Kerala Court August 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.
Eby J. Jose Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-11-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Ker79
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. National Flag represents the spirit of the nation, Its tradition and culture and at the same time it always adapts the new tradition, development and well-being of the humanity. Uninterrupted continuity is its character. It also represents the spirit of renunciation. National Flag reminds every Indian the sacrifices made by our men and women in the freedom struggle and the symbol of hopes and dreams of millions of Indians. It symbolises nation's ideals and aspirations. Our soldiers really around this Flag to uphold Indian sovereignty, integrity and unity of the nation. It is a symbol of nonviolence and peace to mankind.2. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru while moving the resolution to adopt the Flag in the Constituent Assembly on 22nd July, 1947 said as follows:'Therefore this Flag that I have the honour to present to you is not, I hope and trust, a Flag of Empire, a Flag of Imperialism, a Flag of domination over anybody, but a Flag of freedom not only for ourselve...
T.O. Aleyas Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-1999
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Ker)749
K.K. Usha, J.1. Challenge in this Writ Appeal at the instance of the petitioner in OP 18014/1999 is against the interim order passed by a learned Single Judge in CMP 29514/1999 in OP 1804/1999. In the above order, learned Single Judge had directed the petitioner to deposit, an amount of Rs. 42 lakhs towards tax demanded within three weeks from the date of the order. On that condition, recovery proceedings were stayed for a period of one month.2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order of the Tribunal, copy of which is produced as Ext. P-23. Where the Tribunal has directed the AO to estimate the net, profit at 15 per cent of the total turnover of the contract, is under challenge in appeal before this Court. Therefore, learned Judge should not have directed the appellant to deposit an amount which will be due as tax on the basis of the direction given by the Tribunal.3. We find no merit in this contention. By applying 15 per cent as found by the Tribunal, calculation has...
T.O. Aleyas Vs. Union of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-1999
Reported in: [2000]107TAXMAN542(Ker)
Usha, J. Challenge in this writ appeal at the instance of the petitioner in O.P. 18014 of 1999 is against the interim order passed by a learned Single Judge in C.M.P. 29514 of 1999 in O.P. 18014 of 1999. In the above order, the learned Single Judge had directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 62 lakhs towards tax demanded within three weeks from the date of the order. On that condition, recovery proceedings were stayed for a period of one month.2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order of the Tribunal, copy of which is produced as Ext. P23, where the Tribunal had directed the assessing officer to estimate the net profit at 15 per cent of the total turnover of the contract, is under challenge in appeal before this court. Therefore, the learned Judge should not have directed the appellant to deposit an amount which will be due as tax on the basis of the direction given by the Tribunal.3. We find no merit in this contention. By applying 15 per cent as foun...
Sarojini Vijayan M.V. and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Ker71
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Miss. Amrita Priya is a deaf and dump girl. She was a student of the Government Girls' High School, Madayi in Kannur District. She has registered for the S.S.L.C. Examination in March, 1999 and expressed her desire to get exemption from 2nd and 3rd languages in the said examination on the plea that she is a deaf and dumb girl. She had earlier appeared for the S.S. L.C. Examination in March 1997 as well as in March, 1998. She did not claim exemption from writing the second and third languages and consequently the same was not granted. She then approached this Court and filed O.P. No. 1338 of 1999 which was disposed of by this Court permitting her to exercise option or express desire not to study second and third languages and directed the Government to consider the said request in accordance with law.2. Petitioner has now written the S.S.L.C. Examination conducted in March 1999 and expressed her desire for exemption from writing second and third languages....
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kethan Kumar A. Shah
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-1999
Reported in: [2000]242ITR83(Ker)
K.K. Usha, J.1. This appeal, at the instance of the Revenue, is against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I. T. A. No 793/Coch of 1994. The relevant assessment year is 1991-92. The question that arises for consideration is whether the profit earned by the assessee on the sale of certain shares held by the assessee is assessable as capital gains or as business income. The Tribunal took the view that in the facts of this case, the profit has to be assessed as capital gains. Aggrieved by the above, the Revenue has come up in appeal.2. The assessee is a share broker. He contended that the profit on sale of certain shares held by him as personal investment is assessable as capital gains and not as business income. The assessing authority took the view that since the assessee is a dealer in shares, all the shares held by him should be treated as stock-in-trade and, therefore, the profit received by sale of the same should be assessed as business income. ...
P.J. Joseph Vs. Suhara Beevi Hussain
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Ker60
Rajendra Babu, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned single Judge in A.S. 310/1988 reversing the decree passed by the Sub-Judge, Alappuzha, in O.S. 317/ 1981. The respondent in A.S. 310/1988 is the present appellant.2. The facts of the case are as follows : The plaintiff Suhara Beevi. the owner of Textile Traders'. Alappuzha, filed O.S.317/1981 for recovery of the amount due from the defendant towards balance price of textiles sold to the defendant on credit. The plaint was signed by the plaintiff's husband who was holding the power-of-attorney of the plaintiff. It was alleged that the defendant purchased textile goods from the shop of the plaintiff on credit for his business and as on 14-9-1978 an amount of Rs. 15,424.42 was due on 14-9-1978 the defendant paid Rs.51/- and acknowledged the liability and even after demand , the defendant failed to pay the amount and hence the suit. The defendant/appellant filed written statement contending t...
P.P. Unnikrishnan and anr. Vs. Puttiyottil Alikutty and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4261
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. The accused in C.C. No. 427/95 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Perambra, have filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case to quash the entire proceedings. The petitioners are standing trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Perambra, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 330, 341, 342, 343, 348, 351 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of Annexure-A complaint filed by the first respondent. The allegation made against the petitioners is that the first petitioner while working as S.I. of Police, Perambra Police Station and the second petitioner while working as Police Constable in the same Police Station, took the first respondent to Perambra Police Station at about 4 p.m. on 23-12-1994, wrongfully confined him in the police lock up and brutally manhandled and committed various offences alleged in the complaint and set him free on 27-12-1994 without registering any case against him nor produ...
Dileep Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4490; [2000(84)FLR110]; (2001)IIILLJ686Ker
K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. The accused in S.T. 97/1995 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Punalur, has filed this M.C. to quash the entire proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The petitioner is being prosecuted for violation of Section 8 read with Rule 8, Section 8 read with Rules 10(1) and 10(2), Section 10 read with Rule 33(3), Section 23 read with Rule 72(1), Section 43(2) read with Rule 76(2)(a) and Section 3B read with Rule 2-A of the Plantations Labour Act and the Rules framed thereunder, on the basis of Annexure A complaint filed by the second respondent. The only contention urged before this Court to quash the proceedings is that the complaint is barred by limitation.3. The petitioner contended before the Trial Court that the prosecution is barred by limitation under Section 40 of the Plantations Labour Act. The learned Magistrate by the order, dated July 31, 1997, found that the prosecution is not barred by limitation once this M.C....
G. Sukesh Vs. Deputy Director of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-03-1999
Reported in: [1999]107TAXMAN317(Ker)
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P6 order issued by the Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Trivandrum, directing valuation of the petitioner's properties. According to the petitioner, this order was passed under section 131(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), which would not enable the first respondent to order a valuation. The counsel for respondents submitted that under section 131(1)(d) read with section 131(1)(a), the first respondent has got the power to call for a valuation when he takes up investigation. I have gone through the said provision, especially section 131(1)(a). The counsel for the department submitted that section 131(1)(a) was misquoted and in any view the first respondent has got jurisdiction under section 131(1)(a) to get a valuation report. Reference was also made to the decision in Jamnadas AladhaiJi & Co, v. JB. Panchal, ITO : [1986]162ITR331(Bom) . I am of the view it is only for the purpose of investigation first respondent called...
Thressiamma Jacob Vs. Geologist, District Office of the Dept. of Minin ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-02-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Ker300
Sankarasubban, J.1. All these cases have been referred to the Full Bench by a Bench consisting of T.V. Ramakrishnan and A.S. Venkatachala Moorthy, JJ. The question for consideration is regarding the royalty payable by the petitioners on minerals extracted from the properties belonging to them. According to the petitioners, the properties are situated in Malabar area of the State. The question referred to is whether the owners of jenmom lands in the Malabar area are the proprietors of the soil and in view of that whether they are owners of the minerals underneath the soil. The Division Bench felt that even though there is a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in S. Sabhayogam v. State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Kerala 101 regarding the nature of jenmom lands in Malabar area, that decision requires reconsideration in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Balmadies Plantations v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1972 SC 2240. The Division Bench also felt that in Shibu v. Tahsildar, 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »