Kerala Court September 2000 Judgments
Balakrishna Pillai Vs. Balachandran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-29-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ846
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. Petitioner in this contempt case, R. Balakrishna Pillai, is a former Minister and is a Member of Kerala Legislative Assembly. He is an accused in C.C. No. 2/1989 on the file of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Vigilance, Thiruvananthapuram. First respondent was the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. Second respondent is the Printer and Publisher of Desabhimani Newspaper. Third respondent is the General Secretary of Communist Party of India (Marxist), Kerala State Committee and the General Manager of P. Krishna Pillai Memorial Printing and Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. Fourth respondent is V.S. Achuthanandan, Chief Editor, Desabhimani Newspaper, Thiruvananthapuram and the fifth respondent C. Rajendran is the Photographer attached to the Desabhimani Newspaper.2. In addition to the petitioner, there are two other accused in C.C. No. 2/1989. On 20.3.2000, the case was posted for framing charges against the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Muthoot Finance Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-29-2000
Reported in: [2001]248ITR704(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. The questions of law are referred to us at the, instance of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The questions of law referred are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 6,72,000 out of the claim of interest on borrowings ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in allowing the assessee's claim of interest, even though the cash system was followed only in respect of that particular item of expenditure ?' 2. The assessee, Muthoot Finance Corporation is a partnership firm dealing in money-lending business. The assessment year in question is 1988-89. The Assessing Officer found that certain amounts were diverted to the partners and for these amounts the interest was not being paid properly. According to the Assessing Officer, the company was following the mercantile system of accounting....
Tag this Judgment!N.S. Hospital and Maternity Home Vs. Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-29-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ60Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner is challenging Ext. P1 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal awarding 20% bonus for the 1993-94 and 1994-95 for the employees employed in the petitioner establishment. With regard to coverage of the establishment, it was stated in the written statement that petitioner's establishment was employing less than ten persons and the Act is not applicable. As a finding of fact Tribunal found that the establishment is employing more than ten persons and Act is applicable. It is a finding of fact and no interference is called for regarding coverage of the establishment. It was argued that Hospital as such was covered under the Payment of Bonus Act. According to the respondents, all establishments covered under the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act employing ten or more persons are specifically covered under the Payment of Bonus Act in view of notification No. 1852/A2/76/L&H; dated October 21, 1978. Hospital is an establishment covered under the Act. Even if p...
Tag this Judgment!Chandramani Traders Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-2000
Reported in: [2001]121STC604(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act').2. These two tax revision cases are filed by the same assessee for two different assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 against a common appellate order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench II, Ernakulam. The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the sales turnover of bulk drugs and pharmaceutical preparation is liable to be assessed at 6 per cent under entry 116 of the First Schedule to the Act or at 8 per cent under entry 42 of the said Schedule. The assessee contended that the bulk drugs and pharmaceutical preparation sold by it are drugs liable to tax at 6 per cent under entry 116 of the First Schedule to the Act. The assessing authority did not accept the said contention and assessed the said turnover at 8 per cent as chemicals under entry 42 of the First Schedule. In appeal by the assessee the Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Officer, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sivasankaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ1824
K.K. Usha, Actg. C.J.1. This is an appeal at the instance of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., which is impleaded as the respondent No. 3 in O.P. (M.V.) No. 696 of 1994. Petition was filed by the respondent herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner, who was injured in a motor accident on 26.5.1993, claimed an amount of Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle were impleaded as respondent Nos. 1 and 2. They remained ex parte, Respondent No. 3 entered appearance and contended that the accident happened not due to negligence on the part of the offending vehicle, that the amount of compensation claimed is exorbitant and that the respondent No. 1 had violated the policy conditions. The respondent No. 3 further contended that it is entitled to raise all defences independently, including the one relating to the quantum of compensation, which are open to the insured against third parties in view of the reservation clause included in ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Malabar Building Products Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-2000
Reported in: [2001]248ITR72(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. This income-tax reference is at the instance of the Revenue. The assessment year in question is 1992-93. The questions of law referred for decision 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 that the assessability of the dividend under the head 'Other sources' or under the head 'Profits andgains of business' is a debatable issue and so no adjustment is permissible in the proceeding under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act in regard to the deduction allowable under Section 37(2A) (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in an appeal arising out of the order on an application under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act as against an intimation under Section 143(1)(a), the Tribunal is justified in relying on the findings entered in an earlier order of the Tribunal arising out of an order under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act (3...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioenr of Income Tax Vs. Malabar Building Products Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Ker)238; [2001]114TAXMAN110(Ker)
Sankarasubban, J.This income-tax reference is at the instance of the revenue. The assessment year in question is 1992-93. The questions of law referred to for decision 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 that the assessability of the dividend under the head 'Income from other sources' or under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession' is a debatable issue and so no adjustment is permissible in the proceeding under section 143(1)(a) of Income Tax Act in regard to the deduction allowable under section 37(2A) ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in an appeal arising out of the order on an application under section 154 of the Income Tax Act as against an intimation under section 143(1)(a), the Tribunal is justified in relying on the findings entered in an earlier order of the Tribunal arising out of an order under section 143(1)(a) of the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Sasseriyil Joseph Vs. Devassia
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-22-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ24
N. Krishnan Nair, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the complainant in C.C. No. 449/91 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mattannur, against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thalassery in Cri. Appeal No. 212/92 dated 28-8-1993. The case arose on a complaint filed by the appellant herein against the respondent alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After the trial, the Magistrate found the respondent (accused) guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted him. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the respondent herein preferred Cri. Appeal No. 212 of 1992. The learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the respondent and acquitted him. JR/KR/Ke355/2000/P...
Tag this Judgment!Poulose Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-06-2000
Reported in: [2001]123STC165(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. The matter arises under the K.G.S.T. Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act'). The assessee is the revision petitioner. The assessment years concerned are 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92. 2. The question of law on which notice is issued by order dated 23.3.1999 reads as follows: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, plough (kozhu with handle) is not an item exempt from tax as an agricultural implement worked by virtue of Government Notification S.R.O. No. 342/63 read with S.R.0.1542/87?' 3. The assessments of the petitioner for the years 1988-89 to 1990-91 were originally completed allowing exemption on the entire turnover. The same was reopened under S. 19 of the Act on the ground that the turnover escaped assessment. The assessing authority noted that the commodity actually dealt with by the appellant is not 'kozhu' but plough or kari, which is entirely different from kozhu. He noted that exemption under S.R.O. No. 342/63 as modified by S.R.O.15...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax and ors. Vs. T.K. Shahal Hassan Musaliar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-06-2000
Reported in: [2001]247ITR395(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. Both these writ appeals are filed against the judgment in O. P. No. 10606 of 1985 (see : [1991]189ITR534(Ker) ), While W. A. No. 829 of 1990 is filed by the respondents in the original petition, the other writ appeal, W. A. No. 868 of 1990 is filed by the petitioner in the original petition. 2. The petitioner in the original petition. O. P. No. 10606 of 1985 is one T. K. Shahal Hassan Musaliar. He is one of the sons and legal representatives of the late A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar. Thangal Kunju Musaliar died on February 19, 1966. He was as assessee under the Travancore Income-tax Act and, on its repeal, under the Indian Income-tax Act. The income-tax liabilities of the late Thangal Kunju Musaliar for the assessment years 1119 and 1120 M. E. were settled as per proceedings of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, by order No. 74 (29)II/57, dated September 25, 1957 and for the assessment years 1950-51 to 1956-57 by the Central Board of Revenue. As per the t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »