Kerala Court November 2000 Judgments
Sasidharan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ1502
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellant who is the claimant in a Workmen's Compensation case questions thejudgment of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in so far as the Commissioner did not award any interest from the date of the accident. The Commissioner awarded the compensation as follows:'The opposite party is hereby directed to deposit with this Court an amount of Rs. 94,792/-(Rupees ninety four thousand seven hundred and ninety two only) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which revenue recovery proceedings will be initiated for the realisation of the said amount with 12% interest from the date of default onwards.'2. The case of the appellant is that as per the amended provision of S. 4-A(3)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') 12% interest has to be awarded 'on the amount due'. Before amendment of the Act S. 4-A(3) read as follows:'(3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this A...
Tag this Judgment!Sasidharan Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ775Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellant who is the claimant in a Workmen Compensation case questions the judgment of the Commissioner . for Workmen's Compensation in so far as the Commissioner did not award any interest from the date of the accident. The Commissioner awarded the compensation as follows:'The opposite party is hereby directed to deposit with this Court an amount of Rs. 94,792/- (Rupees ninety four thousand seven hundred and ninety two only) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which revenue recovery proceedings will be initiated for the realisation of the said amount with 12% interest from the date of default onwards.'.2. The case of the appellant is that as per the amended provision of Section 4-A(3)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') 12%. interest has to be awarded on the amount due. Before amendment of the Act Section 4-A(3) read as follows:'(3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due ...
Tag this Judgment!Perfect Gunny Stores and ors. Vs. L.R. Rangaier Sons P. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas354(Ker); [2004]50SCL1(Ker)
K.V. Sankaranarayanan, J.1. This petition for winding up was originally filed by two firms claiming to be creditors of the first respondent-company, sought to be wound up.2. The first respondent-company was engaged in business as growers and dealers in hill produce like, coffee, ginger, copra, etc. The company was the pooling agent for the Coffee Board for collecting coffee seeds from growers and curing and supplying it to the Coffee Board. The petition was filed by the two firms dealing in gunny bags, claiming that the company was indebted to the tune of Rs. 1,34,987 to the first petitioner and Rs. 2,71,342 to the second petitioner on account of supply of gunny bags. The petition was presented on March 30, 1990. It was preceded by a notice dated February 12, 1990, claiming the above-said amounts and threatening a winding up petition to which, the first respondent-company had sent a reply on the same day admitting the claim and stating that the company was financially not in a position...
Tag this Judgment!Mathew Varkey Vs. Abraham
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Ker98
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the plaintiff. Suit was for damages. According to the plaintiff, defendant sold an Ambassador Car DHB 8043 to the plaintiff on 6.8.1972 fora sum of Rs. 13,750/-. He purchased the car in good faith, though defendant had not transferred the registration in the name of the plaintiff. Plaintiff was made to believe that defendant had the right to sell the car. While the car was in possession of the plaintiff it was seized by the Delhi Police on 25.9.1972 to be produced before the Court of JM TIS-Hassari, Delhi in Crime No. 181 of 1972 charged against one Nazir Ahammed on the ground that the car was a stolen property. According to the plaintiff, the car was seized from Muvattupuzha in the presence of the defendant and due to seizure plaintiff sustained damages as a result of the breach of warranties and conditions relating to the sale. Plaintiff lost the car as well as its quite enjoyment. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Hameed and ors. Vs. Director of State Lotteries and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-10-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR186(Ker)
M. Ramachandran, J. 1. The petitioners in this original petition challenge exhibit P-4 letter of the second respondent--State Government--addressed to the first respondent-Director of State Lotteries-dated March 17, 1999 For easy reference, the text of exhibit P-4 is extracted hereinbelow : Sub: Kerala State Lotteries--Tax on sale of lottery tickets--Non deduction of income-tax--Regarding. Ref : Your letter No. SA(3)/16065/97/DSL(2) dated 29-12-1998. I am to invite a reference to the letter cited and to inform you as follows : Section 194G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically imposes a liability on the person responsible for paying to any person who is or has been stocking, distributing, purchasing or selling lottery tickets, any income by way of commission, remuneration or prize on such tickets in all amount exceeding one thousand rupees, to deduct income-tax thereon at the rate of ten per cent. This ten per cent, of tax can be collected at the time of selling the lottery tick...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Hameed Vs. Director of State Lotteries
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-10-2000
Reported in: [2001]114TAXMAN394(Ker)
The petitioners in this original petition challenge Ext. P4 letter of the second respondent - State Government-addressed to the first respondent - Director of State Lotteries - dated 17-3-1999. For easy reference, the text of Ext. P4 is extracted hereinbelow:'Sub : - Kerala State Lotteries - Tax on sale of lottery tickets Non deduction of Income Tax - regarding.Ref : Your letter No. SA(3)/I6065/97/DSL(2) dated 29-12-1999.I am to invite a reference to the letter cited and to inform you as follows:Section 194G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 specifically imposes a liability on person responsible for paying to any person who is or has been stocking, distributing, purchasing or selling lottery tickets, any income by way of commission, remuneration or prize on such tickets in all amount exceeding one thousand rupees, deduct income-tax thereon at the rate of ten per cent. This 10 per cent of tax can be collected at the time of selling the lottery tickets to registered agents or any other person ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Yatheesh and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR485(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. These income-tax references are at the instance of the assessee. When the matter came up for argument today, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is not interested in getting an answer to the reference and hence it is not necessary for the court to answer the reference. The question that arises is whether it is compulsory on the part of the court to answer the reference. In Indramanidevi Puras-rampuria v. CED (Asst.) : [1983]141ITR593(SC) , the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held as follows (headnote) :'Where a party at whose instance a reference is made is not interested in pursuing the reference and getting the opinion of the High Court on the question referred to it by the Tribunal, the High Court would decline to answer the question referred.'2. In the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gajadhar Prasad Nathu Lal v. CWT : [1970]76ITR615(MP) , the question arose whether a party has the right to withdraw the reference. Dealing wit...
Tag this Judgment!Engineering, Mechanical and Electrical Workers Union Vs. National Text ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ906Ker
K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. This O.P. is filed by a Trade Union in the 2nd respondent - company under the 1st respondent seeking issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order appointing an independent agency to be nominated by this Court for the purpose of re-auditing the balance sheet of the 2nd respondent-Company for the financial year 1990-91 and to submit before this Court a proper balance sheet of the 2nd respondent-company for the financial year 1990-91 and to compel the 1st respondent to disburse to the workers of the 2nd respondent represented by the petitioner all approved benefits flowing from the reaudited balance sheet.2. The petitioner has contended that there has been mismanagement of the affairs of the 2nd respondent by the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent has been projecting loss-oriented balance sheets for every year. According to them, even though the 2nd respondent is earning profit, the balance sheet is being published as if it is running in loss. They ha...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Prabhakaran and Co. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-2000
Reported in: [2001]121STC586(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. This tax revision case is filed by the assessee against the order of the Tribunal in T.A. No. 94 of 1997, The relevant assessment year is 1987-88, The assessee, V.S. Prabhakaran & Co., was a partnership-firm doing business in arrack during the year 1987-88. During the relevant period, arrack is liable to be taxed only at the first point of sale in the State at the rate of 40 per cent under entry 36A of the First Schedule up to June 30, 1987 and thereafter at the rate of 45 per cent under entry 11 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. According to the assessee, it is not liable to pay any tax as they are only second sellers. As such, they did not file any monthly return in form No. 9 or annual return in form No. 8. According to Section 17(1), every dealer who is liable to pay tax shall submit such returns relating to his turnover in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed. Rule 21...
Tag this Judgment!Balachandran and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2372
Krishnan Nair, J.1. The accused in S.C. No. 21/95 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam, are the appellants. They were charged with the offences punishable Under Sections 302, 324, 323, 447, and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After the trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence punishable Under Sections 302, 324, 447 and 506(ii) read with Section 34, I.P.C. and convicted them thereunder. Each of the accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life Under Section 302, I.P.C. rigorous imprisonment for one year Under Section 324, I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for three months Under Section 447, I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence Under Section 506(ii) read with Section 34, I.P.C. The sentences were allowed to run concurrently. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused are seriously challenged in this appeal.2. The unfortunate victim in this case is one Sam...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »