Kerala Court June 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.
R.V. Kunhiraman and Etc. Vs. Inspector of Police, Special Police Estab ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-11-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3679
ORDERS. Marimuthu, J.1. The petitioner in Crl. M. C. No. 2361 of 1995 is the 7th accused, the petitioner in Crl. M. C. No. 2209/95 is the first accused and the petitioner in Crl. M. C. No. 784/96 is the 10th accused in C. C. No. 513/95 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The prayer in Crl. M. C. 2361/95 and 2209/95 is to quash the entire proceedings against the petitioners, in C. C. No. 2361/95 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. And the relief sought for in Cr. M. C. 784/96 is to quash the proceedings dt. 6-3-96, issuing Non-Bailable Warrant against the petitioner. Before appreciating the contentions of both the petitioners and the respondents herein, the admitted facts as well as the rival contentions can be summarised hereunder:2. On 2-2-1988, a news item in the evening Daily 'Sudinam' was printed and published by one Madhavan at Kannur as per which one 'Manja' an Adivasi girl-aged about 16 years was raped by one Rajan. Manja and her parents, on acc...
Seeyan Plywoods Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Ker)332
B.N. Patnaik, J.The petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act). The petitioner deals in manufacture and sale of plywood, veneers etc. The petitioner-firm started an industrial undertaking in 1974 at Baliapatam in Cannanore District. The petitioner's claim for deduction under section 80HH of the Income Tax Act was allowed during the assessment year 1977-78. This was confirmed by this court in Income Tax Reference No. 123 of 1987. Thus, under the law the petitioner is entitled to have the benefit of deduction under section 80HH of the Income Tax Act. But, on 14-9-1984, the IncomeTax Officer (Ist respondent) rejected the claim for deduction under section 80HH of the Act for the assessment year 1982-83. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner (Appeals), Calicut was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Income Tax Officer to examine the claim under section 80HH afresh. On 17-3-1988 the Income Tax Officer served a le...
Arya Durga Industries Vs. General Manager District Industries Centre, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker311
ORDER1. The petitioner which is a firm by name Arya Durga Industries', Hosangadi being represented by its Managing Partner has sought for issue of a direction to respondents to disburse the Central subsidy at 15% and the State subsidy at 10% due on the total investment of Rupees 1,11,525/-.2. The erstwhile Kannur District in Kerala was declared as an industrially backward area. Thenew district of Kasaragod was carved out from that district later. This District was also considered to be an industrially backward area. In order to encourage new entrepreneurs the Government of India and the State Government introduced a scheme for outright grant of subsidy for the industrial units set up in those backwards districts. Ext. P1 is that scheme which came into effect from 26-8-1971 in respect of Kannur District. The share of subsidy of the Central Government was 15% and that of the State Government was 10%. The petitioner's firm which is a factory engaged in the manufacture of ice cream in Kasa...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.M. Moosa High Court of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-1998
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Ker)132
OM PRAKASH, C.J.As directed by this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is entitled to a deduction under s. 80HH on the income by way of sale of import licence, export house premium and customs drawbacks?(2) Whether, the Tribunal is right in holding that the withdrawal of deduction under s. 80HH in proceedings under s. 154 of the IT Act, 1961, is erroneous?'2. First, we take up the first question for consideration. This question came up for consideration before this Court in the case of the assessee itself for the asst. yr. 1979-80 and then a Division Bench of this Court in the case of the assessee himself [see AM Moosa, Bharath Sea Foods vs. CIT (1996) 135 CTR (Ker.) 110 : (1997) 224 CTR 735 (Kert held that in order to claim special deduction under ss. 80HH and 80J of the IT Act, 1961, th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.M. Moosa
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-1998
Reported in: (1998)146CTR(Ker)718; [1999]237ITR867(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J.1. As directed by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is entitled to a deduction under Section 80HH on the income by way of sale of import licence, export house premium and customs draw-backs ?(2) Whether, the Tribunal is right in holding that the withdrawal of deduction under Section 80HH in proceedings under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is erroneous ?'2. First, we take up the first question for consideration. This question came up for consideration before this court in the case of the assessee itself for the assessment year 1979-80 and then a Division Bench of this court in the case of the assessee himself (see A. M. Moosa, Bharath Sea Foods v. CIT : [1997]224ITR735(Ker) ), held that in order to claim special deduction un...
V.P. Subrahmanian Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-08-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker363
Ar. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. K. C. Eldho for the appellant. This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in O. P. No. 9241 of 1994 dismissing the Original Petition challenging the order of termination of the appellant as an agent of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Learned Judge held that the Corporation is justified in terminating the contract of service of the appellant.2. The appellant filed the Original Petition to quash Exts. P-5, P-8 and P-12 orders passed by Respondents 4, 3 and 2 and for a direction to reinstate him in his agency work. He also prayed for a declaration that the termination of his agency by the respondents is illegal.3. The appellant was an L.I.C. agent attached to the 5th respondent branch. He joined as a L.I.C. agent under the 5th respondent on 20th March, 1987 after submitting the required application. Ext. P-3 show cause notice was issued to the appellant on the ground that the appellant has deliberately withh...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. P. Krishna Warrier
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-08-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR79(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question relating to the consecutive assessment years 1961-62 to 1964-65 for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?' 2. The facts, as briefly stated, are that the assessee is a trust. As per the trust deed, 60 per cent, of the income of the trust was to be spent for charitable and religious purposes and the remaining 40 per cent, was to be spent for the descendants of the settlor for a period of 20 years and thereafter, the entire income was to be utilised for charitable purposes. All the relevant assessment years fell during the interregnum period of 20 years, which expired on January 30, 1964.3. During the relevant assessment years, the assessee claimed exemption under Section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act (briefl...
Mathew Varghese and anr. Vs. CochIn International Airport, Ernakulam a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker362
Ar. Lakshmanan, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the land owners against the judgment dated 23-5-1997 in O. P. 7380 of 1997. While rejecting the writ petition, the learned Judge has, however, directed the International Airport Authority to give similar benefits which were given to others who were evicted. Pursuant to the judgment dated 23-5-1997, Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest passed an order directing the Chief Engineer, Cochin International Airport Limited to comply with the conditions mentioned in the said proceedings No. J-16011/28/97-IA-III dated 28-11-1997 and offer to those persons whose land has been acquired through land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, the same package of compensation and rehabilitation measures ashave been given to those who have transferred their land to the Chief Engineer, Cochin International Airport Limited through negotiated settlement provided the former give up their right to move the competent Court for en...
P.N. Menon Vs. Director of Technical Education, Trivandrum and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker383
Ar. Lakshmanan, J.1. The President of All Kerala Technical Institutes Association, Nadathara, Trichur filed OP 16141 of 1996 with the following preyers:'1. to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext. P4 order of the 1st respondent and quashing the same;2. to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1 st respondent to make arrangements for creating the necessary infrastructure in the office of the Director of Technical Education for exercising effective control over the KGCE institutes if found lacking;3. to grant such other reliefs that the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant on the facts and circumstances of the case.' 2. The main prayer is to quash Ext. P4 which reads thus :'In the G.O. read as first paper, Government have approved the revised syllabi for the KGCE course. As per the above syllabi, out of 600 marks, 100 marks have been set apart as internal ass...
P. Johnson and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3651
ORDERS. Marimuthu, J.1. This revision petition is directed questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment delivered by the Sessions Judge, Manjeri Criminal Appeal No. 20/1990. This judgment of the Sessions Judge has confirmed the conviction rendered by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perinthalmanna delivered in C.C. No. 12/89. The learned Magistrate, out of the 12 accused facing the charges before him found only four accused who are the revision-petitioners herein guilty under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentenced to undergo each of them simple imprisonment for 2 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. The judgment of the learned Magistrate in the above appeal regarding conviction under Section 326, I.P.C. was confirmed in the Sessions Court. But with regard to the sentence, accused Nos. 1 and 6 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months, accused No. 8 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »