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.
Mathew K.C. Vs. Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR406]; (2000)IILLJ637Ker
Pasayat, C.J.1. The only question which needs adjudication in this writ appeal is whether the direction for recovery of loss allegedly sustained on account of appellant's conduct was imposed by way of punishment as contended by appellant, or as a mode of adjustment/recovery in respect of the loss sustained by it on account of his conduct as contended by the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). Learned single Judge by the impugned judgment held that it was not in reality an order of punishment but was only a direction to recover the loss sustained by the Corporation.2. Factual position needs to be noted in brief: Appellant was functioning as the Administrative Officer of the Corporation. Proceedings were initiated against him for alleged misconduct and irregularities. One of the allegations was that he caused huge loss to the Corporation by several acts of omissions and commissions. An enquiry was conducted in the matter. After receivi...
Joseph Vs. Michael
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-14-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ker240
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The defendant is the revision petitioner. The dispute in the case is as to whether a memorandum of deposit of title deeds relied on by the plaintiff was compulsorily registrable. Objections raised by the defendant regarding inadmissibility of the memorandum and the invalidity of the mortgage were overruled.2. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner on the decision in Hubert Peyoli v. Santhavilasath Kesavan Sivadasan. (1998) 2 Ker LT 125 : (AIR 1998 Ker 344) in support of the contention that if the original transaction and the deposit are on the same date, the memorandum will require registration and that the impugned order is hence defective.3. Section 17 of the Registration Act gives a list of documents which are compulsorily registrable. Non-testamentary instrumentswhich purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest whether vested or contin...
Omanakuttan Alias Biju and Binu T. and Etc. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-14-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4893
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. These two appeals are inter-linked being directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Kottayam in SC 32 of 1996. While appellant in Crl. A. 49 of 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'accused Rajan') has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'), appellant in Crl. A. 1062 of 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'accused Biju') has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 201, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. Former has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. and a further sentence of five years for the other offence; while latter was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two-and-half years.2. Accusation which led to trial and conviction of accused persons are essentially as follows :Sarala (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was living with first accused (Rajan) in his house at Karamala. She was the sister of ...
Chintha Printing and Publishing Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: [2001]247ITR95(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat C. J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following questions have been referred to this court, for opinion in terms of 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, the interpretation sought to be put on section 115J of the Income-tax Act by the Appellate Tribunal is correct on law ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that 'loss' as it appears in section 205(1), first proviso, clause (b) of the Companies Act. 1956, read with section 115f of the Income-tax Act, 1961, means 'including depreciation' ?'2. The assessment year concerned is 1989-90. The assessee is a domestic company in which the public are not substantially interested. During the relevant period it was engaged in the business of printing newspapers and journals. For...
Sree Bhagavathi Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: [2000]244ITR496(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the assessee's instance, 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 having in mind the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter, whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the ex-gratia payment paid on the basis of a memorandum of settlement entered with the workers was unreasonable having regard to the pay and allowances of the workers and hence not allowable under Section 36(1)(ii) ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in spite of the decision of the Supreme Court, the conditions mentioned in the second proviso to Section 36(1)(ii) are cumulative in nature ?' A brief reference to the factual position would suffice : I. T. A. Nos. 618 and 619 of 1984 wer...
Chintha Printing and Publishing Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: [2000]111TAXMAN216(Ker)
Pasayat, CJ.At the instance of the assessee, following questions have been referred to this court, for opinion in terms of section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') Income Tax Act, by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interpretation sought to be put on section 115J of the Income Tax Act by the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that 'loss' as it appears in section 205(1), first proviso, clause (b) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with section 115J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 means 'including depreciation'?'2. The assessment year concerned is 1989-90. The assessee is a domestic company in which public are not substantially interested. During the relevant period it was engaged in the business of printing newspapers and journals. For the assessment year in question, the ...
Novel Distributing Enterprises Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: [2001]251ITR704(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. Both these cases relate to the deduction of interest under Section 40(b)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The assessment year concerned is 1993-94 in both these cases. The petitioners in both these cases claim deduction of interest paid to the partners both in respect of the capital account and also the current account. The assessing authority disallowed the claim for deduction of interest in respect of the current account on the ground that the partnership deed did not authorisepayment of interest in respect of current account. The petitioners took up the matter in revision before the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 264 of the Act but the same was rejected against which the petitioners filed a review petition which was also rejected. The orders impugned are exhibits P-l, P-3 and P-5 in both cases.2. Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners submits that though there is no specific authorisation in regard to payment of interest on c...
Secretary, CochIn Devaswom Board Vs. Deputy Director, L.F. (Cd) Audit, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ker175
Sankarasubban, J.1. This C.M.P. is filed by the Cochin Devaswom Board, represented by Us Secretary for permission to deposit the Nadavaravu gold in the stock of the Board in the Gold Bond Scheme introduced by the State Bank of India. In the affidavit accompanying the petition, it is stated as follows : The Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Ernakulam by his letter dated 20-12-1999 informed the Board about the Gold Bond Scheme introduced by the Bank with effect from 19-11-1999 with the approval of the Government and the Reserve Bank of India. The letter is produced as Annexure-A. Annexure-A letter gives the details of the Gold Bond Scheme, The letter further states that the Bank had already received 16 Kgs. gold from the Madurai Meenakshi Temple and 500 Kgs. of gold from individuals/Trusts/Devaswom Boards. Along with the petition, Annexure-B (SBI Gold Deposit Scheme) is also produced.2. According to the Scheme, the tenure of the deposit will be 3 to 7 years and the percentage ...
Novel Distributing Enterprises Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: [2001]118TAXMAN382(Ker)
Both these cases relate to the deduction of interest under section 40(b)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessment year concerned is 1993-94 in both these cases. The petitioners in both these cases claim deduction of interest paid to the partners both in respect of the capital account and also the current account. The assessing authority disallowed the claim for deduction of interest in respect of the current account on the ground that the partnership deed did not authorise payment of interest in respect of current account. Petitioners took up the matter in revision before the Commissioner under section 264 of the Act but the same was rejected against which petitioners filed review petition which was also rejected. The orders impugned are Exts. P1, P3 and P5 in both cases.2. The learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners, submits that though there is no specific authorisation in regard to payment of interest on current account, the firm h...
Deputy Commissioner (Law), Commercial Taxes Vs. Parekh Brothers
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: [2000]119STC166(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. These three applications have been filed by the Revenue 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'). They relate to assessments made under the Act in respect of assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1985-86. Respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') was assessed by the Assistant Commissioner (Gujarathi Accounts), Special Circle-II, Kozhikode, who levied tax at the rate of 10 per cent on assessed turnover of tarpaulin. Assessee took the stand that tarpaulin is nothing but cotton fabrics and, therefore, covered under item 7 (wrongly described as item 8) of the Third Schedule to the Act. This plea did not find acceptance by the assessing officer, who held that the commodity was covered by item 100-C of the First Schedule. Though assessing officer and the first appellate authority, i.e., Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Kozhikode he...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »