Kerala Court July 2000 Judgments
Deepak Photos Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR801]; (2001)ILLJ664Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioners in these Original Petitions challenge Ext P1 notification fixing minimum wages for 'artists in photo studios' and also 'photographers' under Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act. Two contentions are pressed before us. The first contention is that under Entry 21 only shops and establishments are notified and under Entry 21 Government can fix the minimum wages with regard to employees employed in shops and establishments including hotels and restaurants. Petitioners' contention is that since nothing is sold in their establishment through counter, it cannot be called as 'shop'. Shop is not defined in the Minimum Wages Act. As per the definition of 'shop' under the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 the premises wherein any services are rendered to customers or where any trade or business is carried on comes within the definition of 'shop'. The petitioners are rendering service. In the absence of definition to 'shop' under the Employees' State Insuranc...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Kumar Vs. Kesavan Kutty Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ1349
G. Sasidharan, J. 1. Petitioner suffered injuries in a road traffic accident which took place on 29.8.1987. Petition claiming compensation was filed in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trivandrum on 23.8.1990. Along with the claim petition, LA. No. 486 of 1990 was filed for condoning the delay of 2 years 5 months and 24 days in filing the claim petition. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissed the application on finding that as per Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal had no power to condone the delay beyond a period of one year. Exh. P3 is the copy of the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in the interlocutory application which is now under challenge.2. On 14.11.1994 Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was omitted. The question which arises for consideration is the effect of deletion of Sub-section (3) of Section 166 from the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. At the time when Exh. P3 order was made, the above Sub-section w...
Tag this Judgment!Karimtharuvi Tea Estates Ltd. and anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-2000
Reported in: [2001]247ITR22(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. The petitioners are questioning the constitutional validity of Section 115) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The above Section was introduced by the Finance Act, 1987 (Act No. 11 of 1987). It was introduced as a special provision relating' to certain companies for taxation of companies whose total income is computed less than 30 per cent. of their book profits. According to the petitioners, the above provision seeks to tax hypothetical income not accrued to the assessee and the same is vitiated and is liable to be struck down as it violates article 19 of the Constitution. It is contended that the Section by a legal fiction deems an assessee's income as 30 per cent. of its book profits even in cases where on computation under the Income-tax Act the income is found to be below 30 per cent. of the book profits. Similar provision is not applicable to partnerships and is vio-lative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is argued that the concept of income as contempla...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lakshmi and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ910
K. Narayana Kurup, J. 1. Insurance company is the appellant. On 21.5.1990 the claimant in O.P. (MV) No. 271 of 1990 (respondent No. 1 herein) out of which this M.F.A. arises, sustained injury by a fertilizer bag falling upon her in the process of unloading it from a stationary lorry of which the respondent No. 2 herein is the driver-cum-owner. There was a controversy before the Tribunal on the point as to whether the accident took place when the vehicle was in motion or stationary. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence found that the accident took place when the vehicle was stationary and even so, the appellant is liable to indemnify the respondent No. 2 owner-cum-driver because the accident arose out of the 'use' of a motor vehicle and in that view, passed an award directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 15,250 with 12 per cent interest from the date of petition and proportionate cost. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the insurance company has preferred this appeal. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Karimtharuvi Tea Estates Ltd. and anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)163CTR(Ker)565
J.B. Koshy, J.Petitioners are questioning the constitutional validity of section 115J of the Income Tax Act.The above section was introduced by the Finance Act, 1987 (Act 11 of 1987). It was introduced as a special provision relating to certain companies for taxation of companies whose total income is computed less than 30 per cent of their book profits. According to the petitioners, the above provision seeks to tax hypothetical income not accrued by the assessee and the same is vitiated and is liable to be struck down as it violates article 19 of the Constitution. It is contended that the section by a legal fiction deems an assessee's income as 30 per cent of its book profits even in cases where on computation under the Income Tax Act the income is found to be below 30 per cent of the book profits. Similar provision is not applicable to partnerships and is violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is argued that concept of income as contemplated under entry 82 of list I...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. George Oommen and Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-2000
Reported in: [2001]247ITR574(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban J.1. The above income-tax references arise out of 1. T. A. Nos. 324 (Coch) of 1991, 55(Coch) of 1992, 521(Coch) of 1994, and 446 (Coch) of 1994. The questions referred for the opinion of this court, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, investing money and earning interest therefrom and letting out of building and earning rental income therefrom would constitute an activity of business carried on by the assessee-firm ?(2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is entitled to renewal of registration ?'2. The facts of these cases are as follows : The assessee in these cases is George Oommen and Co., Kottayam. For the assessment year 1989-90, the assessee filed an application for registration in Form No. 11 on March 30, 1989, along with a copy of the partnership deed dated January 15, 1982. The assessing au...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. George Oommen and Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Ker)225; [2001]112TAXMAN455(Ker)
Sankarasubban, J.The above income-tax references arise out of IT Appeal Nos. 324 (Coch.) of 1991, 55 (Coch.) of 1992, 521 and 446 (Coch.) of 1994. Questions referred for the opinion of this court, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Income Tax Act, are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, investing money and earning interest therefrom and letting out of building and earning rental income therefrom would constitute an activity of business carried on by the assessee-firm ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is entitled to renewal of registration ?'2. Facts of these cases are as follows: The assessee in these cases is George Oommen & Co., Kottayam. For the assessment year 1989-90, the assessee filed an application for registration in Form No. 11 on 30-3-1989 along with a copy of the partnership deed dated 15-1-1982. The assessing authority found that ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sea Lord Hotel P. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-2000
Reported in: [2000]245ITR601(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. The above reference is at the instance of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The following questions are referred for the consideration of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hotel building is a plant entitled to depreciation at 15 per cent. ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also for the reasons stated in enclosure to the reference application, the Tribunal is right in law and fact,(i) in holding that the expenditure is a capital expenditure as it was incurred in connection with or incidental to the acquisition of the capital asset ?(ii) in upholding the claim of the assessee for deduction of depreciation in respect of the amount of Rs. 6,31,267 ?' 2. With regard to question No. 1, it is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Anand Theatres : [2000]244ITR192(SC) . The Supreme Court has held that the buildi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sea Lord Hotel (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)162CTR(Ker)408
S. Saawarasubbam J.The above reference is at the instance of the revenue under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The following questions are referred for the consideration of this court: '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hotel building is a plant entitled to depreciation at 15 per cent ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also for the reasons stated in enclosure to the reference application, the Tribunal is right in law and fact.(i) in holding that the expenditure is a capital expenditure as it was incurred in connection with or incidental to the acquisition of the capital asset ?(ii) in upholding the claim of the assessee for deduction of depreciation in respect of the amount of Rs. 6,31,267 ?With regard to question No. 1, it is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Anand Theatres. etc. etc. : [2000]244ITR192(SC) . The Supreme Court has held that the building us...
Tag this Judgment!John Thomas and ors. Vs. Joseph Thomas and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ker408
1. The above appeal is preferred by defendants 2, 3 and 5 to 8 in O. S. No. 51 of 1987 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kottayam against the judgment and decree in that case. First respondent is the plaintiff, while respondents 2 to 4 are defendants 4, 9 and 10 in the suit. The suit, O. S. No. 51 of 1987 was filed for specific performance of an agreement and directing the first defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of 96 cents of land scheduled in the plaint and for an injunction restraining the first defendant from trespassing upon plaint schedule item No. 1 and for other reliefs. The averments in the plaint are as follows :2. Plaintiff and the first defendant were known to each other for a long time. On 27-4-1982, they entered into an agreement for mutual exchange of properties. Plaintiff had in his possession, control and enjoyment of 12 acres of plantation in Poonjar Thekkekara Village and the first defendant had 96 cents of land at Palai within Palai Town. These properties we...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »