Kerala Court June 2000 Judgments
State of Kerala Vs. Hotel Amrutha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-2000
Reported in: [2000]120STC28(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. All these T.R.Cs. are heard together, because they arise from a common order. T.R.C, Nos. 3 and 11 of 1999 are at the instance of the assessee-Surendran, who is conducting a restaurant under the name and style 'Kohinnur Restaurant' in the premises of 'Hotel Amrutha', Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram. T.R.C. No. 3 of 1999 is with regard to the assessment year 1988-89 while T.R.C. No. 11 of 1999 is with regard to the assessment year 1989-90. T.R.C. Nos. 154, 163 and 167 of 1999 are revisions filed by the Revenue. They relate to the assessment years 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91. The assessee in those cases is Hotel Amrutha, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram. As a matter of fact, original proceedings in the above three T.R.Cs. were initiated under Section 19 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the escaped turnover.2. Hotel Amrutha is holder of FL3 licence issued under the Foreign Liquor Rules. FL3 licence is issued by the Excise D...
Tag this Judgment!M. Jayakumar Vs. Chancellor, University of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Ker59
C.S. Rajan, J.1. The petitioner is an unsuccessful candidate in the election to the Senate of the Kerala University from the graduate constituency. He filed Exhibit P3 election petition before the first respondent under Section 29 of the Kerala University (Conduct of Election to Various Authorities or Bodies) First Statutes, 1974. The prayer in Exhibit P3 was to declare that the result of the election to the Senate by the registered graduates declared on 8-10-1999 as null and void. By Exhibit P7 the first respondent, who is the Chancellor of the University dismissed the election petition. The ground on which the election petition was dismissed is that the candidates who were elected to the Senate from the graduate constituency were not made parties to the election petition.2. The argument of the petitioner before the first respondent was that as neither Section 77 of the Kerala University Act, 1974 nor the Kerala University (Conduct of Election to Various Authorities or Bodies) First S...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Gopinatha Pillai T.M. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-20-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3682
ORDERD. Sreedevi, J.1. This Crl. M.C. is filed against C.C. No. 389 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kanjirappally.2. Petitioner, who is working as Civil Surgeon at the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Kanjirapally has filed this Crl. M.C. to quash all proceedings initiated against him in C.C. No. 389 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kanjirappally. C.C. No. 389 of 1999 has been initiated on a private complaint filed by the second respondent, Girijakumari. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 12-10-1998 her minor daughter was admitted to the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Kanjirappally due to severe stomachache. Petitioner examined the girl and decided to remove the appendix and accordingly, she was subjected to surgery 'appendectomy' on 17-10-1998. It' is also alleged in the complaint that due to the ' negligence of the Doctor the right ovary of the complainant's daughter was lost and the loss of right ovary ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shabandari Family Trust
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-2000
Reported in: [2000]246ITR57(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. These income-tax references relate to the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 and arise out of I. T. A. Nos. 666 and 667 (Coch.) of 1993. The questions of law referred for the opinion of this court are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding- (i) the trust cannot be treated as an association of persons ? (ii) the beneficiaries are to be treated as individuals ? (iii) they are not liable to deduct tax at source as per Section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case (the trust being neither an 'individual' nor a 'Hindu undivided family', which alone are exempt from the provisions of Section 194A) the levy of interest is unjustified ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case-(i) should the tests of an association of persons or a body of individuals be satisfied in order to assess the trustees as an associati...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shabandari Family Trust
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-2000
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(Ker)394
S. Sankarasubban, J.These Income Tax references relate to the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 arise out of ITA Nos. 666 and 667/Coch/1993. The questions of law referred for the opinion of this court are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal right in law and fact in holding-(i) the trust cannot be treated as an Association of persons(ii) the beneficiaries are to be treated as individuals(iii) they are not liable to deduct tax at source as per section 194A of the Income Tax Act (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case (the trust being neither an 'individual' nor an HUF, which alone are exempt from the provisions of section 194(A) the levy of interest is unjustified (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case-(i) should the tests of an Association of persons or Association of persons be satisfied in order to assess trustees as Association of persons or Association of persons (ii) do not the t...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Chandran Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Ker)169
J. B. Koshy, J.These two writ petitions are filed by two legal heirs of an assessee who expired on 1-9-1990. Deceased was assessed to income-tax upto assessment year 1991-92. But, his assessments were revised during the financial year 1994-95 and refunds were ordered to be granted. Accordingly, refunds were given with interest under section 244(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to three legal heirs in equal proportion. All the legal heirs received Rs. 2,78,160 each as interest on the refund. During the accounting year 1995-96, when the legal heirs filed return, they included the 'interest on refund' received by them as 'income' in the respective return. It was assessed to tax. Subsequently, two of the legal heirs, i.e., petitioners herein filed revision applications before the Commissioner under section 264 of the Act claiming exclusion of the interest offered for assessment on the ground that it is not an income in their hands liable to be taxed. By ...
Tag this Judgment!Kunjupilla and ors. Vs. Shylaja and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4113; II(2001)DMC89
ORDERD. Sreedevi, J. 1. Petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 2 to 4 in C.C. No. 849/1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Karunagappally. Accused No. 1 is a BSF Jawan who is not available in station. Petitioner No. 1 herein is the father of the accused No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 herein is the sister of the 1st accused. Petitioner No. 3 is the husband of petitioner No. 2. Respondent No. 1 herein is the wife of accused No. 1.2. The offence alleged against the accused by the first respondent herein is under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34, I.P.C. The first accused married the first respondent herein and they lived together and two children were born in that wedlock. The first respondent herein gave information to the police stating that she was being harassed by her in-laws, namely petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and also her husband who is accused No. 1 in the case.3. Annexure-A is the F.I.R. Petitioners have filed this petition to quash C...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kunhimu and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ596
D. Sreedevi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award in O.P. (MV) No. 1874 of 1990 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri.2. The claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased Latiff who died in a motor accident on 25.5.1990. The deceased was travelling in a lorry bearing registration No. KLM 1241, along with others as the owner of the goods and as loading and unloading labourer. When the lorry reached at the scene of occurrence, the respondent No. 1 driver lost the control of the vehicle due to rash and negligent driving while negotiating a curve and as a result Latiff was thrown out of the lorry and sustained serious injuries and later succumbed to the injuries. The legal heirs of the deceased Latiff filed the above original petition for compensation for the death of Latiff.3. The Tribunal, after taking the evidence, held that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent No. 1 driver and accordingly the original petition was dismissed. Bu...
Tag this Judgment!Esthappanu Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4115
ORDERD. Sreedevi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 21-4-1993 on M.P. No. 698 of 1993 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavoor. Petitioner is the complainant in the M.P. Respondents 2 to 4 are accused in the above case. Petitioner filed the above complaint under Sections 447, 427, 326 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The allegation in the complaint is that on 14-5-1992, when the father of the complainant went to his property, he saw respondents 2 to 4 trespassed into the complainant's property and attempted to construct a fence encroaching into the property. The matter was immediately informed to the complainant. The complainant went to the spot and resisted the attempt. Respondents 2 to 4 pulled down the petitioner. The first accused inflicted a blow on the complainant with an iron rod. The other accused persons also participated in manhandling the petitioner. Petitioner sustained fracture to the ribs. Petitioner was the...
Tag this Judgment!Kannan and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ker407
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging Ext. P3 and seeking a direction to treat 'Kadar' community in Kerala as belonging to Scheduled Tribes as notified in SRO No. 510 dated 6-9-1950.2. The petitioners applied for caste certificate to the Village Officer (2nd respondent). According to the petitioners, they belong to 'Kadar' community, which is notified by the President as a Scheduled Tribe in Kerala. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get a certificate to that effect. But, when certificate was issued to the petitioners, it was stated that they belong to Kadar caste and it was specified as Hindu-Kadar (OBC).3. It is the contention of the petitioners that a notification had been issued by the President of India exercising the power under Clause (1) of Article 342 specifying the tribes or tribal communities etc., which shall for the purpose of the Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to different States. Part VII of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »