Kerala Court April 1999 Judgments
Malabar Cements Ltd. Vs. R. Mukundan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker332
Ar. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Heard Mr. B. S. Krishnan for the appellant and Mr. Antony C. Ettukettil for the first respondent.2. The first respondent filed the Original Petition for a mandamus directing the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Thiruvanan-thapuram to consider and dispose of Ext. P-1 complaint within the time prescribed by this Court. We have perused Ext. P-1 complaint ad-dressed to the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption. In the complaint several allegations have been made against the 2nd respondent in the Original Petition/appellant herein. It is stated that the appellant company has violated certain conditions of the agreement and awarded the contract to some third party rejecting the offer of the petitioner/1st respondent herein. It is further staled that the Management resorted to foul play and connived with the present canteen contractor. The petitioner, therefore, prayed to conduct a detailed enquiry into the award of tender to run the canteens of the appella...
Tag this Judgment!M.O. Antony and anr. Vs. Kerala Financial Corporation and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker333
Ar. Lakshmanan, J. 1. This Writ Appeal can be disposed of on a short ground. The appellants in the Writ Petition are the petitioners in the Original Petition. They filed the Original Petition against the Kerala Financial Corporation and also against the owner of the property mortgaged to the Corporation, for a mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the seal affixed by them on the three rooms occupied by the appellants/petitioners in the hotel Moonstar Complex and permit them to conduct the business therein and grant appropriate reliefs.2. According to the appellants they are the tenants of three rooms in the ground floor of the hotel Moonstar Complex, Ulloor Medical College Road, Thiruvananthapuram which is a multi-storeyed structure belonging to respondent No. 3. The complex has about 35 hotel rooms and a restaurant. Three rooms on the ground floor alone have been let out to the third party viz., petitioners/appellants herein. Respondent No. 3 has availed a loan from the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Palghat Shadi Mahal Trust
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-1999
Reported in: [1999]240ITR924(Ker)
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. 1. These applications are filed under Section 261 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, praying for the issue of certificates of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court. What is involved in these cases (see : [1999]236ITR722(Ker) ), is the question of the scope of Explanation 2 to Section 13 in the context of the exclusion contained in Section 13(1)(b) of the Act. It is submitted that the question is of general importance and there is no binding decision of the Supreme Court on the question sought to be raised before this court. It is also submitted that there are no decisions of other High Courts on this question. Since we find that what is involved is the scope of Explanation 2 to Section 13 of the Act, we certify that these cases are fit ones for appeal to the Supreme Court. We issue the certificates prayed for under Section 261 of the Income-tax Act. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Palghat Shadi Mahal Trust
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-1999
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Ker)46; [2000]107TAXMAN468(Ker)
ORDERBalasubramanyan, J. These applications are filed under section 261 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 praying for the issue of certificates of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court. What is involved in these cases is the question of the scope of Explanation 2 to section 13 in the context of the exclusion contained in section 13(1)(b) of the Act. It is submitted that the question is of general importance and there is no binding decision of the Supreme Court on the question sought to be raised before this court. It is also submitted that there are no decisions of other High Courts on this question. Since we find that what is involved is the scope of Explanation 2 to section 13, we certify that these cases are fit ones for appeal to the Supreme Court. We issue the certificates prayed for under section 261....
Tag this Judgment!Charles C. George Vs. Deputyt Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-07-1999
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Ker)280
P. V. Nara yanan Nambiar, J.:Advocate Sri Ravindranatha Menon appears for respondents.2. Petitioner filed Ext. P1 revision petition along with an application for condonation of delay in filing Ext. Pl, copy of which is marked as Ext. P2, before the 2nd respondent, Exts. P1 and P2 were considered together by the second respondent who passed Ext. P5 order which reads as follows :'The revision petition is filed out of time, I find no ground to condone the delay. The revision petition is rejected.'3. The second respondent who was bound to consider Exts. P1 and P2 should have applied his mind before rejecting the. application for condonation of delay and consequentially, the revision petition. Ext. P5 is not a speaking order. A reading of Ext. P5 order will not show the grounds made out for condonation of delay and the circumstances under which the second respondent came to the conclusion that the grounds made out are not sufficient for condoning the delay in filing the revision. The second...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Mathew Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Ker)248
K. Narayana Kurup, J.:This petition filed under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal in R.A. No. 110/Coch/1998 in ITA No. 152/Coch/1994. The relevant assessment year is 1988-89. The question of law sought to be referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the Tribunal was correct in holding that unless the share income or loss of a partner of a firm has been determined in an assessment of the firm a partner of the firm is not entitled to set off of his share of loss from the firm against his income from any other source ?'2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the order of the Tribunal holding that the question of law as formulated by the petitioner does not arise for consideration is erroneous and unsustainable. The petitioner is claiming set off of his share of loss from the firm M/s MMJ Plantations against his income from other source for the same year. On the basis of the contention thu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›