Kerala Court February 2000 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.
P.P. Naseema Vs. State of Kerala and 2 ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-2000
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 ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K. N. Satyapalan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-2000
Reported in: [2000]110TAXMAN151(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, CJ.Pursuant to direction given by this court in O.P. No. 11914 of 1994 dated 7-11-1994, following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench.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. Factual position, as stated in the statement of case, is as follows: The assessee is a partner in the firm, K. N. Sathyapalan & Co., which was carrying on contract business. He was also doing independent contract work on a proprietary basis. During accounting year ending on 31-3-1989 relevant to the assessment year 1989-90, the assessee had undertaken contract work in res...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chirathalattu Enterprises
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-2000
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, ...
General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Thiruvananth ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ker326
Rajendra Babu, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of the 1st respondent, the General Manager, K.S.R.T.C., Trivandram, in O.P. (MV) 339/1985 before the M.A.C.T., Alappuzha. The United India Insurance Co. filed the O.P. claiming an amount of Rs. 15603.71 from the appellant towards compensation. The tribunal allowed the claim. Aggrieved by the above order, the K.S.R.T.C. has come up in appeal. 2. On 17-12-1982 there occurred a motor traffic accident at the national highway at Thuravoor, in Cherthala taluk. A K.S.R.T.C. Fast Passenger bus bearing No. N-656 collided with a Bajaj Matador Tempo Van bearing No. KLY 5266 causing extensive damage to the van. It was alleged that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the K.S.R.T.C. bus by its driver. It was alleged that the police registered a case, preferred a charge sheet against the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. Bus and later he was convicted and sentenced by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Cherthala. The va...
Madhu Vs. Saseendra
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2353; II(2000)DMC286
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. This M.C. is filed by the 1st accused in Crime No. 202/99 registered by the Palode police alleging offence punishable under Section 494 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings initiated against him.2. The 1st respondent filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Nedumangad alleging offence punishable under Section 494 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. against the accused. The learned Magistrate took the complaint to file as C.M.P. No. 6282/99 and forwarded the same to the S.I. of Police, Palode for investigation and report under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Palode police registered the above crime alleging offence punishable under Section 494 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and commenced investigation.3. The petitioner has contended that the course adopted by the learned Magistrate in this case is illegal and violating the provisions of Section 198(1) of the Cr.P.C. According to him, the learned Magistrate ha...
Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-2000
Reported in: II(2000)ACC665; 2001ACJ64
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the respondent No. 1, the General Manager, K.S.R.T.C, Trivandrum, in O.P. (MV) No. 339 of 1985 before the M.A.C.T., Alappuzha. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. filed the O.P. claiming an amount of Rs. 15,603.71 from the appellant towards compensation. The Tribunal allowed the claim. Aggrieved by the above order, the K.S.R.T.C. has come up in appeal.2. On 17.10.82 there occurred a motor traffic accident at the national highway at Thuravoor, Cherthala taluk. A K.S.R.T.C. fast passenger bus bearing No. N 656 collided with a Bajaj Matador Tempo van bearing No. KLY 5266 causing extensive damage to the van. It was alleged that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the K.S.R.T.C. bus by its driver. It was alleged that the police registered a case, preferred a charge-sheet against the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus and later he was convicted and sentenced by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chertha...
Naushad Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2870
S. Marimuthu, J.1. This appeal is directed challenging the conviction and sentence delivered by the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in C.C. No. 43 of 1995. The learned Sessions Judge found the appellant-accused guilty under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and thereby sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default in the payment of fine to undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of one year on the following facts and evidence let in by the prosecution.2. P.W. 11, the Sub Inspector of Police attached to the Mattancherry Police Station, would testify that he received a phone call at about 12-15 p.m. on 29-6-1995 from an unidentified person that psychotropic substances had been kept and sold in the house of the appellant located at a lane near the Community Hall at Karippalam. P.W. 11 recorded the above said information and informed the same to t...
Venugopal Vs. Sub-inspector of Police, Mathilakam and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ker271
Pasayat, C.J. 1. Questioning correctness of the course adopted by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur (in short the 'Forum') in a proceeding under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act') these petitions have been filed.2. Finding no response to the notice to K.P. Vijayan, petitioner in O.P. 2284 of 2000(hereinafter referred to as 'judgment debtor'), the Forum directed issuance of warrant to arrest him which in fact was executed and he was taken into custody. Pursuant to interim directions given by this Court in a petition filed by his relative Venugopal, petitioner in O.P. 32834 of 1999, he has been released on ball with certain conditions.3. Genesis of the dispute is the order dated 22-10-1999. While the judgment debtor maintains that he was present and had moved for an adjournment through counsel before the Forum, N.A. Prabhakaran. (hereinafter referred to as 'decree holder') disputes this statement. This factual dispute is really not of much significance i...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Institute of Computer Technology
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: [2000]244ITR371(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred to this court for opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short 'the Tribunal').'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case does the assessee come within the true ambit of 'other educational institutions' in Section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act and did the Legislature intend to take in an institution like the assessee in Section 10(22) ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the facts noted in the enclosure, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the institution is existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessment years invo...
Gopinath Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-2000
Reported in: II(2000)ACC229; 2000ACJ1250; [2000(85)FLR504]; (2000)IILLJ80Ker
K.K. Usha, J.1. This is an appeal at the instance of the applicant in W.C.C. 64/89 before the Court of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kottayam. Two points are mainly raised in this appeal. Firstly, it is contended that the Commissioner has committed an error in not granting compensation assessing appellant's disability at 100%. Secondly, according to the appellant, the Commissioner should have directed payment of interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the accident till realisation.2. The applicant was a driver. On June 12, 1986, during the course of his employment, he met with an accident and sustained a crush injury on his right forearm and fracture of both bones of his right forearm. Ext. A1 medical certificate issued by a medical officer was to the effect that the applicant had suffered 21.5% permanent disability. According to the appellant, in the nature of his employment, namely, as a driver, the above-mentioned disability will cause cen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »