Kerala Court June 2000 Judgments
Emerald Valley Estate Limited Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: [2003]260ITR147(Ker)
Sankarasubban, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 296 of 1979 on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad. Appellant is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed for a decree directing the defendants to pay a total amount of Rs. 21,19,847.20 as shown in the plaint with future interest and costs and for granting other reliefs. 2. The averments in the plaint are as follows : Plaintiffs, Emerald Valley Estate Limited, is a limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at Badaguli in Mysore State. Defendants are the State of Kerala, The Chief Conservator of Forests and the Divisional Forest Officer, Nemmara. According to the plaintiff, a total extent of 486.63 acres of land in Pothundi Village, Chittur Taluk, Palakkad District had been leased out by the erstwhile Cochin Government on various dates and by various deeds mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The interest of the lessees under all these leases came t...
Tag this Judgment!Karunakaran Nadar Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-29-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3748
ORDERD. Sreedevi, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the First Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in S.C. No. 89/95 convicting and sentencing the appellant. The appellant herein is the accused.2. The above case was charge sheeted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police CBCID (CSF Counterfeit Squad), Thrivandrum against the accused for the offence under Section 489, IPC. The prosecution case in brief is this : On 11-10-1987 the accused was found in possession of 15 forged currency notes of 20 denomination in his house by name Vandipura Naduvila Veedu at Keezhaikonam, Nellanadu Muri in Nellanadu Village. On receiving a secret information regarding the offence, the S.I. of Police, Venjarammoodu went to the house of the accused along with police party and conducted search of the house of the accused and MO. 1 series, the currency notes were found on the cash table of the accused.3. The S.I. of Police seized the currency notes and arrested the accused and regist...
Tag this Judgment!T.P. Chandran Vs. M.K. Sathyanandan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3728
D. Sreedevi, J.1. This criminal miscellaneous case has been directed against C.C. No. 993/94 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Court-I, Kannur dated 5.12.1994.2. The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This petition is filed to quash the complaint and to acquit the petitioner.3. The complaint is that the accused issued cheque bearing No. NSEAG 120458 dated 21.7.1994 for Rs. 1,20,000/- payable at Canara Bank, South Bazar, Kannur towards the debt due to the complainant. It is alleged in the complaint that the cheque was presented for encashment, but the same was returned with an endorsement 'cheque reported stolen'. It is also alleged in the complaint that he has issued a lawyer notice intimating the accused that the cheque has been dishonoured. He had called upon the accused to pay the said amount. The accused did not respond to the notice. The learned Magi...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. J ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-27-2000
Reported in: [2001]121STC80(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. The above tax revision cases were filed by the Revenue against the same assessee, Janatha Expeller Company. T.R.C. No. 223 of 1998 is with regard to the assessment year 1981-82 in respect of the Central Sales Tax Act, T.R.C. No. 224 of 1998 is with regard to the assessment year 1981-82 under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and T.R.C. No, 225 of 1998 is with regard to the assessment year 1980-81. In T.R.C. Nos. 223 and 224 of 1998, the original assessments were completed on June 24, 1985. In T.R.C. No. 225 of 1998, the original assessment was completed on May 22, 1985.2. The assessee invoked the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 35 of the Act. Section 35 of the Act underwent an amendment by Finance Act, 1993 with effect from April 1, 1993. Section 35 of the Act before the amendment is as follows :'Powers of revision of the Deputy Commissioner suo motu.--(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, of his own m...
Tag this Judgment!Noorjahan Vs. T.T. Moideen and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-27-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4264
ORDERR. Rajendra Babu, J.1. Whether the counsel can be allowed to answer the charge framed by the Court and make the plea of guilty or not guilty for and on behalf of the accused in warrant cases is the question for consideration.2. The complainant in C.C. 330/95 before the Judl. I Class Magistrate's Court, Payyoli, filed this petition to quash the order allowing the counsel for the 1st respondent (the 1st accused) to answer the charge framed by the Court through the counsel. The petitioner filed the complaint C.C.330/95 against the 1st respondent, her husband and against the 2nd respondent (the brother of 1st respondent) alleging the commission of offence Under Section 498A r/w. Section 34, IPC. The respondents appeared before Court and they were released on bail. The 1st respondent was working abroad and he surrendered his passport before the Court below. Later, he filed a petition for the release of his passport and the Court below as per its order dt. 21-4-1998 ordered for the rele...
