Kerala Court August 1998 Judgments
P.J. Isac Vs. Appsons Pharmaceuticals and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-26-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker6
1. This appeal is directed against the order in I.A. No. 3689/97 in O.P. (Indigent) No. 89/97 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Kottayam. The petitioner-plaintiff before the Court below is the appellant before us. He filed the suit as an indigent person for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,99,224.40 with interest from the defendants 2 and 3. He has also filed the above application under Order 38, Rule 5 of CPC seeking an order of attachment before judgment. The Court below after hearing both parties lifted the conditional attachment already made on furnishing security for 50% of the plaint amount by the 4th defendant within 15 days from the date of the order. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the said order filed the present appeal.2. When this appeal came up for hearing today, Sri. Mathew John, Advocate took notice on behalf of the respondents-defendants. He submitted that the impugned order had been passed on the basis of a concession made by the counsel appearing for the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. English Indian Clays Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-26-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR546(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue referred the following questions relating to the assessment year 1982-83 for the opinion of this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and in fact in holding that the interest was not leviable under Section 217(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and in fact in holding that the assessee was (sic--not) liable to file an estimate for advance tax ?' 2. The finding of the Appellate Tribunal in regard to the above questions is brief and is reproduced below :'Coming to the facts of this case also, the assessee was not liable to pay any advance tax nor was any notice served on the assessee for that purpose. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to file an estimate of the advance tax. So the view of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that an appeal aga...
Tag this Judgment!N.P. Abu Vs. Vellam Thottil Asma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-26-1998
Reported in: I(1999)DMC148
D. Sreedevi, J.1. This revision has been filed against the order in M.C. No. 39 of l994 of the Family Court, Kozhikode. Petitioner herein was the respondent in the M.C. filed before the Family Court.2. The petitioner's case is that the wife and two children filed the above case for maintenance against him. The first petitioner-wife claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per mensem on the allegation that she is entitled to live separately from him on the ground of his cruelty towards her. For the children, she claimed Rs. 200/- each. The husband-respondent contended that the wife has no justifiable reason to live separately and hence she is not entitled to maintenance. He has made many attempts to take her back but failed. According to him, the wife is doing work in a prawn factory and is earning substantial income. He is a fish-monger. His work is only seasonal and hence he is not able to provide maintenance.3. The Family Court fixed the maintenance due to the petitioners at the ...
Tag this Judgment!N.P. Abu Vs. Vellan Thottil Asma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-26-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ61
ORDERD. Sreedevi, J.1. This revision has been filed against the order in M. C. No. 39 of 1994 of the Family Court, Kozhikode. Petitioner herein was the respondent in the M. C. filed before the Family Court. 2. The petitioner's case is that the wife and two children filed the, above case for maintenance against him. The first petitioner-wife claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per mensem on the allegation that she is entitled to live separately from him on the ground of his cruelty towards her. For the children, sine claimed Rs. 200/- each. The husband-respondent contended that the wife has no justifiable reason to live separately and hence she is not entitled to maintenance, He has made many attempts to take her back but failed. According to Him, the wife is doing work in a prawn factory and is earning substantial income. He is a fish-monger. His work is only seasonal and hence he; is not able to provide maintenance. 3. The family Court fixed the maintenance due to the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!N. C. J. Rajan Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Ker)245
Om Prakash CJ:At the instance of the assessee the Tribunal referred the following questions for the assessment year 1977-78 for the opinion of this Court:' 1. Was the Tribunal justified in holding that the assessee has not made voluntary disclosure of his wealth in the return filed on 31st March, 19862. Was the Tribunal justified in holding that the return/declaration filed on 31st March, 1986 is not an Amnesty return?3. Was the Tribunal justified in not granting the benefit of the Amnesty circulars to the assessee?'2. In our judgment dt. 15-7-1998 rendered in IT Ref. Nos. 124 to 126 of 1995 and 10 1 of 1995 [reported as CWT v. N. C. J John (1998) 149 CTR (Ker) 2991 we. held that no concealment having been detected during the search operation conducted on the premises of the assessee, -the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme.In. the instant reference, it is not disputed that detection of assets was made during the search operation. Therefore, the converse positio...
Tag this Judgment!Midhun Murali (Minor) and anr. Vs. Fertilisers and Chemicals, Travanco ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-25-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker36
A.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Petitioners I and 2 in O.P. 8125 of 1998 are the appellants in W.A. 1686 of 1998. They along with another petitioner by name, Adin Abraham, filed the Original Petition to declare that the selection for admission to Standard I in Udyogamandal school . pursuant to Bxts. P-1 and P-2 is illegal and im-properand direct Respondents 1, 3 and 4 tocanccl the same and also to direct the said respondents to conduct admission to FACT Udyogamandal school to Standard I afresh in accordance with law. 2. According to the appellants in the above appeal, the first appellant was a student of LKG, MKG and UKG at Kasturba English Medium Nursery School. He was an excellent student and was having First Rank in the Nursery School for both MKG and UKG. He was awarded distinction in the National Level Talent Search Examination held in 1996-97 and is also proficient in Extracurricular activities and was placed first in the Painting Competition held at FACT Township. The case of the second ...
Tag this Judgment!Kottal Ayishumma Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-25-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker132
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P4 notification and seeking a declaration that the provisions in the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 (the Act) is not applicable to the petitioner's land measuring 63 acres and comprised in R. S. 6/1 Part of Vettilappara Village of Eranad Taluk in Malappuram District.2. Exhibit P4 notification has been issued under Section 5 of the said Act prohibiting theculling and uprooting of trees standing in 63 acres of land scheduled to the said notification. The Explanatory Note attached to the notification shows that the said 63 acres of land was subject matter of O.A. 283/76, and the Forest Tribunal had held that the said 63 acres not form part of the private forests. The Explanatory Note further shows that that judgment of the Tribunal had been confirmed by this court in M.F.A. 525/ 79, and that an attempt to review the judgment was also dismissed by this court. Now, the Government thought of prohibiti...
Tag this Judgment!C. Krishnamoorthy and anr. Vs. Official Liquidator, High Court of Kera ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker266; [1999]98CompCas356(Ker)
Mohammed, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Company Judge on General Report No. 745 and Report No. 45 in C.P. Nos. 26/88, 5/90 and 34/90. The appellants before us are two Chartered Accountants who are directly not parties to the above reports filed by the Official Liquidator. The main pleading advanced by them is that they are highly aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judge in the above reports inasmuch as the Chartered Accountants are totally excluded from conducting the tax cases of the companies in liquidation . The Company Court observed that the prayer made by the Official Liquidator in the reports referred to above to entrust all the sales tax matters to the advocates included in the panel and all other tax matters to the Chartered Accountants in the panel prepared by the Official Liquidator could not be allowed. Finally, the Courtdirected the Official Liquidator to entrust all tax matters to the advocates on equitable basis.2. On behalf of ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. M.G. Viji Vs. P.T. Omana
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-1998
Reported in: I(1999)DMC94
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment in O.P. (HMA) No. 54 of 1994 on the file of the Sub Judge's Court, Mavelikara dismissing a petition filed under Section 13(i)(ii) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The appellant herein was the petitioner before the Court below and the counter petitioner is the respondent herein. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 12.11.1992 and they lived together till July, 1993. Thereafter the married life was not smooth and there were frequent squabbles between the husband and wife. This unpleasant situation in the family resulted in filing the present petition for dissolution of marriage. The husband alleged cruelty and unsoundness of mind against the wife. After the enquiry the Court below came to die conclusion that the grounds alleged for dissolution had not been made out and therefore, the petition was dismissed.2. When this appeal came up for hearing today before...
Tag this Judgment!A.P. Sivaraman and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-21-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR532(Ker)
Om Prakash C.J.1. This appeal is preferred by the assessees against thejudgment dated March 17, 1994 (see [1994] 209 ITR 56), passed by thelearned single judge. 2. The assessees sought rectification under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), by the applications which were made belatedly. Condonation of delay was sought by the applications made under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The, Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short 'the Board'), taking into consideration the report of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, which was forwarded to it by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore, rejected the applications for condonation of delay. Such rejection was challenged in the original petition before this court.3. The learned single judge rejected the original petition observing as under (page 40) :'The question whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay or not is a matter within the discretion of the Board. The Board considered the matter...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »