Kerala Court December 1999 Judgments
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Thomas and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-24-1999
Reported in: 2000ACJ1413
K.K. Usha, J. 1. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal at the instance of the insurance company is whether loss of front right upper incisor tooth of the injured claimant would amount to a permanent disability as defined under Section 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod has taken the view in the award passed in O.P. (MV) No. 451 of 1993 that it would. In a motor accident, which took place on 17,3.1993, the respondent No. 1 herein sustained certain minor injuries and also fracture of the right incisor tooth. Later the tooth was extracted. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident happened on account of the negligence of the respondent No. 1 in the O.P. (MV) and, therefore, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are liable to compensate the petitioner. The above finding is not under challenge in this appeal filed by the respondent No. 3 insurance company.2. The claimant is a young man of 28 years age and working as a teacher...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kishorekumar Shamji
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-18-1999
Reported in: (2000)161CTR(Ker)225; [2000]244ITR702(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Pursuant to a direction given by this court in Original Petition No. 7516 of 1985, the following questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short, 'the Tribunal'), at the instance of the Revenue, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and particularly in the light of the facts mentioned in the enclosure to the reference application, is the Tribunal right,-- (i) in holding' that the assessee is not liable to a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) ? (ii) in cancelling' the penalty in full, instead of sustaining at least a penalty of Rs. 55,650 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, did the Tribunal have any material to hold that,-- (i) 'credit for this increased price has been given to the seller in his account' or that- (ii) 'in fact the seller has shown this as her income and has been assessed on this' incl...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.A. Unneerikutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-18-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR294(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Pursuant to the directions given in O. P. No. 6144 of 1991, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short, 'the Tribunal'), under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') ;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of imposition of penalty by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was invalid and without jurisdiction ?'2. The factual position, so far as undisputed, is as follows : The assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from business in purchase and sale of 'copra'. The assessment for 1972-73 was completed on August 23, 1975, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 6,97,330. An addition on account of income from undisclosed sources was made, which, according to the Assessing Officer, represented unaccounted purchase of copra. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of theAct....
Tag this Judgment!Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. Vs. Jerro
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-18-1999
Reported in: II(2000)ACC261; [2000(85)FLR199]; (2000)ILLJ1157Ker
1. In this appeal filed under Section 5 of the High Court Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act'), judgment of learned single Judge holding that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the employee) is entitled to accident leave is under challenge by Travancore Titanium Products Ltd., who is hereinafter referred to as 'the employer'. 2. Factual position is almost undisputed. Sans unnecessary details it is as follows: Employee sustained an injury on February 1, 1995, in the factory premises. According to the employee, he met with the accident due to carelessness of a construction worker, near the acid plant. He applied for accident leave from February 1, 1995 to March 16, 1995, which was refused. It was stated in the letter of refusal that his prayer cannot be accepted as it was not permissible under the Rules. The refusal was challenged in Original Petition No. 19504 of 1997. Learned single Judge held that the ground on which the accident leave was refused was not tenable. It was observed th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. M.K. Abdul Khader Haji (Decd.)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-18-1999
Reported in: [2000]242ITR728(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Doubting the correctness of the judgment rendered by this court in Dr. V. P. Gopinathan v. CWT : [1996]221ITR401(Ker) , reference was made to a Full Bench. The order for reference was made by the Division Bench while considering a reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (in short 'the Act'). The following question was referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short 'the Tribunal') ;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in view of the Tribunal's own decision in the case of Dr. V. P. Gopinathan (WTA Nos. 58, 59 and 60 (Coch) of 1985 dated June 11, 1988), the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 5(l)(xxxiii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 2. The factual position is as follows : The assessee, an individual, though a citizen of India, was a resident of Kuwait for a long time. He is a partner in Haji M. K. Abdul Khader and Co., a partnership firm, which runs a hotel called 'Paramount Tower' in C...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-18-1999
Reported in: [2000]246ITR330(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Accepting the prayer made in terms of 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 questions for the opinion of this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, on account of incorporation of Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from October 1, 1991, in Section 21 of the Interest-tax Act, 1974, and the overriding effect of Section 21 over Section 5, by which the interest-tax has to be levied only on the interest income computed, based on the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in concluding that the Assessing Officer has rightly made the computation of the interest on accrual basis, rejecting the cash system of accounting accepted for the assessment under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, on acc...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Babu M.S. Vs. Chairman, Rubber Board and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-18-1999
Reported in: [2000(84)FLR816]; (2000)IILLJ498Ker
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Appellant while working as Field Officer of the Rubber Board was placed under suspension by the Chairman of the Rubber Board under Sub-rule(i)(e) of Rule 8 of the Rubber Board Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1961 by order dated March 17, 1988. Following are the charges levelled against the appellant:Shri M.S. Suresh Babu, while functioning as Field Officer, Rubber Board Field Office, Vazhakulam during the period between June, 1985 and March, 1988, failed to maintain integrity and devotion to duty in as much as he disobeyed the orders/directions/instructions of his controlling officer/superiors in regard to work, conduct, submission of inspection reports and tour reports and unaulhorisedly absented himself from duty from December 1, 1987 to December 16, 1987 from January 1, 1988 to February 12, 1988 from February 17, 1988 to March 5, 1988 and from March 7, 1988 to March 15, 1988 in violation of the rules/orders in force.And that Shri Suresh B...
Tag this Judgment!A. Mohammed Iqbal and ors. Vs. Bar Council of India, New Delhi and ors ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Ker247
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Petitioners are Advocates in the roll of Bar Council of Kerala. They assail the decision taken by the Special Committee to depute the fifth respondent to Bar Council as the representative of the Bar Council of Kerala.2. Election to the State Bar Council was a subject-matter of Civil Appeal No. 1504 of 1999 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in Babu Verghese v. Bar council of Kerala, AIR 1999 SC 1281, set aside the election which was held in April, 1997 and directed the constitution of a Special Committee under Section 8-A of the Advocates Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') for carrying on the functions of the State Bar Council and to conduct the election afresh.3. Bar Council of India then passed a resolution for constituting a Special Committee under Section 8-A of the Act as directed by the Supreme Court. The Committee constituted by the Bar Council of India consists of following members :--1) The Advocate General of Kerala (Ex Officio) as the Chai...
Tag this Judgment!Saji Vs. District Court
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-15-1999
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ1039Ker
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Heard.2. The only point urged in support of the Writ Appeal is that the District and Sessions Judge on the basis of whose direction the process against the appellant was set in motion, should not have been acted any further in the matter. But he acted as enquiry officer, disciplinary authority and imposed penalty. After the disposal of the appeal preferred by the appellant before this Court, the action was challenged in the Original Petition which was dismissed on the ground that there is ample material to justify the punishment imposed. But, no definite finding was recorded so far as the appellant's specific stand of violation of principles of natural justice.3. The factual position needs to be noted in brief. Appellant was proceeded against for alleged misconduct. He was found to have delivered some official documents unauthorisedly. Statements were recorded from the persons who allegedly knew about the misdemeanor. A departmental enquiry was conducted and fina...
Tag this Judgment!Appplico Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-1999
Reported in: [2000]118STC567(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. The only question involved in this case filed under Section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (in short 'the Act') is which entry covers 'L.P.G. stove'. According to the Revenue, the entry is Sl. No. 182 of the First Schedule to the Act. According to the assessee, it is covered by Sl. No. 119. Not much factual controversy is involved.2. The Revenue authorities as well as the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') held that the appropriate entry is at Sl. No. 182.3. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the approach of the authorities is erroneous. It was pointed out by him that for immediately succeeding year, the first appellate authority has taken a different view, and held that the rate of tax applicable is 8 per cent on the basis of entry at 119.4. Learned counsel for the Revenue contended that each assessment year is different, assessment unit and view has been taken b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »