Kerala Court December 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.
V. Vishnudas Kini Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-1999
Reported in: [2000]109TAXMAN15(Ker)
The petitioner is challenging Ext.P8 order ordering special audit under section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the petitioner, the above was ordered after appeal against penalty proceedings. The petitioner has got a qualified accountant and there is no complexity. Special audit under section 142(2A) is unnecessary. The petitioner also relied on the Board's circular on this aspect regarding special audit. Even before the appeal was allowed, by order dated 7-12-1998, the Commissioner ordered as follows:'Since the gross receipt is more than 2 crores and also the expenses under various heads claimed to be on behalf of various clients, the volume of vouchers and bills will be very big. Those may have to be linked with the client's business account. For e.g., trailor hire charges claimed at Rs. 30,16,209, Demurages Rs. 31,77,655, sundry expenses Rs. 6,89,424. The admissibility of correctness of the expense cannot be verified without a laborious task. In view of the complic...
Dr. Nebu John Varghese Vs. P.K. Babu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1903
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The petitioner herein was a passenger in K.S.R.T.C. Super Fast, No. KL-15/3184, TS 120, bound to Trivandrum from Thrissur on 26-11-1999 at 7.30 p.m. It is a night service bus. The petitioner, to his utter dismay and disbelief, noticed the respondent-driver of the bus, P.K. Babu smoking cigarette while driving nearly one hour after the start of the journey. The petitioner, however, consoled himself thinking that it may be the first and the last. However, he was dumbfounded to see the driver lighting cigarettes one after another and smoking. He further states that taking cue from the driver who is the captain of the bus two other passengers also started smoking in the bus while the bus was in motion. According to the petitioner, by the time this smoke-filled bus reached Trivandrum, the driver had smoked atleast ten cigarettes. The petitioner has written a letter to this Court dated 27-11-1999 notwithstanding the above incident, on the basis of which the action was in...
G.N.R. Unnithan Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Ker189
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J. 1. These two original petitions are filed regarding rejection of their nomination papers for contesting for the election to the Executive Committee of the second respondent, Kerala High Court Advocate's Association. Second respondent is a Bar Association as prescribed in the Advocates Act and the Advocates Welfare Fund Rules. With regard to O.P.No. 31185 of 1999, for the petitioner therein five nomination papers were submitted for the post of Vice President. The first three nomination papers were proposed by three different advocates with the name K. B. Suresh. Membership number was given in two nomination papers and in one nomination paper address was also given after the name. It is stated by the Returning Officer who was present in Court that petitioner's name is written in the membership register as Suresh K. B. and not K. B. Suresh. Apart from the above defect, his membership number was also written in the nomination form which is unwarranted as there is anothe...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bafekyh Export House
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR835(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. These three reference applications relate to the identical questions. Therefore, they are taken up together for disposal.2. The assessment years involved are 1983-84 and 1984-85, The Tribunal held that the onus relating to some entries has been properly discharged and credit worthiness has been established. The Revenue's stand is that the onus has been wrongly placed and the true essence of the transaction has not been analysed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal took an overall view of the matter. According to him, the procedure adopted by the Assessing Officer in relation to certain purchases and the interpretation of the entries relating to credits weighed with the Tribunal to arrive at the conclusions which are essentially factual. So far as the amount standing to the credit of the partners which the Revenue treated as undisclosed income not satisfactorily explained by the assesses, the authority seems to have not tak...
N. Harihara Iyer Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1251
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The complainant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, in complaints filed under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused, is the petitioner in the Original Petition, which was filed :(i) to declare that in respect of the complaints lodged under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for taking cognizance, the examination of the complainant is not necessary under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C;(ii) to issue necessary instructions to all the Magistrates in the State of Kerala to take cognizance of the offences under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by verifying the complaint and the documents produced by them and the examination of the complainants shall be insisted only if there is any discrepancy between them; and(iii) to issue necessary instructions to all the Magistrate to give pr...
B.A. Benny Vs. Smt. Raichal Bindu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-1999
Reported in: I(2001)DMC284
D. Sreedevi, J.1. Petition under Sections 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act. Petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. Petitioner is a Latin Catholic by birth and faith, while the respondent is Syrian Jacobite faith.2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 1.3.1992 as per the Latin Catholic rites at Pius X Church, Kalamassery. They lived together at the respondent's house and a female child was born to them on 23.12.1992. While so, it is alleged for the petitioner that the respondent left the house of the petitioner on 26.8.1993. Petitioner has filed this O.P. for a declaration that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is null and void.3. In the year 1992, it is alleged by the petitioner that the parents of the respondent approached the petitioner through a friend with the marriage proposal for the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the respondent's parents made him believe that the respondent is a post-gradua...
Raju Vs. Mary
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-1999
Reported in: II(2000)DMC107
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. By accepting prayer for decree for dissolution of the marriage, petition filed under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (in short 'the Act') was disposed of the by learned Judge, Family Court, Ernakulam, granting a decree of divorce. Reference has been made to this Court, as required under - Section 17 of the Act. Petitioner filed the petition alleging that his wife was leading an immoral life and was living in adultery. It was stated that inspite of best efforts, the name of the alleged adulterer could not be known. The foundation of the claim of adultery was that the respondent refused to have sexual relationship with him. But notwithstanding lack of sexual relationship between them, a child was born to the respondent, and it is sufficient to show that she was living in adultery. Respondent remained ex parte during trial. Learned trial Judge accepted the evidence tendered by the petitioner and held that the respondent was living in adultery.2. When the ...
Lissy Vs. Jaison
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-1999
Reported in: II(2000)DMC59
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 20 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (in short 'the Act') seeking confirmation of the decree passed by the Judge, Family Court, Thrissur. An application was filed by the wife under Section 18 of the Act for a declaration that the marriage solemnised between her and respondent No. 1 was a nullity and consequentially, void. The ground taken was that at the time of marriage, respondent No. 1 was a lunatic and idiot.2. Respondent No. 2 was originally impleaded as the guardian of respondent No. 1 and after his death, respondent No. 3 was, impleaded as the guardian.3. There is no appearance for the respondents inspite of notice and though Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, no one is present when the matter is taken up.4. Section 18, as indicated above, deals with the presentation of a petition either by the husband or the wife for a declaration that the marriage was null and void. The ground on which such decree can ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Susan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-1999
Reported in: II(2000)ACC726; 2000ACJ1547
P.A. Mohammed, J. 1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the respondent No. 3 in O.P. (M.v.) No. 335 of 1995 on the file of the M.A.C. Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, is the appellant before us. This appeal is directed against the award dated 23.4.1996 passed by the Tribunal in the above application fixing the compensation of Rs. 1,04,000 with 12 per cent interest and directing the appellant company, the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident, to indemnify the owner of the vehicle in respect of the compensation awarded.2. In the motor accident which occurred on 13.5.1995 one Paulose died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The legal heirs of the deceased filed the above application claiming a total compensation of Rs. 4,64,800 under different heads but the claim was restricted to Rs. 2,00,000. According to them the deceased while walking along the side of the road, the offending vehicle, a mini lorry bearing registration No. KL-7-4984 driven by the respondent No....
G. Hari and ors. Vs. John Promod Alexander and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1653
ORDERT.M. Hassan Pillai, J.1. The complaint filed before the Judicial Ist Class Magistrate II Ernakulam accusing the petitioners of having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') is sought to be quashed by the petitioners invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. on the sole ground that the complaint has been filed not within one month of arising of cause of action and question to be considered is whether there is ground to quash Annexure A1 complaint.2. The allegation in the complaint filed against the petitioners by the first respondent is that 1st petitioner, who is accused No. 1, issued cheque No. 306521 dated 14-2-1996 drawn on the Federal Bank Ltd., North Parur Branch for Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of the complainant/1st respondent and it is asserted that the cheque was given by accused No. 1 to cover the purchases made by 2nd petitioner who is her brother for Rs. 1,25,000/-, debt of Rs. 50,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›