Kerala Court August 2000 Judgments
Musthafa Vs. R.T.A., Malappuram
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC234; ILR2001NULL234
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The question that arises for consideration is whether for grant of an application by a stage carriage operator seeking change of halting place coming within the area of sister Authority, concurrence of that Authority cannot be insisted upon.2. The petitioner holds a regular permit to operate from Kozhikode to Trichur with halting place at Tirur. In Ext. P2 the variation sought for by the petitioner was to change the halting place from Tirur to Trichur and to avoid the trip between Edarikode to Tirur which actually is a deviation from the main route. The primary Authority, who is the first respondent considered the request in its meeting held on 13.6.2000 and decided as follows:Heard, adjourned, seek concurrence of sister R.T.As.3. According to Mr. Gopinathan Nair, Counsel who represent the petitioner, no concurrence is required for the grant of Ext. P2 insofar as the curtailment is with regard to the area coming within the jurisdiction of the first respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. Vs. T. Chandra Mohan Nair an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ1458Ker
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. These writ appeals are against the judgment in O.P.No. 6464/1993. Both the petitioners as well as the 1st respondent in the Original Petition have preferred these writ appeals. The former is by the 1st respondent-company and the latter is by the petitioners-workmen.2. The appellants in the Writ Appeal No. 1719/1993 will hereafter be described as workmen whereas the appellant in W.A. 1381/1993 will be described as the employer. The workmen and 34 others were employed in the establishment of the employer since its inception in 1976 through a contractor. These workmen were employed for the work in the establishment of the employer. Because of the perennial nature of the work for which they were being employed and their continuous period of work, they agitated for abolition of contract system of labour. Finally, on the basis of the finding entered into by the State Board appointed in terms of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, hereinafter ref...
Tag this Judgment!V. Narayana Reddiar Vs. Rugmini Ammal and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-25-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ81
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This writ Appeal is filed against the Order in C.M.P. No. 35930 of 1998 in O.P. No. 12701 of 1998. Fourth respondent in the C.M.P. is the appellant. He is the fourth respondent in the Original Petition also. According to the appellant, he is a tenant of a building called 'Jaya Building,' Main road Kollam. The tenancy was given by one Durairaja Reddiar by executing an agreement of lease dated 6-1-1994. This lease deed enabled him to make alterations in the building. Accordingly, he effected some alterations in the building. When it was found that alterations were effected, the appellant received, from the Kollam Municipality, an order directing him to demolish the structure, which according to the Municipality, is unauthorised.2. Against the order of the Municipality, petitioner approached the Government. The Government issued an Order dated 22-6-1998, which is produced as Ext. P-5 in the Original petition directing the appellant to submit an application through t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G.T.N. Textiles Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-24-2000
Reported in: [2001]248ITR372(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban J.1. These income-tax references are references made by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, at the instance of the Revenue. The questions of law referred for consideration are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the manner and method of computation of deduction under Section 80HHC for the purpose of Section 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as considered by the assessee and upheld by the Tribunal is correct and in accordance with law ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the computation of the net profit of the assessee for the purpose of estimating its export profit under Section 80HHC, for allowing deduction under Section 115J, should not be made in the regular way of computation of income from business or profession by applying all the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act and, on the other hand, should be made in the limited way by restricting only to the addition...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Sree Narayana Chandrika Trust
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-24-2000
Reported in: [2001]248ITR275(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. This reference is at the instance of the Revenue under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958. The questions referred to are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that even though the reconstitution of the firm resulted in the reduction of the share of profit of the assessee-trust, there was no gift exigible to tax in its hands (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that even though there was a transfer by the assessee in favour of the incoming partner and existing partners, the consideration for the transfer could not be evaluated during the subsistence of the partnership and so the question of adequacy or inadequacy of consideration could not be quantified and so there was no gift exigible to tax ?' 2. The assessee in this case is Sree Narayana Chandrika Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the trust'). The tru...
Tag this Judgment!George Mathai and anr. Vs. Tahsildar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-24-2000
Reported in: [2003]260ITR155(Ker)
Koshy, J.1. Appellants/petitioners question the order of rectification passed by Ex. P-5 regarding building tax under Section 15 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (in short 'the Act'). Petitioners along with two others purchased the property by four separate registered sale deeds and constructed a single building with different portions, partitioned between themselves for convenience sake and claimed for separate assessment under the Act. Assessments were made in 1987. The orders of assessment were given and petitioners/appellants paid the amount also. Thereafter, on 8-5-1989 and 19-5-1989 notices were issued for rectification under Section 15 of the Act and finally by Ext. P-5 dated 4-8-1994 order of rectification was made after seven years of the original assessment. According to the appellants, the order of rectification is time barred in view of the decision in George v. Tahsildar, (1992) 2 Ker LT 690 : (AIR 1993 Ker 142). It is also submitted that rectification order treating t...
Tag this Judgment!V. Gopalakrishnan Vs. T.K. Sivadas and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-24-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Ker79
Sankarasubban, J. 1. The above C.M. Appeal is filed against the order in I .A. No. 3553 of 1997 in O.S. No. 317 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, North Parur. Plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was filed by the appellant for a decree of dissolution of partnership, that accounts be taken from the defendants and a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff for the amounts that may be found due from the defendants, to appoint a receiver and for other reliefs. 2. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 have been carrying on business of manufacturing and trading in boat propellers and other allied products under the name and style 'Matha Metal Works' as per an agreement of partnership in writing executed between the parties on 15-10-1993. The partnership has been registered with the Registrar of Firms and the register number is 4738. Under the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff is the Managing Partner and the plaintiff is to contribute an amount o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. G.T.N. Textiles Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-24-2000
Reported in: (2001)164CTR(Ker)185
S. Sankarasubban, J.These income-tax references are references made by the Commissioner, Cochin, at the instance of the revenue . The questions of law referred for consideration are :'(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the manner and method of computation of deduction under section 80HHC for the purpose of section 115J of the Income Tax Act as considered by the assessee and upheld by the Tribunal is correct and in accordance with law ?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the computation of the net profit of the assessee for the purpose of estimating its export profit under section 80HHC, for allowing deduction under section 115J, should not be made in the regular way of computation of income from business or profession by applying all the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act and, on the other hand, should be made in the limited way by restricting only to the additions and deductions as are ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. Sree Narayana Chandrika Trust
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-24-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Ker)431
S. Sankarasubban, J.This reference is at the instance of the revenue under section 26(1) of the Gift Tax Act, The questions referred to are :(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that even though the reconstitution of the firm resulted in the reduction of the share of profit of the assessee-trust, there was no gift exigible to tax in its hands ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that even though there was a transfer by the assessee in favour of the incoming partner and existing partners, the consideration for the transfer could not be evaluated during the subsistence of the partnership and so the question of adequacy or inadequacy of consideration could not be quantified and so there was no gift exigible to tax?2. The assessee in this case is M/s Sree Narayana Chandrika Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust'). The Trust is a (si...
Tag this Judgment!Headload Workers Welfare Board Vs. Moidutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ523Ker
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. A novel question arises in this appeal. When a registered worker under the Headload Workers' Scheme framed under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, in a scheme covered area met with an accident in the course and arising out of employment, who is liable to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, whether the statutory Committee or the registered establishment for whom the workman was working at the time of accident? This appeal is filed by the Head Load Workers' Welfare Board Local Committee, Palakkad against the award of the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation granting 100% workmen compensation to a head load worker. The accident is admitted. The accident occurred during the course of employment and it is also not disputed that the accident arose during the course of employment and it has arisen out of employment. Wages paid is also admitted. In this case the injured workman while carrying a load on his shoulder, his legs slipped and the load fell on h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »