Kerala Court March 2000 Judgments
T.K. Sankaran Kutty Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-20-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3204
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. Bhaskaran Pillai for the appellant and Mr. Alexander Thomas, Government Pleader for the respondents.2. The appellant as petitioner filed O.P. No. 4437 of 2000 to quash Ext. P5 government order and Ext. P6 order passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur in C.M.P. No. 5 of 2000 in C.C. No. 3 of 1998 dated 31st January, 2000 and to declare that the continuation of the proceedings in C.C. No. 3 of 1998 now pending before the Vigilance Court and Enquiry Tribunal is an abuse of the process of Court. A preliminary investigation was conducted against the appellant who was working as an Assistant Surgeon in the District Hospital, Thrissur on the basis of a complaint Ext. PI filed by one Sabu Sadanandan. Investigation was conducted by the Inspector attached to Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thrissur and on culmination of the same the Deputy Superintendent attached to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thrissur registered Crime Cas...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T.K. Ginarajan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-2000
Reported in: [2000]243ITR709(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for opinion of this court, 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') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, incentive bonus being part of salary, the assessee is entitled to claim any deduction out of incentive bonus received by the assessee over and above standard deduction available to salary income ?'2. The dispute relates to the question, (a) whether incentive bonus is salary, and (b) whether the assessee is entitled to claim any deduction over and above standard deduction available in respect of salary income.3. The factual position is as follows: The assessee is a Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short, 'the LIC'). Different amounts were claimed as expenses in respect of incentive bonus received. The Assessing Officer disall...
Tag this Judgment!Jeeja P.K. and ors. Vs. Director, School of Distance Education Univers ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ker281
Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge in O.P. 29943/1999 dated 13-12-1999 declining the prayer to quash Ext. P3 and the consequential prayers to accept the applications for admission to the course of B.A. (Economics) in the Open Stream Scheme of the University of Calicut as valid and permit them to continue the course in accordance with law and also to accept Exhibit P4 and similar applications submitted by the appellants as valid and enroll the appellants for the B.A. course as applied for by them. 2. The petitioners in the original petition are the appellants herein. It is the case of the appellants that as per the scheme advertised in Exhibit P1 prospectus issued by the University of Calicut, persons who have completed the age of 18 years without regard to any other qualification can apply for admission to the B.A./B.Com. Degree course in the Open Stream Scheme under the University. For this purpose it Is necessary that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Maleparambil Shanti @ Eliyamma Vs. Panakkachalil Thamasikkum Ambatt Jo ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2000
Reported in: II(2000)DMC612
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 20 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (in short the 'the Act'). Application was filed by the wife before the Family Court, Kozhikode under Section 19 of the Act on the ground that respondent had a wife living at the time of solemnization of the marriage with her on 23.3.1996. Existence of wife at the time of marriage was pleaded to be a ground to affect validity of the marriage. Though the respondent accepted that he was earlier married, he took the stand that the same has been nullified by the Eparchial Tribunal.2. Learned Judge of Family Court, Kozhikode was of the view that declaration of dissolution of marriage by the Eparchial Tribunal is of no consequence as the said Tribunal has no jurisdiction to annul the marriage. Such power is only conferred on Courts as indicated in the Act itself. Accordingly the marriage solemnised between her and respondent was held to be void.3. Heared learned Counsel for the parties. In view of the...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Vijayalakshmi and Etc. Etc. Vs. Tahsildar, Palakkad and ors. Etc.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ker262
Pasayat, C.J. 1. These three Writ Appeals have much in common and, therefore, they are disposed of by this judgment tocover each one of them.2. Alleging that on the basis of false certificate, one K. R. Shanmugha Sundaram obtained benefits Intended for Scheduled Tribes, action was taken against appellants, who are his siblings. There has been determination by Kerala Institute for Research. Training and Development Studies of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (hereinafter referred to as 'KIRTADS') and officials of Government, which has led to initiation of action by employees of appellants. In a nutshell, stand of the parties is as follows. Shanmugha Sundaram was originally a resident of Coimbatore, but, about five decades back, migrated to Kerala and started living here. He was residing at Palakkad. He obtained a certificate sometime in 1956 purported to have been issued by Tahsildar, Coimbatore showing that he belonged to 'Kattunayakan' community, which is a Scheduled Tribe as not...
Tag this Judgment!Jose Mathew Vs. Kerala State Industrial Enterprises
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-2000
Reported in: [2000(84)FLR87]; (2000)IILLJ1059Ker
Pasayat, C.J.1. Heard.2. Appellant's prayer for keeping in abeyance the departmental proceedings during the pendency of criminal proceedings having been rejected by learned single Judge, this appeal has been filed.3. Factual position, as stated by the parties, is essentially as follows: Appellant who was functioning as Executive Director (Finance) of the Kerala State Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') was placed under suspension by the Chairman and Managing Director of the Company by order dated May 22, 1977, Ext.Pl annexed to the Original Petition. Said action was necessitated as enquiries were to be done by the Vigilance Department as serious allegations were levelled against him. Said order of suspension was challenged by appellant along with others in O.P. No. 8928 of 1997. Same was dismissed by judgment dated July 29, 1997. Subsequently, the Managing Director initiated departmental enquiry by serving a memo of charges and appointing an enquiry ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kerala Spinners Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)166CTR(Ker)268; [2001]247ITR541(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. The following questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in cancelling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) sustained by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the assessee's case falls under clause (B) of Explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c) and so Explanation 1(A) is not applicable to the facts of the case ?' 2. The background facts, as indicated in the statement of case, are as follows : The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing yarn. For the assessment year 1979-80, it was assessed to tax on a total income of Rs. 21,06,69...
Tag this Judgment!Regarding Ragging of Freshers in Thiruvananthapuram Government Enginee ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ker245
Pasayat, C.J.1. On the basis of a grievance made to one of us (Pasayat, C. J.) that students prosecuting studies in various educational institutions of the State are subjected to ragging by seniors, this petition was registered as a suo motu writ petition. Ragging is not a new phenomenon in the State, and elsewhere in the world. Taking note of grievances relating to ragging, in educational institutions, which is a matter of serious concern, Government has, in fact, enacted 'Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is to be seen how far intended objectives have been fulfilled.2. 'Ragging' has been defined in the Act as doing any act, by disorderly conduct, to a student of an educational institution, whichcauses or is likely to cause physical or psychological harm or raising apprehension or fear or shame or embarrassment to that student and includes (i) teasing, abusing or playing practical jokes on, or causing hurt to such student; or (ii) aski...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Geo Tech Construction Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-2000
Reported in: [2000]244ITR452(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court 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 assessee is entitled to depreciation on the tippers ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the mere fact that they were kept ready for use would be enough to the grant of depreciation on the principles of passive user of asset ?'2. The factual position, as highlighted in the statement of case, is as follows : The assessee purchased two tippers on March 29, 1986, and claimed depreciation for the assessment year 1986-87 on the same. The Assessing Officer did not allow depreciation on the ground that the assessee had not produced any evidence to show that they were put to use bef...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment) Vs. Pala Marketing Co-o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(Ker)31; [2000]243ITR499(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. The ambit scope and meaning of the expression 'disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment' as appearing in Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), falls for consideration in this writ appeal filed by the Revenue.2. The factual position, which is almost undisputed, is as follows : The first respondent is a society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (in short 'the Act'). For the assessment year 1989-90, it filed a return of income on October 30, 1989, declaring a total income of Rs. 17,30,000. In arriving at the aforesaid figure, the assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 10,14,837 as depreciation. The depreciation figure was arrived at on the following' basis :Rs.(i) On building and furniture :Written down value, i. e., WDV Rs. 9,56,930-10 per cent.95,693(ii) On plant and machinery WDVRs. 6,19,558-33-1/3 per cent.2,06,549(iii) On plant and machinerywritten down value Rs. 14,25,190-50 per cent.7,1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »