Kerala Court August 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.
T. Asafali, Advocate Vs. E.K. Nayanar and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-21-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker160
ORDERK. Narayana Kurup, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General at length.2. The prayer in this Original Petition is for a declaration that the first respondent -- Chief Minister having violated the oath of allegiance to the Constitution of India as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Kerala representing the Thalassery Constituency is no tongerqualificd or eligible to represent the said constitutency, declare that the first respondent having violated the oath of office and secrecy of Chief Minister of the State of Kerala, he is liable to demit the office of Chief Minister forthwith, for the issuance of a writ of cerliorari to quash Ext. P1 press release and for other incidental reliefs. As per Ext. PI press release, it is stated that the 2nd respondent has been appointed the representative of the Chief Minister in Thalassery Constitutency. The contention advanced is that the Chief Minister being a constitutional functionary, the duties, respo...
A. Raghavan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker40
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P3 order passed by the first respondent appointing third respondent as the arbitrator to decide the dispute under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. Third respondent is Assistant General Manager (Engg.) in the office of the General Manager (Planning), Telecommunications, Thiruvananthapuram.2. Petitioner submits third respondent being an officer of the Telephone Department is disabled from acting as Arbitrator. From past experience, counsel for petitioner submits if a party wants to examine an officer of the telephone department. Arbitrator (officer of Department) would not allow him to examine the officer. Similarly Arbitrator would accept documents produced by the department without even giving a copy thereof to the parties. Further, according to petitioner, third respondent has no knowledge of law, and he would not follow the well-known principles of natural justice before rendering his decision....
Travancore Rubber and Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR351(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J.1. One of the questions arising in this revision for consideration is whether the Agricultural Income tax Appellate Tribunalwas right in holding that pension of Rs. 39,999.96 paid to the ex-general manager of the company, was not an allowable deduction under Section 5(j) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (briefly 'the Act').2. Section 5(j) of the Act--read properly--provides that the agricultural income of a person shall be computed after making deduction, namely, any sum paid in the previous year on account of any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of deriving the agricultural income. The language used in Section 5(j) of the Act is analogous to that used in Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which allows deduction in respect of any expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business.3. The ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Appollo Tyres Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
Reported in: [1999]237ITR706(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. Both these cases arise from a common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I. T. A. No. 301/Coch. of 1991. The assessment year concerned is 1988-89. The relevant accounting period ended on October 31, 1987. The Revenue sought reference of as many as 12 questions under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for opinion of this court. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal forwarded a statement of case dated November 30, 1993, and referred the following questions for opinion of this, court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company's determination, as accepted by the Tribunal, of net profit after providing for the arrears of depreciation in the profit and loss account of the company for the relevant accounting year was in accordance with Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956, as required under Section 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?(i) Whethe...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kottiyur Liquors
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Ker)378
OM PRAKASH, C.J.At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal referred the following question relating to the asst. yr. 1987-88 for the opinion of this Court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and where a partner obtains a licence and carries on the business of Abkari contracts, the Tribunal is right in law in holding,-'(i) it cannot be said that the concerned partner has transferred the licence or the privilege to and in favour of the partnership firm of which he is a partner?(ii) such transfer, if any, is not prohibited under the Abkari Act ?2. The assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of Abkari. The assessee sought registration which was denied on the ground that the licence was Ai the name of one of the partners only and not in the name of the firm as such.3. The Tribunal in the second appeal held that though the Abkari licence was obtained by one of the partners, the same was transferred to the assessee-firm by the partner. This is ho...
K.T. Muhammed and anr. Vs. Kurumannil Melemannil Abdhulsalam Haji and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker8
ORDERP. Shanmugam, J.1. The petitioners are residents of Ward No. VII of the Kavannoor Panchayat. They have filed this original petition challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Panchayat, Ext. P7, confirmed by the Government, Ext. P8 and for a declaration that decision No. 1 dated 28-12-1996 taken by the 2nd respondent not to grant licence to the 1st respondent to set up a fertilizer factory at Ward No. VII of the Kavanoor Panchayat as perfectly legal and valid, and for a declaration that the second respondent is not bound to issue a licence to set up a factory as soon as no objection certificates are obtained from the District Medical Officer and the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and for quashing Ext. P4 order issued by the Government.2. The bare facts necessary for the disposal of the original petition is as follows :During the year 1991 an application was preferred by the first respondent before the Kavanooor Panchayat to set up a fertilizer factory. The Panchayat as ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Travancore Titanium Products Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR240(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The following two questions are referred at the instance of the Revenue for decision of this court :'(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the loan redemption reserve amounting to Rs. 1 crore is a reserve and not a provision and is to be included in the computation of capital for the purpose of surtax ? (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1981]132ITR559(SC) , the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding so?' 2. The matter arises under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The assessment year concerned is 1985-86, the relevant previous year ended on December 31, 1985,3. The brief facts necessary for decision of the case as set out in the statement of case forwarded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal are as follows :The assess...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Travancore Titanium Products Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Ker)386
G. SIVARMAN, J.:The following two questions are referred at the instance of the Revenue for decision of this Court : -(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the loan redemption reserve amounting to Rs. 1 crore is a reserve and not a provision and is to be included in the computation of capital for the purpose of surtax?(b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co, Ltd. vs . CIT : [1981]132ITR559(SC) , the Tribunal is right in holding so? ',2. The matter arises under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The assessment year concerned is 1985-86, the relevant previous year ended 31st Dec., 1985.3. The brief facts necessary for decision of the case as set out in the Statement of Case forwarded by the Tribunal are as follows:The assessee is a company in which the public are substant...
Chandramathi K.K. Vs. Vadakkumpad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ1223Ker
Ar. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.C. Sasidharan for the appellant and Mr. R.V. Surendra Nath for the first respondent and learned Govt. Pleader for the second respondent. 2. Writ appeal is directed against the order in C.M.R No. 13981/1998 in O.P. No. 8144/1998. The original petition, has been filed by the Co-operative Bank challenging the order of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kannur, dated April 2, 1998, which is marked as Ext. P2 in the original petition. By the said exhibit, the Joint Registrar, invoking the powers under Section 66 and Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act rescinded the order of the Disciplinary Subcommittee keeping the appellant under suspension. The Joint Registrar has issued Ext. P2 order on a representation filed by the appellant and as directed by this Court in O.P. No. 2309/1998. The Joint Registrar has found that the Sub-Committee constituted under Rule 198 of the Rules cannot suspend an employee pending enquiry into serious char...
Book Centre and anr. Vs. Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker58
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. The petitioners are book publishers and sellers. Some of their books have been prescribed as text books for pre-degree classes in the colleges affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University, hereinafter referred to as 'the University', for the year 1997-98. They have approached this Court seeking a direction to the University to select the text books for pre-degree course for the year 1998-99 only after issuing notifications calling for books from publishers and sellers as had been done in the previous years. They also seek a direction to continue the prescribed texts in the year 1997-98 for the year 1998-99 as well.2. The petitioners submit that as per Ext. P-1 schedule published by the University, first year pre-degree classes have already started on 20-7-98. They submit that Chapter XII of the Mahatma Gandhi University First Statutes 1991 provides that the Board of Studies constituted by the University shall have power to recommend for guidance to teachers...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »