Kerala Court November 2000 Judgments
T.J. Philip Vs. State Bank of Travancore and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ1122Ker
K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J. 1. This O.P. is filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents to restore to the petitioner the increments and all attenuating benefits thereof withheld by the respondents as per Exts.P3, P6 and P8 orders after quashing those orders. 2. The petitioner is a Peon under the respondents in the State Bank of Travancore. According to him, on the basis of certain allegations made against the petitioner an enquiry was conducted against him after issuing a very vague charge-sheet and on the basis of the enquiry report Ext.P3. Preliminary order was issued to the petitioner proposing to inflict punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect for each of the charges 1, 3 and 4 alleged to have been proved against him. Though the petitioner gave Ext.P5 explanation, Ext.P6 final order was passed imposing the punishment proposed in the preliminary order Ext.P3. Though the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, the 2nd respondent evidence...
Tag this Judgment!G. Yatheesh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-2000
Reported in: [2000]114TAXMAN424(Ker)
Sankarasubban J. The ITRs are at the instance of the assessee. When the matter came up for argument today, the 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 arises is whether it is compulsory on the part of the court to answer the reference. In Smt. Indramanidevi Parasrampuria v. Assistant CED : [1983]141ITR593(SC) , the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held as follows :'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.' (p. 593)In the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gajadhar Prasad Nathulal v. CWT : [1970]76ITR615(MP) , the question arose whether a party has the right to withdraw the reference. Dealing with the contention, the c...
Tag this Judgment!Chairman, CochIn Dock Labour Board and anr. Vs. Dock Labour Board Ex-e ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-2000
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ107Ker
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the chairman of the Cochin Dock Labour Board. The writ petition was preferred by the first respondent-Dock Labour Board Ex-employees Welfare Association (hereinafter called 'the association'). The association is a registered association with a membership of 173. They are all ex-employees of the Cochin Dock Labour Board, who retired prior to 1986 under the voluntary retirement scheme after rendering more than 15 years of service. They also wanted similar benefit which was extended to wife and dependent children of CPF beneficiaries who retired prior to January 1, 1986. The learned single judge found that the non-inclusion of those persons was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the directions were issued to extend the ex gratia payment made available to them also in parity with Clause (viii) of exhibit P-1. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Board has preferred this appeal. 2. The s...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S. Anand and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Ker)436
S. Sankarasubban, J.This IT reference is at the instance of the revenue and it arises under the Gift Tax Act. The assessee in this case is M/s S. Anand & Ors. One K.N. Sreedhara Shenoy was the proprietor of a jewellery shop. On 1-4- 1984 he converted the business into a partnership firm. In the new partnership firm, his three children were inducted. It is stated that the new partners have contributed capital to the firm. The profits are to be shared equally by the partners. The Gift Tax Officer took the view that the transfer to the children represented gift made by the assessee and determined the value of the gift at Rs. 3,48,860 and the gift-tax payable was determined as Rs. 69,465.2. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CGT v. C.S. Patil : [1989]180ITR97(KAR) and held that since there has been contribution to the capital by the new partners, there was no gift. Against that, the m...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Babu Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-03-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)ALT(Cri)524; 2001CriLJ1483
ORDERN. Krishnan Nair, J. 1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 26.11.1993 of theSessions Judge, Kottayam. The revision petitioner is the accused in Sessions CaseNo. 48/89 of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kottayam. He was charged with theoffences punishable under Ss. 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. After the trial,the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offences andconvicted him. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one yearunder S. 363 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for four years under S. 376 IPC. Thesentences were allowed to run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, the revision petitioner preferred Crl. Appeal No. 50/90 before the Sessions Judge, Kottayam. The appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge confirmingthe conviction and sentence passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge. Hence this revision.3. The resume of the prosecution case is ...
Tag this Judgment!Mable Vs. Dolores
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-03-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Ker353
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition has come up before us before us on a reference being made by a learned single Judge, in view of the doubt he felt about the ambit of the decision rendered by another learned single Judge reported in Varghese v. Devi Academy (1999 (1) KLT 440). 2. The plaintiff in a suit filed in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Cochin is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. She originally filed the suit in the Munsiff's Court, Cochin for recovery of possession of a building from the defendants on the strength of her title and for consequential reliefs. On objection regarding jurisdiction based on valuation being taken and after an adjudication, the Munsiff's Court returned the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court. Thereafter, the plaintiff amended the valuation and presented the plaint before the Subordinate Judge's Court. In the light of S. 4A of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Trivandrum Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd. Vs. Jt. Registrar of Co-op. Societie ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-02-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ1537Ker
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Thiruvananthapuram Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. hereinafter called the 'Bank', has preferred O.P. No. 19898 of 2000, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 24.6.2000 passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) Trivandrum staying all further proceedings including passing of a final order on the disciplinary action initiated by the Bank against the second respondent, Accountant of the Bank, till the disposal of ARC No. 159 of 2000. ARC No. 159 of 2000 was preferred by the second respondent under S. 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act for cancelling the resolution passed by the Bank constituting Disciplinary Action Sub Committee with President of the Bank as Convenor so as to initiate disciplinary proceedings against her. A declaration was also sought for that there is no proper appellate forum under R. 198(4) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules for hearing the appeal. A prayer was also made to rescind the resolut...
Tag this Judgment!Balakrishnan Vs. Union of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ1395
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. In all these cases a common question arises for consideration. Petitioners in the Original Petitions and appellant in the M.F.A. were claimants before various Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals. They filed applications for compensation under S. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. All the applications were dismissed by the Tribunals slating that they were barred by law of limitation. Applications were dismissed on the basis of statutory provision, which is extracted below: 166. Application for compensation. (1) Anapplication for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-s. (1) of S. 165 may be made-(3) No application for such compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident:Provided that the Claims Tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of six months but not later than twelve months, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by suffici...
Tag this Judgment!Sea Pearl Enterprises Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR146(Ker)
M. Ramachandran, J. 1. In respect of the assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99, the assessments of the petitioner, a sea food exporter, stood completed overlooking the objections of the petitioner. Reliance had been placed on [he principles laid down by the Appellate Tribunal in BabyMarine Eastern Exports' case. The petitioner submits that for the assessment year 1998-99, the addition of interest on fixed deposits had not been allowed, in spite of the legal position explained to the Tribunal. He submits that the premium received in the course of the export was sale consideration, and it could at the most be treated as part of the sale proceeds, and therefore it deserved deduction. The income from the business, though from different sources, had to be aggregated, according to the petitioner, for quantifying the relief under Section 80HHC of the Act since it had the characteristics of turnover of business and could not have been excluded. 2. As the petitioner felt that these were...
Tag this Judgment!Sea Pearl Enterprises Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Ker)572
M. Ramachandran, J.In respect of the assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99, the assessment of the petitioner, a sea food exporter, stood completed overlooking the objections of the petitioner. Reliance had been placed on the principles laid down by the Tribunal in Baby Marine Eastern Exports' case. The petitioner submits that for the assessment year 1998-99, the addition of interest on fixed deposits had not been allowed, in spite of the legal position explained to the Tribunal. He submits that the premium received in the course of the export was sale consideration, and it could at the most be treated as part of the sale proceeds, and, therefore, it deserved deduction. The income from the business, though from different sources, had to be aggregated, according to the petitioner, for quantifying the relief under section 80HHC of the Act since it had the characteristics of turnover of business and could not have been excluded.2. As the petitioner felt that these were overlooked, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›