Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2000Ker356
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J. 1. In O.P. No. 32594 of 1999, there are two petitioners. They are the existing operators operating on the route Cheepumkal-Ernakulam via. Kottayam. Respondents 4 to 6 applied for the grant of the regular permits on the routes Puthuppally-Ernakulam via. Kottayam, Katoor Bus stand-Kottayam and Karinattuvala-Ernakulam via. Kottayam respectively. Applications of respondents 4 and 5 were considered by the first respondent at its meeting held on 24-9-1998 and the application of the sixth respondent was considered by the first respondent at its meeting held on 26-11-1998. In all these matters, the first respondent passed a uniform order rejecting the applications. Ext. P1 is the copy of the order dated 26-11-1998. It is with regard to the sixth respondent.2. Against the above orders, appeals were filed before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal as M.V.A.A. Nos. 977 of 1998, 981 of 1998 and 42 of 1999. The first petitioner got himself impleaded in M.V.A.A. Nos. 981...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2000]119STC445(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. In this application under Section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (in short 'the Act') read with Rule 41(1) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 (in short 'the Rules'), only dispute relates to the question whether assessee was entitled to claim exemption in respect of the sales turnovers of M.S. rounds purchased from National Steel Trading Corporation, being second sales, for the assessment year 1992-93.2. The assessing authority as well as the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Kollam, the first appellate authority, held that the assessee was not entitled to the exemption. Ground for disallowance of the claim was that aforesaid National Steel Trading Corporation was not a registered dealer under the Act from 1989-90 onwards. The Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (in short 'the Tribunal') referred to certain documents to hold that Revenue had not established that said concern was not a registered dealer or that registration g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2000CriLJ2018
Arijit Pasayat, C. J.1. Detention of Palakkat Ashraf (hereinafter referred to as 'detenu') pursuant to an order of detention in terms of Section 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(iii) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short, the Act) has been challenged by his wife in this Habeas Corpus petition. Pursuant to order of detention dated 14-12-1997, detenu was arrested on 22-6-1999 and is presently detained in Central Prison, Trivandrum. Grounds of detention were supplied to detenu on the date of arrest. Written representations were sent by detenu's counsel to Superintendent of Central Prison for detenu's signature and sending to State of Kerala and Union of India. Such representations were sent on 30-7-1999 to detaining authority and Central Government requesting to revoke order of detention. State Government rejected detenu's representation on 16-8-1999, while Central Government rejected it on 20-8-1999. As required under the Act, reference was made t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2000(68)ECC550
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Detention of Palakkat Ashraf (hereinafter referred to as 'detenu' pursuant to an order of detention in terms of Section 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(iii) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short, the Act) has been challenged by his wife in this Habeas Corpus petition. Pursuant to order of detention dated 14-12-1997, detenu was arrested on 22-6-1999 and is presently detained in Central Prison, Trivandrum. Grounds of detention were supplied to detenu on the date of arrest. Written representations were sent by detenu's counsel to Superintendent of Central Prison for detenu's signature and sending to State of Kerala and Union of India. Such representations were sent on 30-7-1999 to detaining authority and Central Government requesting to revoke order of detention. State Government rejected detenu's representation on 16-8-1999, while Central Government rejected it on 20-8-1999. As required under the Act, reference was made to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2000(69)ECC356
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Magna Carta of English Law, contains a clause which reads as follows:No free man shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed; nor shall we go upon him, nor spend upon him, but by the lawful judgment of his pears, and by the law of the land.Birth of Article 21 of Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the Constitution') in the world history can be traced to 1215, when Magna Carta saw light of the day. King John granted the charter of liberties under threat of civil war. Successive English monarch confirmed this Charter of English liberty. One of these confirmations known as 'Statute of Westminster of the Liberties of London', which was in 1354 spoke:No man.shall be imprisoned.without being brought in answer by due process of law.Article 21 of the Constitution deals with fundamental right to life. Article 22 is very intimately connected with Article 21. The first two clauses of that Article contain very valuable safeg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2000CriLJ2015
Arijit Pasayat, C. J.1. Magna Carta of English Law, contains a clause which reads as follows :No free man shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed; nor shall we go upon him, nor send upon him, but by the lawful judgment of his pears, and by the law of the land.Birth of Article 21 of Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the Constitution') in the world history can be traced to 1215, when Magna Carta saw light of the day. King John granted the charter of liberties under threat of civil war. Successive English monarch confirmed this Charter of English liberty. One of these confirmations known as 'Statute of Westminster of the Liberties of London', which was in 1354 spoke :No man...shall be imprisoned...without being brought in answer by due process of law.' Article 21 of the Constitution deals with fundamental right to life. Article 22 is very intimately connected with Article 21. The first two clauses of that Article contain very valuab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2000CriLJ1930
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Questioning legality of the order of detention passed in respect of Kunnath Pathukutty (hereinafter referred to as 'detenu'); her husband has filed this Habeas Corpus application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'Constitution'). Detenu has been detained in Thiruvananthapuram jail pursuant to order of detention dated 7-4-1999 passed in purported exercise of powers un der Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short 'the Act'), Said order was passed with a view to prevent detenu from smuggling goods.2. Grounds of detention, inter alia, show that detenu was involved in smuggling activities on a large scale. She was intercepted on her arrival from Sharjah at Calicut Airport and subsequent search of her person conducted by a lady officer resulted in recovery of 24 gold biscuits concealed inside pouches of a knicker worn by her. Certain other activities were referred to,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2000(69)ECC587
Arjit Pasayat, C.J.1. Questioning legality of the order of detention passed in respect of Kunnath Pathukutty (hereinafter referred to as 'detenu'), her husband has filed this habeas corpus application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'Constitution'). Detenu has been detained in Thiruvananthapuram jail pursuant to order of detention dated 7.4.1999 passed in purported exercise of powers under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short 'the Act'). Said order was passed with a view to prevent detenu from smuggling goods.2. Grounds of detention, inter alia, show that detenu was involved in smuggling activities on a large scale. She was intercepted on her arrival from Sharjah at Calicut Airport and subsequent search of her person conducted by a lady officer resulted in recovery of 24 gold biscuits concealed inside pouches of a knicker worn by her. Certain other activities were referred to wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2000]110TAXMAN481(Ker)
Pasayat, CJ. At the instance of the revenue, following questions have been referred to this Court, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench:' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, leasing out of different properties would amount to carrying on of business ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding (even at the narration stage) that the assessee-firm carries on the business of leasing out of different properties' ?3. Whether' on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to registration under the Income Tax Act ?'2. Factual position as highlighted in the Statement of Case is as followsThe assessee, a partnership firm, was assessed to tax since the assessment year 1986-87 in the status of assessing officer till the assessment year 1989-90. For the relevant assessment year, i.e., 1990-91, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2001]247ITR105(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Pursuant to a direction given by this court in O. P. No. 11914 of 1994, dated November 7, 1994, the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short, 'the Tribunal') :'(1) Whether, the Tribunal was justified, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in deleting the addition of Rs. 22,26,538 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and on facts to hold that the assessee had utilised the secret profits of the firm for his proprietary business ?' 2. The factual position, as stated in the statement of case, is as follows : The assessee is a partner in the firm, K. N. Sathyapalan and Co., which was carrying on contract business. He was also doing independent contract work on a proprietary basis. During the accounting year ending on March 31, 1989, relev...
Tag this Judgment!