Kerala Court March 2000 Judgments
Vijayan and anr. Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-2000
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1666Ker
ORDERC.S. Rajan, J. 1. The petitioners were accused in a criminal case. They were acquitted in the criminal case as per Exts.P-3 and P-4 judgments in O.P.No. 17972/1999 and Ext.P2 in O.P.No. 32577/1999. The acquittal was on the basis of the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in 'Common Cause' v. Union of India 1996 (4) SCC 33 where the Supreme Court said that the long delay in the matter of trial of criminal cases would adversely affect the accused and such cases must be closed. Therefore, following the above decision the cases against the petitioners were closed and the petitioners were acquitted. Thereafter disciplinary proceedings were taken against the petitioner evidenced by Ext.P5 memo of charges. The only argument which was put forward by learned counsel for the petitioners is that initiation of disciplinary action after acquittal by the Criminal Court is without any jurisdiction. For the above purpose the petitioners relied on Clause 19.5 of the First Bipartite Settlement dat...
Tag this Judgment!M. Pappu Pillai Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-2000
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(Ker)211; [2000]243ITR726(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. In this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), is under challenge.2. The factual position relevant for adjudication of the dispute involved, i.e., whether addition of Rs. 1,50,000 as income from other sources was proper, essentially is as follows : The assessee is an individual carrying on business in grocery at Kottayam. For the assessment year 1987-88, he filed a return showing total income of Rs. 85,730. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act, determining' the total income at Rs. 2,35,870, which was inclusive of addition of Rs. 1,50,000 as income from 'other sources'. Such addition was made on the ground that without having sufficient cash balance, expenses were met and the figures were inflated to show availability of higher amounts to cover the expenses met. The assessee's explanation was that...
Tag this Judgment!Rambal Company Vs. Kerala State Science and Technology Museum, Thiruva ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ker296
Narayana Kurup, J. 1. The petitioner had entered into Ext. P1 agreement with the first respondent Kerala State Science and Technology. Thiruvananthapuram which is a society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary and Scientific Societies Registration Act, 1955, on 16-5-1988 for the 'construction of planetarium building of the Kerala State Science and Technology Museum and allied Civil Works', Dispute having arisen between the parties, the agreement came to be terminated as could be seen from Ext. P2 termination notice dated 3-11-1989 issued by the first respondent. Ext. P2 was followed by Ext. R1(c) letter from the Managing Partner of the petitioner company allegedly admitting the breach of contract, suit notice dated 6-11-1990 issued by the first respondent to the petitioner which was replied by the petitioner as per Ext. P3 dated 31-12-1990 repudiating the alleged breach and raising a counter claim -- According to the petitioner, there was a long silence after Ext. P3 which w...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner (Law), Commercial Taxes Vs. Diplomat Plastics (P) ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-2000
Reported in: [2000]119STC360(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. These four 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'), questioning correctness of conclusion arrived at by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam (in short, 'the Tribunal'). By the impugned order, which relates to four assessment years, i.e., 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93, Tribunal held that PVC fittings--elbows, tees and couplings are covered under item 145/101 of the First Schedule to the Act and not under item 217/149 of the said Schedule.2. Revenue's stand is that PVC fittings--elbows, tees and couplings are covered by item 217/149 as 'water supply and sanitary equipments and fittings'. Stand of the assessee is that the articles in question fall under item 145/101 relating to 'plastics and articles of plastics'.3. It is to be noted that for the first th...
Tag this Judgment!N. Ram Vs. Siby Mathew and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3118
ORDERS. Marimuthu, J.1. Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2715 of 1996 has been filed by one Mr. N. Ram, Editor, Frontline Biweekly and Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2564 of 1997 has been filed by Mr. T.S. Subramanyan and Mr. S. Rangarajan, who are the Columnist and Printer and Publisher of the Frontline Biweekly respectively and all the three are the accused in the complaint in C.C.No. 1ll of 1996 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Trivandrum, filed by Mr. Siby Mathew, I.P.S., the then Deputy Director General of Police, Trivandrum, under Sections 500, 501 and 502 read with Section 34, IPC. Now, the present Miscellaneous Cases have been filed to quash the above said complaint, under Section 482, Cr. P.C.2. The facts as narrated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the first-respondent complainant for appreciating their respective contentions can be briefly stated hereunder : A case was registered in Crime No. 225 of...
Tag this Judgment!N.C. Kaladharan Vs. Kamaleswaran and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ker354
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. Can the propounder of a will who is a defendant, Insist that he should be examined as a party only after his witnesses including the Sub Registrar and the Attestors are examined This is the question that arises for decision in this revision.2. In a suit for partition the revision petitioner, who is the 5th defendant raised a contention that one of the items in the plaint schedule is not partible for the reason that it is covered by a will executed by the mother of the parties in the year 1982. Pursuant to the replication denying the validity of the will the Court decided that the defendants should open the evidence in the case. The 1st defendant then filed I.A. No. 330/95 praying that the District Registrar, Trivandrum be directed to produce before the Court the original will dated 30-8-1982 along with the envelope concerned and all other connected records. That was disallowed stating that the 1st defendant and his counsel could peruse the documents in th...
Tag this Judgment!Babu and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3199
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the conviction made and sentence awarded for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 376 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, the IPC), by learned Sessions Judge, Palakkad. Appellants are hereinafter referred to as 'accused' by their respective names. A twelve year old girl was the victim of alleged rape and murder. On analysing the evidence, circumstantial in nature, learned trial Judge found the accused guilty of the offences. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and seven years for the offence punishable under Section 375 read with Section 34, IPC.2. Prosecution case, in a nutshell, is as follows: On 17 11 1994, at about 2.00 p.m., victim was subjected to rape by first accused inside shrubby bushes near Mangalam Dam in Kizhakkencherry No. II village. After closing her mouth with his hand, she was taken inside the shrubs, an...
Tag this Judgment!Mary Antony Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-2000
Reported in: [2000]120STC224(Ker)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Doubting correctness of certain conclusions arrived at and observations made by a division Bench of this Court in Lovely Thomas v. State of Kerala [1999] 113 STC 505, the present reference has been made to a larger Bench.2. The view expressed in Lovely Thomas' case [1999] 113 STC 505 (Ker), was that where unaccounted purchases are there, it is for the Revenue to explain as to wherefrom the unaccounted purchases were made. This conclusion was arrived at by observing that arrack could be purchased only from the Government distilleries and not from open market. It was further observed that simply because the books of accounts were not found to be fully posted at the time of the inspection, no addition could be made only for that reason drawing the inference that the books of accounts were not fully and regularly posted because assessee involved herself in unaccounted purchase.3. So far as the first aspect is concerned, source of unaccounted purchase is within t...
Tag this Judgment!Ramankutty Menon Vs. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ445
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, from the date of deposit of the amount before the Tribunal till notice of such deposit is given to the petitioner or till the date of knowledge of such deposit, is the moot question for consideration.2. The petitioner and his wife were awarded compensation of Rs. 2,42,400 with interest at 12 per cent thereon by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P. (MV) No. 466 of 1988 due to the death of their son in a motor traffic accident. The liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs. 1,50,000 and the rest of the amount had to be paid by the owner of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal passed the award on 22.11.1991. As per Section 168(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the award amount had to be deposited as directed by the Tribunal within a period of one month from the date of the awa...
Tag this Judgment!N.R. Gopi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-20-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ker243
Ar. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. B. Sahasranaman for the appellant andMr. M. A. Mohamed Ashraf for the respondents.2. The appellant was working as a STD-PCO Franchisee on the basis of the agreement executed by him from December, 1995 onwards. A licence was issued to him. He left for Kuwait for completing a project, which is expected to be completed by March, 2000. The STD-PCO during his absence from India was handled by his son Mr. Anup. He was making the payment of bills regularly and was signing all the documents for and on behalf of his father. While so, the respondents issued a letter under Exhibit P-1 stating that the notice sent by the respondents have returned stating that 'the addressee left India' and, therefore, a notice was issued to him to show cause why the licence granted to him should not be withdrawn for the violation of the licence condition.3. The appellant gave a reply, stating that his son is managing the booth and there is no violation of any agreement. Thereafte...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »