag this Judgment!General Secretary, Kerala State Co-op. Bank Employees' Association Vs. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-1998
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ205Ker
ORDERMohammed, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single judge in O.P.No. 315 of 1986. The above writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P-3 award passed by the first respondent-Labour Court, Quilon in I.D.No. 41 of 1980. The appellant before us is the General Secretary of the Kerala State Co- operative Bank Employees' Association, Trivandrum. 2. The following issues were referred to for adjudication by the Labour Court by the Government under Section 10(1)(c) and (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (i) Promotion of Non-graduate clerks. (ii) Promotion of Typists. (iii) Seniority of Sri M.M. George, Accounts Officer, Sri K. Murukanandan Pillai, Clerk Grade II, Smt. M.S. Thankamani Ammal, Typist and Sri K.Krishna Pillai, Care Taker. Out of the above three issues, in this writ appeal we are only concerned with the second issue regarding the promotion of typists. While discussing this common issue, the promotion of typist K. Thankamani Ammal came...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›