Kerala Court October 2001 Judgments
Vilasanadas Daniel Vs. District Collector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR286]
Kurian Joseph, J. 1. 'Delay defeats justice' is now a principle well accepted. Apparently, the said principle applies on all scores to the instant case where disciplinary action in respect of an incident that took place in 1976 was followed by a memo of charges in 1991 leading to suspension of the petitioner in the year 2000 when he was at the fag end of his service. In such circumstances, this Court issued orders pursuant to which the petitioner was reinstated in service and he has since retired from service. What remains to be considered is the legality, propriety or the very justifiability in continuing the proceedings. 2. The petitioner was the Village Officer, Kizhakkancherry-I Village in Alathur Taluk during the period 1.12.1975 to 13.6.1977. As per proceedings dated 13.11.1976, the Tahsildar, Alathur directed the petitioner to take possession of 19.19 acres of land which was declared as excess land. One C.P. Vijaykumar, Special Deputy Surveyor Grade-I attached to the Taluk Offic...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Santha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC298; 2002ACJ1592
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The appellant insurer raised mainly two contentions before the Tribunal below; (1) the liability to indemnify to the insured in terms of the policy was limited and (2) there was violation of condition of police including in so far as the driver, the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal below did not possess a valid driving licence.2. The first contention was sought to be substantiated on the basis of police and it was accepted by the Tribunal below. The second contention was sought to be substantiated by filing a petition on 19.10.1989 before the Tribunal below calling upon both the owner and the driver to produce certain documents relating to the vehicles including the driving licence. Though the interlocutory application was posted on three or four occasions, no order is seen passed. Except, as is discernible from the judgment of the Tribunal below, filing a written statement no contention had been raised or evidence had been tendered by the driver. While passin...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Poyilakada Fisheries P. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Ker)384; [2001]252ITR661(Ker)
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. This appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relates to the assessment year 1990-91 covered by the appeal I.T.A. No. 451 (Coch) of 1995 on the file of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-see is entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A on the plant and machinery used in its activity of processing fish and raw cashew nuts ?'2. Though served with notice the respondent has not appeared presumably because, for an earlier assessment year, the question has been answered against the assessee.3. On going through the orders of the authorities and that of the Tribunal and on hearing counsel, we find that the substantial question of law formulated requires to be reframed. There was no dispute before the authorities or the Tribunal regarding the investment ...
Tag this Judgment!Supersonic Industrial Complex Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (La ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-2001
Reported in: [2003]130STC69(Ker)
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. Revision-petitioner, the assessee, is a dealer engaged in centrifuging field latex and in its sale. The assessee admittedly collects field latex and subjects to centrifuging process. For the assessment year 1990-91 the assessee filed its return showing a total turnover of Rs, 3,33,55,427 and claiming exemption for Rs. 2,88,75,566 covered by form 25 declarations in terms of Rule 32(14) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963. The form No. 25 declaration related to the sale of centrifuged latex. The assessment was completed fixing a total turnover of Rs, 6,16,56,666 and the taxable turnover as Rs. 3,27,81,100 allowing exemption for the turn-over of Rs. 2,88,75,566 covered by form No. 25 declarations. The addition of Rs. 2,67,35,431 to the total turnover returned by the assessee was in view of the purchase turnover of raw rubber latex by the assessee since the assessee was liable to tax on the purchase value of raw rubber latex used for centrifuging. The ass...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Hides and Skins Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-04-2001
Reported in: [2002]126STC156(Ker)
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. These revisions relate to the assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86. The petitioner is a dealer in hides and skins and is an assessee on the rolls of the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Special Circle-I, Ernakulam. The assessments in respect of the assessment years were completed by the assessing authority on March 30, 1989. While completing the assessments, the assessing authority allowed exemptions on export sales as per Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on the strength of form 'H' declarations submitted by the assesses. But, its claim was not fully allowed. Being dissatisfied with the assessments thus finalised, the assessee filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ernakulam. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the assessments and remitted the cases back to the assessing authority, observing that the exemptions already allowed by the assessing authority under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 we...
Tag this Judgment!Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer Vs. Tata Tea Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-03-2001
Reported in: [2002]127STC210(Ker)
B.N. Srikrishna, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18th December, 1992, quashing and setting aside a penalty order imposed on the respondent by Exts. P6 to P6(s).2. The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. On 3rd July 1976, the appellant purchased tea estates of three companies known as Kannan Devan Hill Produce Co. Ltd., Anglo American Direct Tea Trading Co. Ltd., and Amalgamated Tea Estates Ltd. These three companies were registered in the United Kingdom and for the sake of brevity they are hereinafter referred to as 'U.K. Companies'.3. The concerned officer of the Sales Tax Department issued three registration certificates which were valid from 1.7.1957 until cancelled. The respondent Has been issued with notices by the Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer, Munnar foroffences alleged to be under Section 10(a) and 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Varghese Mani
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-03-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Ker)312; [2001]252ITR735(Ker)
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. 1. This appeal at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was admitted by this court on the following substantial questions of law :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that 'the entire interest cannot be assessed in the assessment year 1990-91 itself ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and the assessee having specifically opted to receive the entire interest on the day the bonds were taken at a discounted rate, the Tribunal is right in law in affirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who had directed the Assessing Officer to assess only a sum of Rs. 32,965 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case did the decision and circulars relied on by the Tribunal have application to the facts of the case ?' 2. On receipt of notice the assessee appeared and the app...
Tag this Judgment!Davis Vs. Taluk Accommodation Controller
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-03-2001
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT501
1. The petitioner is a tenant, who filed an application before the AccommodationController (first respondent herein) under Section 17(2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease andRent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') praying for a directionto the landlord (second respondent herein) to do the repairs and maintenance of thetenanted building. The landlord opposed the prayer in the said application and contendedthat in view of the judgment of this Court in Mable v. Harris (1998 (2) KLT 559), theAccommodation Controller had no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 17(2) of theAct while the petition filed by the landlord for evicting the tenant was pending beforethe Rent Control Court. The Accommodation Controller, through Ext. P1 order dated18.7.2001, disposed of the application holding that he had no jurisdiction to pass anorder under Section 17(2) of the Act in view of the pendency of the proceedings in the RentControl Court under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act. The s...
Tag this Judgment!Ray John Varghese Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-01-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR1039]
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The Kerala Public Service Commission (hereinafter called 'the Commission') invited applications for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector in the scale of pay of Rs. 1,400-2,300 as per the notification dated 18.7.1995. Qualification prescribed for the post was pass in S.S.L.C. Diploma in Automobile Engineering, two years workshop experience and possession of a driving licence. Several persons including the appellant applied. They were called for a written test and interview. Subsequently rank list was drawn up on 19.9.1998. Appellant was given rank No. 639. 704 persons were listed in the rank list. There are altogether 60 vacancies. Going by the rank list there is no chance for the appellant to get appointment. He therefore submitted a representation, Ext. P2 on 5.10.1998 before the State Government stating that he is a physically handicapped person with 40% disability. Consequently he is entitled to get preference for appointment. He filed Writ Petitio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›