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.
Nishad Patel and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-1998
Reported in: [1999]96CompCas861(Ker)
K. Narayana Kurup, J. 1. Heard counsel on both sides. 2. The petitioners are directors of a company by name Alliance Leathers (P.) Limited which had availed of a loan from K. S. I. D. C. and K. F. C. to set up a factory at Edayar for manufacture of dressed, tanned hides and skins from raw hides and skins. Exhibits P-2 to P-6 are the pre-assess-ment notices issued by the third respondent against the company for the years 1990-91 to 1993-94, proposing to assess the company under theKerala General Sales Tax Act. On receipt of exhibits P-2 to P-6, the first petitioner filed exhibit P-7 reply in his capacity as a director of the company. In exhibit P-7, the first petitioner specifically requested the third respondent to keep the assessment and penalty proceedings pending till final decision is taken by the second respondent on the question of exemption as an S. S. I. unit. However, no final assessment orders or penalty order pursuant to exhibits P-2 to P-6 have been served either on the com...
Jomu Kurian Vs. Siby and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker360
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 30th September. 1997 in I.A. No. 1650/97 in O.P. No. 131/96. Petitioner is the wife while the first respondent is the husband. Original Petition was filed fordivorce under the Indian Divorce Act. In the petition for divorce, notice was ordered to therespondents and the case was posted to 13-8-1996 for return of notice. The notice so sent was returned with the endorsement that the address shown was not correct. Thereafter, notice was sent through Court and the same was returned with the endorsement that the respondents were residing in Bombay. Petitioner collected the address of the respondents in Bombay. On 20-11-1996 notice was taken to the respondents correct address in Bombay by registered post as well as through Court. These notices were again returned unserved on 16-6-1997. Since the address in the above notice was correct, it was.clear that the respondents were deliberately avoiding the noti...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Dr. P.A. Varghese
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-1998
Reported in: [1999]237ITR439(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. Pursuant to the directions given by this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and fact in determining the value of the property gifted at Rs. 1,00,000 ?'3. The facts in brief, are that the assessee, a medical practitioner, made a gift of a portion of a building, known as Pulikkal Buildings, Ernakulam, on January 15, 1985, to his minor son. The assessment relates to the year 1983-84. At the time of gift, the gifted property was under tenancy of a quasi-Government-body of the Central Government, namely, Spices Export Promotion Council. The monthly rent was Rs. 808. On the basis of the said rental value, the assessee valued the gifted property at Rs. 60,000 only. The Gift-tax Officer found that immediately after the expiry of ten months from the date of the gift, the property in que...
Jiffiri and Kareem Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR587(Ker)
AR. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Heard both sides.2. The petitioner is a firm and an assessee on the file of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Kozhikode, for the assessment year 1978-79 (year ending March 31, 1978). The petitioner's assessment was completed under Section 18(3) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act (for short 'the Act'), by order March 27, 1984. The assessment order and the demand notice were despatched and were served on the petitioner only on July 20, 1984, that is, long thereafter. A copy of the said order is produced as exhibit P-1. The petitioner preferred an appeal against exhibit P-l proceedings contending that the disallowance of certain expenses were not proper. The appellate authority modified exhibit P-l by his order dated October 3, 1985. Thereafter, a revised order was passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer on January 25, 1989, determining the total agricultural income at Rs. 2,99,876.20 as against Rs. 3,52,108 fixed originally in exhibit P-l order. Against exh...
Pukraj Jathajee Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-1998
Reported in: 1999(107)ELT17(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. The short question for consideration in these tax revision cases relating to the consecutive assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 is whether pan parag in the manufacture of which the assessee is engaged, falls under Item No. 165 of the First Schedule, appended to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, liable to tax at the rate of 8 per cent. Item No. 165 of the First Schedule is as under :'165. Scented arecanut'3. The case of the assessee is that one of the ingredients of the pan parag manufactured by him, is tobacco and, therefore, that product is different from the scented arecanut and hence the former is liable to tax as unclassified item at the rate of 5 per cent. We have carefully gone through the orders of the assessing officer, the appellate authority and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Before the assessing officer, the assessee filed a copy of reply (Annexure B) stating that pan parag is prepared by adding the foll...
Manojakumari Vs. Bhasi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-1998
Reported in: II(1998)DMC694
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. The appellant is the petitioner-wife before the Family Court, Thrissur in O.P. No. 20 of 1994, filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. She was the respondent in O.P. No. 352 of 1994 filed by the respondent-husband herein under Sections 12 and 13 of the said Act fordeclaring that the marriage is null and void. Both the petitions were tried together and a common judgment was delivered by the Court below on 16.12.1996.2. The marriage between the parties took place on 9.1.1994 according to the custom of the community to which they belong. Immediately after the marriage wife went to the husband's house. However, the respondent has withdrawn from the company of the appellant without any reasonable cause. Therefore, she has filed the above petition on 23.5.1994. The respondent-husband thereafter filed the petition, O.P. No. 352 of 1994, alleging fraud. His case is that the appellant is mentally unsound at the time of the marriage...
V.G.K. Menon and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALT(Cri)136; 1998CriLJ3146
ORDERK.V. Sankaranarayanan, J.1. The petitioners are the President and members of the Travancore Devaswom Board, who have been arrayed as accused persons 3, 4 and 5 in S. T. No. 175 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranni, a case instituted on a complaint by the second respondent, the Food Inspector, Ranni-Perinad Panchayat, Pathanamthitta Circle alleging an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. On 8-1-1997 at about 4 p.m., the second respondent Food Inspector, Ranni-Perinad Panchayat, Pathanamthitta Circle inspected the Devaswom Premises in Sabarimala. He found four tanks of ghee stored for preparation of appam and aravana. The score Superintendent of the Devaswom, named as first accused in the case, told the Food Inspector that the ghee was kept in the tanks after completing the final purification process and was ready for supply. The Food Inspector asked for 450 ml. of ghee from the Superintendent and obtained it on payment of Rs. 45/- as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›