Kerala Court November 1999 Judgments
Thomas Kurian Vs. Meena and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Ker190; I(2000)DMC488
Pasayat, J. 1. Accepting the prayer made in terms of Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (in short 'the Act'), learned Additional District Judge-I, Mavelikkara, has passed a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent. The matter has been placed before this Full Bench as required under Section 17 of the Act. 2. Petitioner's case before the learned trial Judge was that his marriage with the first respondent was solemnised on 31-12-1987 and two children were borne to them. The first respondent developed an illicit relationship with the second respondent and they started leading an adulterous life. On 7-1-1995 the first respondent eloped with the second respondent along with the two children. A complaint was lodged before the police and at the intervention of the police, the first child was handed over to the petitioner and the other one continued staying with the respondents, who were living together in the house of the second responde...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kerala Transport Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-1999
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Ker)551; [2000]242ITR263(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Though in I. T. R. No. III of 1998, a question of vital importance has been raised about the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to reconsider a question of limitation, while exercising powers under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), we do not think it necessary to go into that question in detail in view of the position as emerges in connected I. T. R. No. 174 of 1997. Reference to the factual aspects is necessary for adjudication of the question raised in that I. T. R., which we shall quote a little later.2. The assessee filed its return for the assessment year 1986-87 on February 9, 1989, declaring a total income of Rs. 83,54,950. In response to the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, books of account were produced and finally the income was assessed at Rs. 1,45,06,670. The demand after adjustment of advance tax and taking into account interest payable underSections 139(8), 215 and 216 came to Rs. 52,91,476. The matter was challenged in ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. A.N. Thomas and Etc. Etc. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Ker325
Narayanakurup, J.1. The prayer in these writ petitions is to quash the circular of the Drugs Controller directing the petitioners who are running private hospitals, to take out a licence under Section 18 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act') for sale or storage of drugs and for the issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the Drugs Controller from insisting on the private hospitals to obtain a drug licnece under Section 18 of the Act. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since hospitals run by the Government and local bodies are exempted from the purview of the Act as per Clause 5-A of Schedule K of the Act, there is no justification on the part of the Drugs Controller in insisting the petitioners to take out a licence which amounts to hostile discrimination and arbitrary treatement. We do not think that the petitioners are well founded in their submission. Pharmacies which are at tached to private hospitals cannot by any stre...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Daniel
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-1999
Reported in: 2000ACJ1391
P.A. Mohammed, J. 1. These three appeals are directed against the common award in O.P. (M.V.) Nos. 681, 682 and 683 of 1988 of the M.A.C. Tribunal, Ernakulam respectively. The common appellant herein is Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., who is the respondent No. 3 in all the claim petitions before the Tribunal. The claimants in the above petitions are persons who sustained the personal injuries in the motor accident occurred on 13.12.1987 near Cochin Naval Base. Respondent No. 1 in all the appeals is the claimant. Likewise respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the owner and driver of the jeep involved in the accident. The claimants were the persons who travelled in the jeep on the invitation extended to them by its owner and driver.2. The Tribunal after the enquiry found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 3 driver. It further found that the injured persons were gratuitous passengers and, therefore, the decision of the Orissa High Court in Oriental Fire ...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Transporting Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-1999
Reported in: [2000]111TAXMAN376(Ker)
Pasayat, CJ.Though in IT Reference No. III of 1998, a question of vital importance has been raised about jurisdiction of the Tribunal to rceconsider a question of limitation, while exercising powers under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Income Tax Act, we do not think it nececssary to go into that conclusion in detail in view of the position as emerges in connected IT Reference No. 174 of 1997. Reference to the factual aspects is nceessary for adjudication of the question raised in that I.T.R., which we shall quote a little later.2. The assessee filed its returns for the assessment year 1986-87 oil 9-2-1989, declaring a total income of Rs. 83,54,950. In response to the notice under section 143(2) of the Act, books of account were produced and finally the income was assessed at Rs. 1,45,06,670. The demand after adjustment of advance tax and taking into account interest payable under sections 139(8), 215 and 216 came to Rs. 52,91,476. The matter was challenged in appeal before th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Geo Sea Foods
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-1999
Reported in: [2000]244ITR44(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Pursuant to a direction given by this court in O. P. No. 11602 of 1993 under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short, 'the Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in cancelling penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The background facts are as follows : The assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of processing and export of sea foods. For the assessment year 1977-78, it had filed a return declaring total income of Rs 3,36,750. In computing the income, the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 2,99,996 out of the compensation received by it amounting to Rs. 5,09,872. The said sum of Rs. 2,99,996 was credited to the current account of four partners of the assessee in equal shares. The claim was th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C.W.S. (India) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-1999
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Ker)529; [2000]246ITR278(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Accepting the prayer in terms of Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), made by the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short, 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-see is entitled to get deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before applying Rule 8(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ?'2. The factual position is undisputed and needs to be noted in brief. The assessee is a company in which the public are substantially interested. It is engaged mainly in the business of cultivation, manufacture and sale of tea. For the assessment year 1985-86, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act in respect of the entire export business of tea manufactured in its own estate, As only 40 per cent. of such turnover has to be taken for income-tax purposes, deduction under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Premier Breweries Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-1999
Reported in: [2000]244ITR598(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Pursuant to the direction given by this court in an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), the following question has been referred 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 Tribunal was justified in cancelling the levy of penalty ?' 2. The factual position, as set out in the statement of facts, is as follows : The assessee, a public limited company, is engaged in the manufactureand sale of beer. The assessment year involved is 1985-86, the relevant previous year being the calendar year 1984. In the course of assessment proceedings', the Assessing Officer noticed a sum of Rs. 9,89,200 under the head 'Machinery and electrical repairs'. Details were called for. The asses-see supported its claim by producing 16 bills of various dates from December 2, 1984, to December 31, 1984, issued by one Elgi Equipments L...
Tag this Judgment!Purushothaman Potti V.N. Vs. State Bank of Travancore and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-1999
Reported in: [2000(85)FLR23]; (2000)IILLJ635Ker
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. In this appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1959 (in short, the Act), judgment of learned single Judge declining to interfere with the order of suspension passed by State Bank of Travancore (hereinafter referred to as 'employer') is under challenge. 2. Appellant, while working as Cashier/Clerk of Karunagappally Branch of employer, was placed under suspension pending enquiry. Earlier, he was served with a memo (Ext. P 13 to original petition), in which various allegations had been levelled against him. Action of employer has been characterised as mala fide, arbitrary, without any foundation and is assailed in this writ appeal after an unsuccessful attempt before, learned single Judge. 3. With reference to various documents, more particularly the allegations earlier made (vide. Exts. P2, P5, P7, P9, P11 and P13), it is submitted that for trifling matters, serious view has been taken unnecessarily and even a matter which was lying dormant for quite ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Premier Breweries Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-1999
Reported in: [2000]110TAXMAN408(Ker)
Pasayat, CJ.Pursuant to the direction given by this court in an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Act'), following question has been referred for opinion by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the levy of penalty ?'2. Factual position, as Set Out in statement of facts, is as follows : The assessee, a public limited company, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of beer. Assessment year involved in 1985-86, relevant previous year being the calendar year 1984. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed a sum of Rs. 9,89,200 under the head 'Machinery and electrical repairs'. Details were called for. The assessee supported its claim by producing 16 bills of various dates from 2-12-1984 to 31-12-1984 issued by one Elgi Equipments Ltd., Coimbatore. The assessing officer found that the said bills issued to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »