Kerala Court February 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.P. Ramachandran Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-1999
Reported in: [2000]241ITR832(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue requiring us to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following questions for the opinion of this court : 'Assessment year 1986-87 : (a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and what is computed is the undisclosed income of the block period and not of any previous year as mentioned in Section 158BA(2) of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding in paragraph 5 of its order that if the income for any previous year contained in the block period is below the taxable limit it need not be included in the undisclosed income ? (b) If the answer to the above question is in the negative, the Tribunal is justified in deleting the respective additions ?' Assessment year 1993-94 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also for the reasons stated in the enclosure, th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M. P. Ramachandran Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-1999
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Ker)148
Om Prakash, C.J.Heard the counsels for the parties.2. This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the revenue requiring us to direct the Tribunal to refer the following questions for the opinion of this court:'Assessment year 1986-87:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and what is computed is the undisclosed income of the block period and not of any previous year as mentioned in section 158BA(2) of the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding in paragraph 5 of its order that if the income for any previous year contained in block period is below the taxable limit, it need not be included in the undisclosed income ?If the answer to the above question is in the negative, the Tribunal is justified in deleting the respective additions ?Assessment year 1993-94:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also for the reasons stated in the enclosure, the Tri...
Joy Xavier A.S. Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-1999
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ1303Ker
Mohammed, J.1. The central question involved in this writ appeal is whether the termination of service of the appellant-workman by the respondent-Management would amount to 'retrenchment' coming within the meaning of the said term defined in Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act').2. By Ext. P 13 award passed by the Labour Court, Ernakulam on May 14, 1991 it was found that the termination of service of the workman did not amount to 'retrenchment' and hence he was not entitled to be reinstated with or without backwages or to any other relief. This award was challenged by the workman in O.P. No. 7153 of 1992. The learned single Judge after hearing found that the second respondent - Management had terminated the service of the workman under Clause 21(c) of the Certified Standing Orders for the reason that he unauthorisedly absented himself from duty and hence termination was not illegal. Challenging the above conclusion of the learned single Judge the pres...
Mohammed Rafeek Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: [1999]98CompCas802(Ker)
P. Shanmugham, J. 1. The petitioner is a shareholder of the second respondent-company. This original petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the company to allot rights shares and a direction to the first respondent to perform its statutory duty. 2. The petitioner in pursuance of an offer of the second respondent-company applied for 144 equity shares and paid Rs. 21,600 being the application money in Indian Overseas Bank on December 6, 1997. The company rejected the application and refunded the amount by their letter dated February 7, 1998. By a subsequent communication dated March 6, 1998, petitioner was informed of the reason for rejection, viz., that the offer was made by effecting payment in cash in violation of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A complaint made before the first respondent Board was rejected confirming the decision of the company. The original petition is filed at this stage. 3. I have heard counsel and considere...
Ouseph Mathew and Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Ker)81
A.S. VENKATACKALA MOORTRY, J.:The petitioner is a partnership firm. It was assessed to income-tax for the first time for the asst. yr. 1974-75 granting registration to it under s. 185 of the IT Act by order dt. 6th March, 1975. Subsequently, assessments were completed for the years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 and the firm was allowed continuation of registration upto the asst. yr. 1980-81. For the purpose of considering the issue that is involved in this Original Petition, it is not necessary to mention the entire factual details. Suffice to say, that the petitioner filed returns for 1978-79 and the assessment for the said year was pending. At that stage, the petitioner filed a petition before the Settlement Commissioner to have the case settled in terms of s. 245C of the Indian IT Act. The Settlement Commissioner by order dt. 25th Jan., 1991 cancelled the registration given to the petitioner for the asst. yrs. 1975-76 and 1976-77 under the provisions of s. 184(7) of the Act. However,...
Cambata Aviation Ltd. and anr. Vs. CochIn International Airport Ltd., ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker311
ORDERC.S. Rajan, J.1. The first petitioner and the third respondent vied with each other to get at the contract to provide ground handling services in the first respondent Airport which is nearing completion. The third respondent was awarded the contract by the first respondent. The challenge in this Original Petition is against the above award of contract to the third respondent. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') has been operating at the Mumbai and Delhi Airports for more than three decades in the field of ground handling services to various Airlines including the third respondent. The first respondent as per Exhibit P-1 informed the Company that it was setting up an International Airport at Cochin and requested to submit a detailed proposal with regard to the entrusting of ground handling services at the Airport if the Company was interfered in the same. The Company as per Exhibit P 2 informed the first respondent that it w...
Smt. Beena Rani Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Kollam and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker249
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner submitted an application for regular permit on 3-1-1998 on the route Chavara-Kottiyan, in the vacancy which arose, according to petitioner, due to surrender of a regular permit of stage carriage KLC1/G 2277. According to petitioner, she proposed timings as per Section 70(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since there was inordinate delay in consideration of the application of the petitioner, she filed O.P. No. 23362 of 1998 which was disposed of by this Court directing the Regional Transport Authority, Kollam to consider the application of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. According to petitioner, when the petitioner filed O.P. No. 23362 of 1998 there was no other application pending consideration. Judgment of this Court was produced before the Regional Transport Authority. Subsequently, two more applications dated respectively dated 10-12-1998 and 15-12-1988 were preferred on the same route. Secretary Regional Transport Authority place...
Rosamma Thomas and anr. Vs. Circle Inspector of Police and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALT(Cri)79; 1999CriLJ1666
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shah, J. 1. This petition is filed by the accused in Crime No. 39/95 registered by Panangad police alleging offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to quash the FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The crime is registered against the petitioners on the basis of the complaint filed by the third respondent before the Circle Inspector of Police, Tripunithura and forwarded by him to the Sub Inspector of Police, Panangad for appropriate action. The allegation made against the petitioners is that the petitioners who do not belong to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe with intent to insult and humiliate the third respondent who is a member of scheduled tribe have abused him by calling his scheduled tribe name '(Vernacular matter Omitted ....Ed.) in public view and thereby they have committed the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Schedul...
Murali Alias Muraleedharan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1670
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. This Crl. M.C. is filed by the 5th accused in C.C. No. 786/91 which is pending as L. P. Case No. 35/95 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adoor to set aside the order dated 9-12-1994 passed by the Magistrate under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. arraying him as the 5th accused in this case.2. C.C. 786/91 was taken on file by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adoor on the basis of the charge-sheet laid by the S.I. of Police, Pandalam in Crime No. 199/91. Though in that F.I.R. registered by the Pandelam police on the basis of the F.I. Statement lodged by one Medanan the petitioner was arrayed as 1st accused, after investigation charge is laid by the investigating officer only against four accused persons excluding the petitioner herein.3. After the evidence in the case was recorded and the case was posted for judgment after hearing the arguments advanced by the parties, the learned Magistrate re-opened the case and the petitio...
Kerala Financial Corporation, Vellayambalam, Trivandrum Vs. Syndicate ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-08-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker213; [2000]101CompCas486(Ker)
Marimuthu, J.1. This C.M.A. has arisen challenging the order of the Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode, delivered in E.A. No. 610 of 1981 in E.P. No. 263 of 1979 in O.S. No. 142 of 1969. The appellant is the Kerala Financial Corporation, having its registered office at Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.2. Some of the facts necessary for appreciation can be summarised hereunder: Respondents 4, 6, 7 and 8 and additional respondents 10 to 18 (legal representatives of deceased respondents 3 and 4) were the owners of 9 acres and 75 cents of land which was mortgaged to the appellant, on obtaining a loan. Since there was a default in the repayment of loan, the appellant proceeded against the owners of the land under Sections 31 and 32 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 before the District Court, Kozhikode and obtained an order in their favour in O.P. No. 87 of 1969. Then they moved for the execution of the order by filing E.P. No. 3 of 1973 for sale of the property, in which the sale was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »