Kerala Court June 1998 Judgments
Jose Antony Kokkad Vs. Official Liquidator and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD(Cri)741; [1999]98CompCas275(Ker); 1998CriLJ4095
K.A. Mohamed shafi, J.1. This application is filed by the accused in C. C. No. 456 of 1996 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam, to stay all the proceedings under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. C. C. No. 456 of 1996 is filed by the second respondent herein before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam, alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner and Belhouse Associates (P.) Ltd., which is the company under liquidation of which the petitioner was the managing director. It is alleged in the complaint filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam, a copy of which is marked as annexure A-1, that the cheque for Rs. 1,12,000 was issued by the accused therein on January 19, 1996, in order to discharge the liability to the complainant for the electrical works done by them and when the cheque was presented for encashment it bounced and th...
Tag this Judgment!Sibi and anr. Vs. Vilasini and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALT(Cri)312; 1999CriLJ878
ORDERS. Marimuthu, J.1. This Crl. Revision Petition is directed challenging the confirmed judgment of the Sessions Judge, Thalassery delivered in Crl. A. No. 112 of 1996. The first revision petitioner was found guilty under Section 417 read with 34, I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and also found guilty under Section 312 read with 109, I.P.C. and thereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. In addition to the above sentences, he was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the victim lady, Vilasini, first respondent herein, under the provisions of Section 357(3), Cr.P.C. and in case of default in payment of the compensation, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The second accused-second petitioner who is the sister of the first petitioner-first accused was released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. In the appeal, the Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sen...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sea Pearl Industries (No. 1)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR542(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. In Income-tax Reference No. 191 of 1991 at the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-see is entitled to deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of exports (not done directly by the assessee) done through export house ?'2. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions of law have been referred to this court in Income-tax Reference No. 5 of 1992 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of exports (not done directly by the assessee) done through export house ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding,-- (i) the assessee was not an agent of the export house (ii) in substance the...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Sea Pearl Industries
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Ker)248
J.B. Koshy J.In IT Ref. No. 191 of 1991 at the instance of the Revenue the following question has been referred to this Court by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction under s. 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of exports (not done directly by the assessee) done through export house ?'At the instance of the Revenue the following questions of law have been referred to this Court in IT Ref. No. 5 of 1992 :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction under s. 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of exports (not done directly by the assessee) done through export house ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding,-(i) the assessee was not an agent of the export house ?(ii) in substance the export house has not purchased the goods ?(iii) export process has bee...
Tag this Judgment!Pioneer Shopping Complex (P) Ltd. Vs. the Tahsildar, Kochi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker239
ORDERP. Shanmugam, J.1. Both the original petitions were filed by a Private Limited Company dealing, promoting and constructing buildings. The brief facts are as follows: The petitioner was granted a lease for 29 years of an extent of 50.10 cents in survey No. 843 of Ernakulam Village within Cochin Corporation limits by the Greater Cochin Development Authority for the purpose of construction of a multi-storeyed building. The plan submitted by the petitioner was approved by the G.C.D.A. comprised of construction of commercial area in Phase I and construction of residential flats in Phase II. The commercial area in phase I consisted of 93 shops which was completed in about 1989. The construction of Phase I (II), namely, residential flats were started in the year 1992 and was completed in about 1995. The completion certificate was issued by the Corporation in 1997.2. The Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 provides for the levy of tax on building. Section 7 of the Act obliges the owner of every...
Tag this Judgment!C.P. Fathima Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1998
Reported in: [1998]111STC809(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Revision petitioner is a registered dealer engaged in the purchase and sale of cashewnuts which is a commodity taxable at the last purchase point under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The revision petitioner/assessee was imposed with the penalty under Section 29A(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as the officer found that there was an attempt to evade tax due under the Act. The above finding was affirmed by the first appellate authority as well as the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Aggrieved by the above order of the Tribunal the assessee filed this revision petition.2. The authorities concurrently found the following facts : The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ulikkal, while returning after trial patrol duty on April 20, 1996 at 00.30 hours, at Arabi Road, Karyaparambu junction near the Karnataka State border, intercepted, stopped and examined lorry Nos. KL 11/9408 and KL 13/8817 and mini lorry No. KL 13A/3567 and Gobd...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Alex Varghese
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ1638Ker
Ar. Lakshmanan, J. 1. By consent of both parties, the main writ appeal itself is taken up for final hearing. Heard Mr. A. Sudhi Vasudevan, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the appellants and Mr. M.R. Rajendran Nair for the respondent. 2. The Union of India has filed this writ appeal against the order of the learned single Judge allowing O.P No. 4772 of 1997 filed by the respondent herein, directing the appellants herein to grant disability pension to the respondent. The appellants (the respondents in the Original Petition) were directed to pass orders within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The case put forward by the respondent herein was that after having put in seven years 11 months and 20 days of service in the CRPF, he was discharged from service on being assessed to be completely and permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind in the department. It was certified that the incapacity did not appear to have been caused by ir...
Tag this Judgment!Hotel and Allied Trades P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR226(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J.1. Against the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessee as well as the Revenue, both sought reference. The Appellate Tribunal referred the following questions relating to the assessment year 1980-81, at the instance of the assessee and the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court :Questions at the instance of the assessee : '1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in law in holding that the appellant is not eligible to be assessed to income-tax at concessional rate of tax as an industrial company ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant is not entitled to investment allowance on additions to plant and machinery ? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant was not entitled to initial depreciation under Section 32(1)(v) o...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. K. Shaheed Vs. P.K. Shahida and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4638
ORDERP.V. Narayanan Nambiar, J.1. The complainant in C.C. No. 249/97 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery inserted Coppcr-T, an Intra Uterine Device (IUD) for prevention of pregnancy. But unfortunately she conceived after the insertion of the device, probably due to the failure of the system.2. Complaining of abdominal pain she approached the accused, who is the petitioner herein, during the 4th month of her pregnancy, in January, 1997 for a check up. It is admitted that the accused is not a gynaecologist. But he is a qualified allopathic doctor. The accused examined her and removed the IUD. It is alleged that the accused told her that the IUD is the cause of abdominal pain and hence the complainant did not object to the removal of the device. Certain medicines were also prescribed by the accused for relieving the pain.3. Later the complainant was admitted in the Kalyan Lying Hospital, Kuthuparamba on 18-3-97 and she gave birth to a premature baby on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vrindavan Hotels (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Ker)220; [1999]238ITR224(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following questions relating to the assessment years 1985-86 and 1987-88 for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding : (i) the equipment, used in the kitchen and store room can be conceivably looked upon for the purpose of producing an article or thing (ii) there is production of food materials in a hotel (iii) the assessee is entitled to the investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, on the building housing the kitchen, 'producing' the food stuffs 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is theassessee an industrial undertaking engaged in the production of an articleor thing as contemplated under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' The question before the Appellate Tribunal was whether the assessee, engaged in the business of running a hotel, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »