Kerala Court October 2001 Judgments
Sreedharan Vs. Union of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-22-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR303]
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. 1. The point put-forward for our decision in this Original Petition is the permissibilityof reduction of pay of a Government servant long after his retirement with effect froma date long before his superannuation. 2. The skeletal facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of the case are thefollowing: 3. The petitioner was an Inspector (Works) Grade I in the Railways under thesecond respondent. By way of punishment for misconduct, he was compulsorilyretired from service on 26.11.1990. The said punishment has become final. While so,on 24.9.1993 almost after three years of his retirement from service, his pay wasreduce with effect from 1.11.1986 without notice or hearing to the applicant.Consequently, his pension was refixed and the alleged excess payment was recoveredfrom the amounts due to him. The aggrieved petition approached the CentralAdministrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench by filing O.A. No. 1021/97 praying, interalia, for a declaration that the 'revisio...
Tag this Judgment!Shaji Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-19-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ746
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nai, J. 1. The accused in C.C.148 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Trivandrum is the revision petition. The conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act for short) and confirmed by the Sessions Judge are under challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition. 2. The second respondent Food Inspector, Corporation of Trivandrum inspected the provision store conducted by the revision petitioner in T.C.1/2278 near Medical College Junction at 10. a.m. on 3.2.1989 and purchased 750 gms of 'Chamba rice' from the revision petitioner for the purpose of analysis after complying with the procedural formalities. The food article purchased was divided into three parts in accordance with the Rules and one part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. On analysis the food article was found co...
Tag this Judgment!Protech Appliances Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-19-2001
Reported in: [2002]127STC322(Ker)
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. Challenge is against Exts. P9 and P10 demand notices whereby the petitioner isdirected to pay penal interest. The issue raised in the Original Petition is whetherinterest is payable only from the date of receipt of demand notices for payment of tax.Exts. P7 and P8 are the assessment orders so received by the petitioner demandingpayment of tax. That is dated 31.3.1995. It was, according to the specific avermentsin the Original Petition, served on him only on 28.9.1995. Exts. P9 and P10 show thatpenal interest is demanded from 1.4.1993, on expiry of the assessment year in question.The petitioner submits that he is not liable to pay penal interest from the said date butonly from the date of service of assessment order demanding tax. He received it onlyon 28.9.1995. In order to substantiate that notice was served on him only on 28.9.1995,he had produced Exts. P15 and P16 letters addressed to the Assistant Commissionerdated 13.12.1995 confirming the receipt of Exts....
Tag this Judgment!Abad Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR319(Ker)
P. K. Balasubramanyan,J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the application for revising the assessment under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the adjustments made by the Assessing Officer are within the scope of the provisions of Section 143 Section (a) ? (3) Whether, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that interest on deposits cannot be considered as profits derived from the business for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC ? (4) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the adjustme...
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Ibrahim Vs. Additional Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-2001
Reported in: [2002]126STC245(Ker)
Kurian Joseph, J.1. The grievance in both the original petitions by separate parties is that the respondent is not taking steps to issue registration certificates under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Petitioners have a common grievance that in spite of being small-scale industrial units, unreasonable conditions are insisted by the respondent for the registration under the Acts mentioned above.2. In the statement filed in O.P. No. 24505 of 2001 it is stated that the petitioner therein on verification was found to be not in possession of any landed property or asset in his own name. Hence as per the instruction contained in the circular dated December 15, 1997 regarding registration of dealers in packing cases and timber, safeguards were insisted in the interests of revenue since there were quite a few instances of evasion of tax by obtaining registration in the name of benamies. It is also submitted that only sufficient security was insisted ...
Tag this Judgment!Abad Enterprises Vs. Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-2001
Reported in: [2001]253ITR319(Ker)
P. K. Balasubramanyan, J. At the instance of the assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessing officer was justified in rejecting the application for revising the assessment under section 154 of the Income Tax Act ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the adjustments made by the assessing officer are within the scope of the provisions of section 143(1)(a) ?(3) Whether, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that interest on deposits cannot be considered as profits derived from the business for the purpose of deduction under section 80HHC ?(4) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the adjustments made b...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.N. Krishnakumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-15-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR31(Ker)
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, raises the following substantial questions of law accepted by this court while issuing notice to the respondent;'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that Section 148 has been amended retrospectively from April 1, 1989, to legalise the notices issued stating 'within 30 days' instead of 'not less than 30 days', the Tribunal is right in law in holding the notice and the reassessment as invalid ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the amendment to Section 148 with retrospective effect from April 1, 1989, omitting the words 'not less than 30 days' should not the Tribunal have held the notice and the consequential assessment accordingly valid ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the retrospective amendment to Section 148 with effect from A...
Tag this Judgment!Eshaque Vs. Sub Registrar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-15-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Ker128
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. The 2nd respondent herein had executed a sale deed (Ext. P7) in favour of thepetitioner on 1.4.2001 conveying superstructure with lease hold rights in respect of anextent of 13.33 cents in old survey No. 76/4A (resurvey No. 19.20.584, 585) andanother extent of 29 cents in survey No. 58/5 (resurvey No. 19.20.585, 586 and 587)both of Kasaba Village, Kozhikode Taluk in Kozhikode District. The said documentwas produced before the 1st respondent for registration. The grievance of the petitioneris that the 1st respondent has issued an objection slip dt. 15.6.2001 (Ext. P8) statingthat on inspection of the document (Ext. P7) it is revealed that the property describedin the document 18 cents comprised in resurvey 19.20.585 is Kallaipuzha and 2 centsin survey No. 586 is road and 79 cents in survey No. 587 is river puramboke asrecorded in the registers maintained by the 1st respondent. The petitioner was directedto produce evidence regarding the possession of the said propert...
Tag this Judgment!Kuttappan V.R. Vs. State Bank of Travancore and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR948]; (2001)IILLJ1569Ker
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. 1. While working as an Officer in the Ernakulam Zonal office of the first respondent bank (State Bank of Travancore), the petitioner was suspended from service as per order dated December 5, 1989. The following charges were framed against him alleging violation of Regulations 50(1), 50(4), 59(1) and 60(2) of the State Bank of Travancore (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979:'Regulation 50(1): In not having observed, complied with and obeyed the lawful and reasonable orders and directions of the Bank in respect of purchase and realisation of cheques and in respect of granting of advances. Regulation 50(4): In not having taken all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the Bank and in not having discharged his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence. Regulation 59(1): In having borrowed money and placed himself under pecuniary obligation to persons/firms having dealings with the Bank. Regulation 60(2): In having caused to be d...
Tag this Judgment!Usha Devi Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR503]
M. Ramachandran, J.1. Common questions arise in these three Writ Petitions. When O.P. No. 31283 of 2000 had come up for hearing, a learned single Judge had referred the matter for decision by the Division Bench, and the two other cases also got posted along with them. Mr. Justice Gafoor had been invited to the decisions in Rehelamma v. State of Kerala (1997 (2) KLT 429) and Manager, Mar Sleeba U.P. School v. State of Kerala (1990 (1) KLT 626) as confirmed by W.A. No. 207 of 1990 which has laid down that a retrenched teacher, though on protection, on going back to the school was obliged to surrender seniority, in favour of subsequent appointees. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the said line of decisions required a fresh look, as the quoted decisions had not taken note of the circumstance that such a protected teacher came back and continued in the school, on the basis of the original appointment order, and the effect thereof might be a legal fiction that the date of appointmen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »