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.
R.V. Mohammed Vs. Trichur Heart Hospital Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-04-1999
Reported in: [2001]104CompCas243(Ker)
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. This is a petition under Section 237(a)(ii) of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner, a contributory of the first respondent-company seeks a declaration that the company affairs are in such a position that it requires investigation by an inspector appointed by the Central Government in that regard. It is submitted that the company is not keeping proper accounts and it had done several business activities without obtaining the statutory sanction from the Central Government as enjoined by the law. The directors of the company including respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are now mismanaging the affairs of the company. Therefore, the entire affairs of the company require investigation and this court has power under Section 237(a)(ii) of the Companies Act to order so. If such an order is issued, necessarily, the Central Government will be bound by that order to investigate it. It is submitted, relying on the decision in Kumaranunni v. Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Co. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. South India Corporation Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-04-1999
Reported in: (2000)157CTR(Ker)422; [2000]242ITR114(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. On being moved by the Revenue by an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question for opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not the disallowance of provident fund payments right and in accordance with law ?' The factual position necessary to be noted for adjudication of the question is essentially as follows :In the assessment for the assessment year 1991-92, the Assessing Officer disallowed the following payments made towards provident fund under Section 43B of the Act :'P. F. relating to the previous year relevant to the assessmentyear 1990-91 disallowed in that year and claimed in thisyear on the basis of payment made on May 5, 1990Rs. 39,338P. F. relating to this year not paid on due dates4,68,808'2. The providen...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.K. Narayanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-04-1999
Reported in: [2000]241ITR175(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. The prayer for reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), has been turned down by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short 'the Tribunal'), and hence this application under Section 256(2) of the Act has been filed.2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1990-91. Interest claimed in respect of certain credits amounting to Rs. 16,08,000 was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that it was not genuine. Total interest claimed was Rs. 1,50,750. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the alleged creditors did not respond to the notices issued and, therefore, they were non-existent for all practical purposes. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), held that the genuineness of the 29 creditors was accepted by the Assessing Officer for the earlier years. That being the position, it was not open to the Assessing Officer to turn around and say that the persons from whom loans were allegedly ta...
Ramakrishnan Nair Alias Raju Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-04-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALT(Cri)7; 2000CriLJ416
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Conviction and sentence in terms of judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Kottayam are assailed in this appeal by Ramakrishnan Nair alias Raju (hereinafter referred to as 'accused'). Learned trial Judge found accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.2. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows: On 26-12-1995, there was a festival at the Vilakkumadam Bhagavathy Temple on Vilakkumadam --Chathankulam road. While 'parayeduppu' in connection with festival was going on, an altercation ensued between accused and one Vijayan (P.W. 4) at about 8.30 p.m. When accused stabbed P.W. 4, deceased intervened and snatched the knife from him. On account of this, accused was nursing a grudge against deceased. At about 10 p.m. accused was standing in front of the shop of one Rajappan located near the temple. At-that time, deceased along with Sivan (P.W. 2) and Chandra...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Annamma Sebastian and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-04-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC141; 2000ACJ855
K.K. Usha, J.1. The above appeals arise out of an award passed by the M.A.C.T., Kottayam, in O.P. (MV) No. 523 of 1987. M.F.A. No. 651 of 1990 is at the instance of the insurance company. M.F.A. No. 883 of 1990 is filed by the registered owner of the offending vehicle and M.F.A. No. 978 of 1990 by the claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation.2. The petition was filed by the widow, five children and the mother of Dr. Sebastian who died in a road traffic accident on 17.1.1987, claiming compensation to the extent of Rs. 24,34,000. The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry which hit against the car in a head-on collision resulting in Dr. Sebastian sustaining fatal injuries. Even though the injured was shifted to the Medical College Hospital immediately after the accident, he succumbed to the injuries after reaching the Medical College Hospital. The Tribunal found that the claimants are entitled to compensation ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A. Geeripai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-04-1999
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Ker)506
Arijit PasayatOriginal Petn. Nos. 13061 and 13720 of 1999 are in the list today. As Original Petn. No. 20241 of 1999 is similar in nature, the same is being taken up at the request of the learned counsel for the parties.2. Refusal by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench to refer the questions posed by the Revenue for opinion under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act)', has led to the filing of these petitions. The questions are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in confirming the deletion of the disallowance of interest in respect of gold loan 7C.J. :2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1967]63ITR57(SC) and Lachmi Narayan Madan Lal v. CIT : [1972]86ITR439(SC) is the expenditure wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and should not the Tribunal have consi...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sasilatha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-01-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC264; 2000ACJ661
K.K. Usha, J.1. This is an appeal at the instance of the insurance company challenging the award passed against it by the M.A.C.T., Punalur in O.P. (MV) No. 1082 of 1993. Petition was filed before the Tribunal by the owner of a jeep under Sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming damages for bodily injury sustained by her in an accident involving the jeep which belonged to her and a bus belonging to the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation on 17.11.1992. On the basis of the evidence, Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus, but, on the other hand, accident happened only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep.2. Appellant insurance company contended before the Tribunal that the petitioner being the insured, she cannot put forward any claim from the insurance company. Under the terms of the contract between the insurer and the insured, obligation of the insurer is only to indemni...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›