Tag this Judgment!Parvathi Mills, Unit of Ntc Ltd. Vs. Quilon Hotel and Tea Shop Workers ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-26-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR469]; (2000)IILLJ530Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Ext. P1 is the reference order referring an issue for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Quilon. The above reference was numbered as I.D. No. 30/1998. Originally the dispute was posted on January 15, 1999. Advocate for the company entered appearance on that day, but Union was not present. The Union appeared for the first time on February 12, 1999 and filed objection in an advocate appearing for the company in the case. By Ext. P4 order objection was accepted. In view of the objection the Industrial Tribunal found that management cannot be represented by a lawyer. It is the contention of the management that since the Union did not object appearance of the lawyer for the management at the first date of posting, there is implied consent and hence Ext. P4 is illegal.2. For the first time the Union entered appearance on February 12, 1999 and on that day itself the Union objected. Therefore, it cannot be stated that Union has given implied consent when Union was absent...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram Bahadur Thakkur (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-2000
Reported in: [2000]245ITR607(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. By this reference application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, has referred the following question.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the new rates of depreciation prescribed in Appendix 1 to the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which came into force with effect from April 2, 1983, will be applicable for the assessment year 1983-84 ?' 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacture of tea, cardamom and pepper. While completing the assessment for the assessment year 1983-84, the Assessing Officer held that new rates of depreciation prescribed in Appendix 1 to the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which came into force with effect from April 2, 1983, will be applicable only for the assessment year 1984-85 and not for the assessment year 1983-84. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. On app...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ram Bahadur Thakkur (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-2000
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Ker)70
S. Sankarasubban, J.By this reference application under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Commissioner Cochin, has referred the following question :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the new rates of depreciation prescribed in Appendix 1 to the Income Tax Rules, 1962 which came into force with effect from 2-4-1983, will be applicable for the assessment year 1983-84?'The facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacture of tea, cardamom and pepper. While completing the assessment for the assessment year 1983-84, the assessing officer held that new rates of depreciation prescribed in Appendix 1 to the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which came into force with effect from 2-4-1983, will be applicable only for the assessment year 1984-85 and not for the assessment year 1983-84. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of the assessing officer. On appeal the Tribunal held that the issue stands cove...
Tag this Judgment!Madona Textiles Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR690]; (2000)IILLJ1422Ker
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. 1. The challenge is with regard to the finding of the Employees' State Insurance Court, Idukki, that 'Madona Traders' and 'Madona Tex Sarees' are parts/sections of Madona Textiles, who was the applicant in Insurance Case No. 57/94 and that all the three, clubbed together, stand covered under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act. The stand taken before the said Court by the appellant herein was that Madona Textiles though covered from April 1, 1993, is an independent unit and that it has nothing to do with two other firms viz., Madona Traders and Madona Tex Sarees, The liability for coverage from February 1, 1991 was also disputed. It was contended that the partners of the said two firms are different from those of the appellant firms and that they have also different registrations under various Statutes like Municipalities Act, Income Tax Act, Sales Tax Act and Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. Their bank accounts are different and there i...
Tag this Judgment!C.A. Thomas Master and Etc. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3729
A.V. Savant, C.J.1. Heard all the learned counsel, Dr. Vincent Panikulangara, for the petitioners, Mr. Prasanth, for the first-respondent-Union of India, and Mr. Jose Thetteyil, for the second respondent-State of Kerala.2. O.P. No. 11596 of 1998 of filed by Mr. C. A. Thomas Master, who was then 80 years old, for very unusual reliefs. The petitioner says that he is a retired teacher. His wife is aged 72 years old; she is also a retired teacher. The petitioner has a daughter, son-in-law, as also his son and grand-children, who are school going. The petitioner says that his family members are well-settled. He is in a good mental and physical state. He enjoys music and plays harmonica. He led a contented life and believes that all his duties and obligations in his life are successfully fulfilled and has accomplished his mission in life. The petitioner, therefore, states that he has no desire to live any further, and it is high time he quits this world. However, as a law abiding citizen, he...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »