Kerala Court March 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.
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. P. Gopinatha Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-2000
Reported in: [2000]244ITR747(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Pursuant to the direction given by this court in O.P. No. 2133 of 1992 dated November 3, 1994, the following question has been referred to this court under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (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, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the valuation adopted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Is the valuation so adopted valid or in accordance with law ?'2. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows : The assessee is an individual owning immovable properties of extensive area. For the assessment year 1982-83, corresponding to the accounting year ending on September 30, 1981, he filed a return of wealth declaring taxable wealth at Rs. 5,51,000. The Wealth-tax Officer referred the matter to the Valuation Officers, Madurai, Calicut and Thiruvananthapuram for making valuation of various prope...
State of Kerala Vs. Sathy and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR788]; (2000)ILLJ1605Ker
1. Chalakudy Refractories Limited is a State Government company. The company was not functioning from 1993 due to financial difficulties, especially due to want of working capital. After detailed evaluation of the various aspects, Government decided to lay-off the workers of the company with effect from October, 1994. A meeting was convened at the instance of the trade unions and management of the company and a memorandum of settlement dated October 16, 1995 was arrived at. It was decided all the workers of the company would retire voluntarily from the services of the company, and the company would give compensation as per the Voluntary Retirement Scheme.2. The Managing Director of the company then through the Secretary of the Public Sector Re-structuring and Internal Audit Board, a Government establishment, submitted a Voluntary Retirement Scheme for the workers of the company and a detailed statement of financial commitment for the proposed Voluntary Retirement Scheme and other dues ...
Sajimon Vs. Saji Kakkanad (Saji K.A.) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4477
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. On a reference made by the learned single Judge this matter was placed before us. The question that was raised before learned single Judge was whether during the pendency of committal proceedings, committing Court can take cognizance of any offence in respect of self-same incident on the basis of an oral complaint made by the accused facing the committal proceedings and hold an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (in short the Code).3. Factual background needed to be noted in brief is as follows :Sajimon, son of George, accused in C.P. No. 4/1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class's Court, Kuthuparamba filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the proceedings against him. He claimed to have been arrayed as an accused on the basis of the statement allegedly made by the accused in another case, i.e. C.P. No. 9/95. Kuthuparamba police registered Crime No. 34/199...
Munir Ahmed and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-2000
Reported in: [2000]243ITR267(Ker)
By this appeal the impugned judgment and order dated 24-4-1997, has been challenged and a prayer has been made that the impugned order. be quashed. In a petition moved before the learned single judge, the petitioners claimed that they have purchased the property from respondent No. 6. That property was attached for recovery of taxes. The petitioners appellants have challenged the attachment order, as it was absolutely void and contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The learned single judge found that there was an alternative remedy provided under rule 11 of the Second Schedule and the petitioners can file objection before the Tax Recovery Officer challenging the attachment. Therefore, the petition was dismissed on the ground that the alternative remedy is available and that the petitioners can avail of that remedy. Challenging that impugned judgment and order of the learned single judge, this appeal was filed and also a prayer for stay was made. The Division Bench in it...
Onkar S. Kanwar and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Ker)352; [2001]249ITR258(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. All these original petitions were referred to the Division Bench by K. S. Radhakrishnan J., since according to the learned single judge, the question raised by the petitioners in these matters is of considerable importance which will have far reaching consequences. The petitioners in these original petitions seek a declaration that the Kar Vivad Samadhart Scheme (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1998, is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the alternative, they pray for a declaration that they are also covered by the above mentioned order notwithstanding that show-cause notices have been adjudicated upon in relation to them.2. Since the facts are the same, we shall refer to the facts in Original Petition No. 13806 of 1999. The petitioner in that original petition is the vice-chairman and managing director of Apollo Tyres Limited. Apollo Tyres Limited is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Respondent No. 1 is the Union of India...
P.V. Paily Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-07-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ker268
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether the second respondent. Executive Engineer, could determine the loss sustained by the Government due to breach of an agreement dated 31-5-1986 entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent.2. The work of repairs to Peruvallur Sluice Elavally Panchayat was awarded to the petitioner as per agreement dated 31-5-1986. The amount shown in the agreement was Rs. 1,08,898/- and the security deposit was Rs. 5,450/-. As per the agreement, the time for completion of the above work as two months from the date of handing over site. According to the petitioner, the site was handed over only on 5-5-1987. As per clause 4 of the agreement, time was the essence of the contract and petitioner had to complete 60% of the work during the first month and 100% in the second month. Work had to be completed as per the Schedule to the agreement.3. Petitioner submits that for Initial work as per item ...
Bismillah Trading Co. Vs. Intelligence Officer, Squad No. Ii, Agricult ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-03-2000
Reported in: [2001]248ITR292(Ker)
A.R. Lakshmanan J.1. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KGST Act') and the question involved herein relates to the legality of the notice issued under Section 45A(5) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (imposition of penalty by officers and authorities).2. In the instant case, a notice under Section 45A, dated May 5, 1998, was issued by the successor-in-office of the Intelligence Officer, Squad No. II, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kasaragod, proposing to impose a penalty under Section 45A(1)(b) for the alleged offence of failure to keep true and complete accounts for 1994-95. According to the appellant-asses-see, before issuing the notice, the successor-in-office of the first respondent did not himself verify the accounts and the notice dated May 5, 1998, was issued without verifying the accounts and without satisfying whether the books of account maintained were true and complete. The appellant was required to show...
Manager, Reserve Bank of India Vs. V. Raveendran, Secretary, Reserve B ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-02-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR391]; (2000)IIILLJ176Ker
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J. 1. The common question that arises in these Original Petitions is the validity of the order issued by the employer-Reserve Bank of India cutting a full day's wage for partial strike held by its employees. In O.P. No. 8748 the strike involved was from 11-30 a.m. to 2-00 p.m. on October 5, 1990 whereas in O.P. No. 9075/1993 it was from 1-00 p. m. to 2-00 p. m. on March 7, 1991. 2. The working hours in the Bank's cash and customer related sections, it is not disputed would expire by 2-00 p.m. everyday. The contention of the respondents, who arc the workmen of the Reserve Bank of India, Trivandrum and the members of the Reserve Bank Employees' Association, is that since there was work turned out atleast for part of the day, on the above dates, there is no justification for cutting the entire day's wage for a partial strike and that only a pro-rata cut would have been justified. 3. What is under challenge in both these cases is the validity of Ext. P3 award of t...
S.G. Pandalai Vs. Jacob C. Alexander and anr. and State of Kerala and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-01-2000
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas841(Ker); 2000CriLJ2155
K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. These M. Cs. are filed by the accused in C. C. Nos. 464 of 1998 and 376 of 1999 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-V, Thiruvananthapurm and Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, respectively, to quash the entire proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.2. On the basis of annexure B complaints filed by the complainant, who is the second respondent in Crl. M. C. No. 2719 of 1999 and the first respondent in Crl. M. C. No. 3383 of 1999, the petitioner is standing trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-V, Thiruvananthapurm and Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, respectively. Annexure A is the copy of the notice sent by the complainant intimating the petitioner about the dishonour of the cheques and calling upon him to pay the amount.3.The petitioner has contended that annexure A notice...
Koruwage Hubert Fernando Vs. Inspector of Police and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-01-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1926
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. The petitioner in both the R.Ps. is the same person. The order dated 19-99 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kochi in Crl, M.P. Nos. 4252 and 5404/99 is under challenge in these R.Ps.2. The revision petitioner was the counter-petitioner in Crl. M.P. 4252/99 and he was the petitioner in Crl. M.P. 5404/99. Crl, M.P. No. 4252/99 is filed by the Inspector of Police, Camp Office, Lakshadweep Administration, the 1st respondent in these revision petitions, seeking confiscation of the boat named 'Himakara' which was involved in C.C. 229/98 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kochi, wherein the Master of the vessel was convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 3 read with 10 and Section 7 read with 14 of the Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act, 1981, by judgment dated 30-3-1999.3. Crl. M.P. No. 5404/99 is filed by the petitioner herein claiming to be the owner of the ves...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›