Kerala Court February 2001 Judgments
K.P. Janaki Amma and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-2001
Reported in: [2001]123STC457(Ker)
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The petitioners in all these cases are the same. The respondents are also the same. The reliefs prayed for in the three original petitions relate to maintainability of revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the immovable properties of the petitioners having an extent of two acres. In the circumstances, these original petitions are being disposed of through a common judgment.2. In O.P. No. 21684 of 1997 what is under challenge is the revenue recovery proceedings on the aforesaid property for recovery of arrears of sales tax accrued due in respect of a business by name 'Plywood House', Aluva, which was being conducted by one Mr. K.G. Chandran, who is no more now. He was son of 1st petitioner and brother of petitioners 2 and 3. The aforesaid original petition relates to the arrears of sales tax in respect of assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87.3. O.P. No. 26101 of 1998 relates to the arrears of sales tax in respect of assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Antony
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ1617Ker
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. These Writ Appeal aires from the judgment in O.P. No. 18569 of 1997. While W.A.No. 2429 of 2000 is filed by respondents 1 and 2 in the Original Petition, the other Writ Appeal, viz., W.A. No. 2900 is filed by the petitioner in the Original Petition. The Petitioner in the Original Petition, V.Antony was an Officer of the erstwhile Bank of Cochin. While he was working in the Bank of Cochin, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. After a domestic enquiry, it was found that the charges against the petitioner were proved. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a punishment of dismissal.2. The Order of dismissal was challenged before the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha, as though he was a workman. But the Industrial Tribunal found that he was not a workman and hence, the petitioner did not succeed there. The Order of the Industrial Tribunal was challenged before this Court in the Original Petition. This Court upheld the findings of the Industrial Tribunal that...
Tag this Judgment!Nabeesa Mundoli Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: [2001]123STC1(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. These two tax revision cases are filed under Section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 challenging the common order passed in T.A. Nos. 19 and 20 of 1997 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode. The assessment years are 1989-90 and 1991-92. The assessee is the revision petitioner. The assessee is running a hotel and restaurant and cooked food and beverages are served in the hotel.2. For the assessment years 1989-90 and 1991-92 the question that arises for consideration is whether the cooked food made in the hotel is liable for exemption under entry 57 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. According to entry 57 of the First Schedule, cooked food including beverages not falling under entry 76A of the Schedule sold or served in hotels and/or restaurants the turnover in respect of which is Rs. 20 lakhs and above is liable to be taxed at the point of first sale in the State by a dealer who is ...
Tag this Judgment!Surendran Vs. Vasudevan Achary
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)ALT(Cri)330; 2001CriLJ3657
ORDERN. Krishnan Nair, J. 1. The question involved in this Revision is whether an appellate Court can reject a Criminal Appeal on the ground of no representation when it comes up for admission.2. The petitioner herein filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Kollam against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally in C.C. 129/1977. The appeal was duly presented in accordance with the provisions contained in S. 382 of the Cr. P.C. The appeal came up for hearing on admission before the Sessions Judge on 14.11.2000. The Sessions Judge rejected the appeal since there was no representation. The order is seriously challenged in this Revision.3. There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code enabling an appellate Court to reject an appeal on the ground of no representation. No doubt, under S. 386 of the Cr. P.C., the appellate Court can dismiss the appeal summarily if there is no ground for interfering. But before dismissing an ...
Tag this Judgment!K. MahIn Udma Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Ker)214; [2001]249ITR71(Ker)
S. Sankabasubban, J.1. These income-tax references are against the consolidated order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Cochin,. I. T. A. Nos. 236 (Coch.) of 1977-78, 702, 703 and 704 (Coch.) of 1992 relating to the assessment years 1972-73, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1980-81, respectively. The questions of law for the year 1972-73 are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials on record, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in sustaining the additions of Rs. 88,000 and Rs. 19,52,190 as the assessee's income from other sources ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate. Tribunal was justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 15,000for each of the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1980-81 as income from property ?'2. The questions of law referred for the years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1980-81 are as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was j...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Balakrishnan and anr. Vs. Yakoob and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Ker215
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The main question that has come up for consideration in these cases is whether the trial Court was correct in decreeing the suit for specific performance on the basis of an oral agreement for sale. O.S. No. 56 of 1985 was a suit filed for specific performance of an oral agreement for sale. Suit was decreed against which A.S. No. 129 of 1989 was filed. A.S. No. 227 of 1990 arises out of O.S. No. 45 of 1986 which was a suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 56 of 1985 for an inj unction restraining alienation of the property in question. O.S. No. 46 of 1986 against which A.S. No. 228 of 1990 was preferred by the first defendant in O.S. No. 56 of 1985 was for injunction to remove certain illegal construction effected by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 56 of 1985. All the suits were jointly tried by the Sub Court, Palghat. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of thetrial Court, all these appeals have been preferred by the first defendant in O.S. No. 56 of 1985. He filed...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. K. Mahim
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Ker)213
S. Sankarasubban, J.These cases relate to the different assessment years. The question of law referred is 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 40,000 relating to the improvement of the Mangalore property, in the year 1972-73 and the addition of Rs. 15,000 for the assessment years 1973-74, 1976-77 to 1979-80 and 1981-82 to 1983-84 as the income from the said property ?' In a connected matter with regard to the same assessee, viz., IT Ref. Nos. 13 to 16 of 2000 (reported as K. Mahim Udma v. CIT : [2001]249ITR71(Ker) , it is found that the Appellate Tribunal had held that the property was purchased benami in the name of the assessee. The question in these cases relate to the income from this property and also the construction made in the property. In view of the fact that it has been found that the property belongs to the assessee and the construction was also made by him, the findings arrived at by the Tri...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Azeez Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-12-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)ALT(Cri)302; 2001CriLJ2131
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. 1. Is there need for compliance with S. 42(2) of the NDPS Act in a case where the information that the seizing official gets in with regard to the availability of the contraband in a place other than a building, conveyance or enclosed place? This is the main question that is raised in the present appeal. Of course, violation of S. 50 of the NDPS Act is also alleged by the appellant besides violation of S. 42. The appellant is armed with the decisions in Johnson v. State of Kerala (2001(1) KLT SN 5 at page 4) and Salim v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT SN 6 at page 5) with regard to his submissions on the former aspect.2. Factual details: According to the prosecution, at about 5.45 p.m. on 15.8.1997 the Circle Inspector of Police, Koduvally, got an information that brown sugar was brought by a person near Koduvally bridge. He recorded the same in the Station G.D. and conveyed the information to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is the official superior, and...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Abdul Razak
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)ALT(Cri)317; 2001CriLJ2670
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. All these petitions are filed under S. 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the State of Kerala for leave of this Court to file criminal appeals against the order of acquittal. The State filed leave petitions since this Court passed order on 5.1.2000 in Criminal Appeal 991 of 1999 ordering that an appeal preferred by the State can be treated as an appeal in terms of S. 378(3) Cr.P.C. only if leave is granted by this Court. We may extract the order of this Court for easy reference.'We find that in terms of S. 378(3) Cr. P.C. leave has to be obtained of the Court where an appeal in terms of sub-s. (1) or (2) is filed against an order of acquittal. Obviously a separate petition has to be filed seeking leave of the High Court and until that leave is granted the appeal preferred cannot be treated to be in terms of S. 378(3) Cr. P.C.Learned counsel for the State submits that a separate petition shall be filed in this regard. Call next week. 2. If an appl...
Tag this Judgment!Neelakandan Namboothiri Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ520Ker
M. Ramachandran, J.1. The challenge in this Original Petition is against Ext. P7 order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act dated 4.11.2000. The Appellate Authority upheld the order of the Controlling Authority (District Labour Officer, Thodupuzha) whereunder it was ordered that the employee (4th respondent herein) is entitled to get Rs. 11,952/- as gratuity and interest at the rate of 10% from 1.4.1993. The petitioner, who is a reputed Ayurvedic Establishment, contends that the delay in filing the application by the employee, who was a salesman, has not been adverted to by the Appellate Authority, even though at the time of earlier demand, this Court had directed that this aspect also had to be taken notice of. The operative portion of the judgment in'The management is at liberty to agitate the matter before the appellate authority on merits including the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act that the delay was not p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »