Kerala Court October 1999 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.
Adril D'Couth Vs. Premier Auto Electric Ltd. and Anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-22-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALT(Cri)219; [2001]103CompCas561(Ker)
T.M. Hassan Pillai, J.1. The short ground to invoke the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to axe annexure I complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner accusing him of having committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N. I. Act'), is issuing of originals of annexures II and III, respectively, by the respondent when the cheque issued by the petitioner was returned by the drawee bank unpaid on the ground of insufficiency of funds in the account of the petitioner maintained with the drawee bank on two earlier occasions and non-filing of complaint against the petitioner by the respondent alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act within one month of arising of the cause of action. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner used to purchase electrical and mechanical items from the complainant-company on credit and Rs. 71,207 was o...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. R. Ramalingair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-22-1999
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Ker)628; [2000]108TAXMAN1(Ker)
Pasayat, CJ.At the instance of the revenue, the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this Court, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that levy of interest cannot be made under sections 234A and 234B without affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is not levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B (and under the earlier provisions) automatic and axiomatic ?'2. As the questions referred to are purely of law, detailed reference to factual position is unnecessary. Stated in brief, same is as follows:The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business in paper, paper products, office stationery, etc. For the assessment year 1991-92, it filed return of income on 31-8-1992 declaring a total income of Rs. ...
Thankaraj and ors. Vs. Kerala Water Authority
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-22-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1584Ker
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioners were appointed provisionally in the erstwhile Public Health Engineering Department during the years 1981-83. They sought for regularisation of their services. Similarly placed persons approached the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court considered the question in Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority, AIR 1990 SC 2228 : 1991-II-LLJ-65 (SC). This Writ Petition was filed for regularisation of service of the petitioners from the date of their joining service. Counsel for the Water Authority, Smt. Chincy Gopakumar submitted that Supreme Court has not ordered regularisation from the date of their joining service. According to Water Authority, Supreme Court has ordered regularisation only with immediate effect. Judgment was delivered on September 10, 1990. On the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court, Kerala Water Authority resolved to regularise 302 such employees of the erstwhile Public Health Engineering Department as per resolution dated February 27, 199...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R. Ramalingair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-22-1999
Reported in: [2000]241ITR753(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred for opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short 'the Tribunal') :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that levy of interest cannot be made under Sections 234A and 234B without affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is not levy of interest under Section 234A and 234B (and under the earlier provisions) automatic and axiomatic ?'2. As the questions referred are purely of law, detailed reference to factual position is unnecessary. Stated in brief, the same is as follows: The asses-see is a partnership firm carrying on business in paper, paper products, office stationery, etc. For the assessment year 1991-92, it filed a return of income on...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sabeer Ali and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-22-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC206; 2000ACJ839
K.K. Usha, J.1. These appeals arise out of a common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri in O.P. (M.V.) Nos. 474, 551, 621, 477, 622, 552, 620, 479, 553, 623, 504, 476, 889, 550, 860 and 475 of 1990. Along with the above petitions one more claim petition was disposed of by the Tribunal, i.e., O.P. (M.V.) No. 478 of 1990, which is not appealed against. The appeals are at the instance of the insurance company, which was the insurer of a jeep with registration No. KLL 4862 which was involved in an accident on 17.12.1989. Seventeen persons were carried in the vehicle at the time of the accident. Three among them died and the remaining passengers sustained injuries. The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep who was impleaded as the respondent No. 1 in the petitions. The respondent No. 2 was the owner and respondent No. 3, the insurer of the jeep.2. A contention was raised on behalf of the respondent No. 3 that ...
Saramma Vs. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-22-1999
Reported in: 2000ACJ1067
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. Siby Mathew for the appellant. Appellant is the petitioner in the original petition. Original petition was filed seeking a direction to the respondent to permit the petitioner to withdraw the amount deposited in her name in O.P. (MV) No. 312 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha and to release the fixed deposit receipt in her name. It is seen from Exh. P1 award that a sum of Rs. 2,77,000 was awarded and that the appellant, the widow of the deceased was found entitled to get Rs. 1,17,000 with interest and cost. However, the appellant was allowed to withdraw only Rs. 30,000 and the balance amount less court fee was directed to be deposited in a nationalised bank. It is stated by the appellant that her husband was the sole breadwinner of the family and after his death the appellant and her minor children have been residing in a hut and the hut at present is almost in a dilapidated condition, the hut may collapse at any time...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-21-1999
Reported in: (2000)161CTR(Ker)383; [2000]242ITR144(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Pursuant to the direction given by this court in O.P. No. 11720 of 1992 under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the following question has been referred to this court for opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short 'the Tribunal'):'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the capital redemption reserve forms part of the capital for purpose of surtax ?'2. The factual position as indicated in the statement of case is as follows : The assessee, a public limited company, admitted a chargeable profit of Rs. 8,22,586. While computing the statutory deduction of capital, a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs as 'capital redemption reserve' was included. This was excluded by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short 'the CIT (Appeals)') allowed the deduction. In appeal, the Tribunal, following its earlier order in the assessee's case in STA Nos. 9 and 10/Coch. of 1986, accepted the a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Masoneilan (India) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-15-1999
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Ker)482; [2000]242ITR569(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellata Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short, 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question for opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of-the case, the applicability or otherwise of Section 292B of the Act is a debatable question to rule out the application of Section 154 of the Act ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1989-90 and arises in the following undisputed factual background : A return was filed on July 27, 1988, by the assessee, a public limited company. The said return was signed by a person not named under Section 140 of the Act in relation to 'company'. Notice was issued under Section 154 of the Act to the assessee stating that since its return was not signed by the person permitted to sign it in terms of Section 140(c) of the Act, the return was non est, and all proceedings taken on the basis of that return are void ab...
P.C. Joseph and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-15-1999
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Ker)104; [2000]243ITR818(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat C.J. 1. The Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in sustaining the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act ?'2. The factual position, as set out in the statement of the case, is as follows : The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business in foodgrains, provisions, etc. For the assessment years 1970-71 to 1973-74, original assessment was completed on February 16, 1971, September 14, 1972, February 28, 1973 and March 22, 1976. On August 14, 1975, a search was conducted in the business premises of the assessee and the residential premises of the managing partner, Shri P. C. Joseph. On scrutiny of the books of account together with the seized documents for the previous year ending on July 31, 1973, relevant to the assessment year 1974-75, the...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-15-1999
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Ker)346
Arijit Pasayat, C. J. :In the present reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), an interesting question arises for consideration. Question, as referred to by Tribunal, Cochin Bench, reads as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and facts in the holding that the assessing officer was not obliged to grant depreciation when the assessee did not furnish the requisite particulars and it was the intention of the assessee not to claim depreciation ?'There appears to be divergence of views so far as various High Courts are concerned on the question. Since it does not require elaborate reference to factual aspects, we straightaway proceed to deal with the question on the legal aspects; noticing factual aspects briefly.2. Assessment year involved is 1986-87. Assessee filed its return of income on 30-9-1986, but did not claim any depreciation. Assessee informed assessing officer that it was not c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »