Kerala Court March 2001 Judgments
indira Priyadarshini Forum and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2652
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Dissatisfied with the investigation conducted by the local police in Crime No. 15of2001 of Aluva Police Station, the petitioners have sought the intervention of this Court for an appropriate direction for entrusting the investigation to some other agency. The case relates to the gruesome murder of all the six members of a family, allegedly on 6-1 -2001. According to the petitioners, the investigation now conducted by a team headed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aluva is not at all satisfactory.2. O.P. 7213 of 2001 is filed by the President and Secretary of the Bar Association of Aluva, after adopting a resolution to move this Court in public interest for an appropriate direction in the matter of investigation of the case. It is the case of the petitioners that the investigation is misdirected and is not conducted in a fair, proper and impartial manner. There is a further allegation of gross violation of basic human rights in conducting the investigation and...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Deepak P. Shah
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2690
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. This M.C. is at the instance of the State. Crime No. 117 of 1999 of the Mattancherry Police Station involves offence under Section 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The item allegedly seized is Lorazepam, which is a Psychotropic substance. Sample A prepared during seizure was sent for chemical analysis through Court to the Regional Laboratory at Kakkanad and the report was in the negative, i.e. against the prosecution. Part of the same stock, involved in another case, when subjected to analysis in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Trivandrum revealed that it contained 'Lorazepam'. Faced with this situation, the Investigating Officer moved the Court for sending another sample (Sample B) available in Court for analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Trivandrum. The said request was turned down by the learned special Judge stating that there is no provision to send a second sample as prayed for.2. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the motion for sendi...
Tag this Judgment!Baiju and Company Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-2001
Reported in: [2001]123STC557(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This T.R.C. has been filed challenging the order of the kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode. Two appeals were preferred before the Tribunal. The assessee filed T.A. No. 411 of 1998, while the State filed T.A. No. 497 of 1998. Both the appeals were dismissed. The orders passed by the appellate authority was confirmed.2. The assessment year in question is 1993-94. The assessee is a dealer in arrack during 1993-94. The assessee had conducted business only in the said year. The assessee had bid in auction the right to conduct business in arrack in shop Nos. 118 to 132 of Group No. 1 of the Kunnamangalam Range for an amount of Rs. 22,00,500. The privilege price which was so fixed in respect of the shops in question for the year 1993-94 turned out in sharp enhancement of the rental obtained for the previous year, viz., Rs. 6,61,500. According to the assessee, the assessee was not given registration under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and...
Tag this Judgment!Mas Storage Systems (P.) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: [2001]122STC552(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. This tax revision case is filed against the order in T.A. No. 226 of 2000 of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench I, Ernakulam. The revision relates to the assessment year 1994-95.2. The assessee is engaged in the business of dealing in slotted angles and shelving panels. While completing the assessment, the assessing authority had imposed tax at the rate of 12.5 per cent on the sales turnover of slotted angles stating that it is an item covered by entry 58 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, and rejected the claim of the assessee that the item would fall only under entry 68 or entry 82 of the First Schedule to the Act. According to the assessee, the assessee had not effected sales of items such as slotted angles, shelving panels and nuts and bolts together and assembled to form furniture. Further, the assessing authority also allowed the claim for exemption in respect of the sales turnover of slotted angles to export o...
Tag this Judgment!Kuttan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR387]; (2001)IILLJ1211Ker
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Petitioner retired from service while working as Last Grade Servant on 1.1.2000. Retiral benefits have been sanctioned to him as per Exts. P1 and P2 orders. In spite of the same, no gratuity has been disbursed to him, petitioner submits.It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner had agreed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 35,738/- as per Annexure-I. Therefore, the petitioner can get only the balance amount, if any, towards gratuity. In reply thereto, petitioner contends that as per the provisions contained in S. 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, agreement for reduction of any amount from the gratuity is void and therefore, Annexure A1 cannot be acted upon.3. Gratuity is payable to the petitioner on the basis of Rules contained in R.3, Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. R.3, Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. R.3 thereof makes it clear that the amount due from retired employees towards Government Companies can be deducted fr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Upasana Hospital and Nursing Home
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-2001
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Ker)348
S. Sankarasubban,J.1. This ITR is at the instance of the Revenue. The question of law referred to is as follows:'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation at the rate of 15% on the furniture and fittings in the hospital on the view that hospital comes within the term 'welfare centre' as appearing in Appendix-I, Part I (ii) of the Income Tax Rules ?'2. The assessee is a partnership Firm, running a hospital and nursing home at Quilon. In the income-tax assessment for the year 1988-89, the assessee was allowed depreciation on furniture and fittings at 15%. The Commissioner of Income Tax later passed 'an order under S. 263 of the Income Tax Act on the view that granting depreciation at 15% was not in order and that the correct rate of depreciation was 10% only. Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to revise the assessment to restrict the allowance of depreciation at 10%. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Subash Chandra Babu Vs. Suresh Kumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3258
ORDERJ.B. Koshy. J.1. This Criminal M.C. was referred to Division bench y the learned Single Judge alongwith O.P. No. 3484/90. Scope of S. 93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the only question involved in this Crl.M.C. and in this judgment we are confining to the above question. Petitioner has filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Punalur as C.C.No. 462/90 complaining commission of fraud, cheating and misrepresentation by the accused who is partner of a firm called 'Solve Plastics, Punalur' in which petitioner was also a partner. In the above private complaint, after recording the sworn statement and after numbering the case, petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No. 3484/90 before the Magistrate's Court for search and seizure of certain documents. The documents are the account books, ledgers and other books of the firm which was taken over by the Kerala Financial Corporation in a proceeding under S. 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act. The above petition ...
Tag this Judgment!E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Ouseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR458]; (2001)IILLJ562Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. The respondent in this case was employed in a company and he was covered under the Employees' State Insurance Scheme (E.S.I. Scheme). During the course of his employment he met with an accident on 19.2.1990 and as a result of the accident the tip portion of his ring finger of the right hand was amputated. Sickness benefit was granted during the period when he was under treatment by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation. The respondent's/claimant's request for reference of his disability for a decision by the Medical Board was turned down by the E.S.I. Corporation. Therefore, he approached the Employees' Insurance Court. The Employees' Insurance Court held that eventhough the respondent was not paying contribution on the date of accident, since the accident took place during the benefit period, he is entitled for compensation. The application as paying contribution for a period ended on 30.9.1989. The corresponding benefit period was from 1.1.1990 to 30.6.1990. The...
Tag this Judgment!Kader Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4044
J.B. Koshy, J.1. This Crl. Appeal was referred to the Division Bench by learned Single Judge doubting the decision of another Single Bench decision of this Court in Naushad v. State of Kerala (2000 (1) KLT 785). There it was held by the learned Single Judge of this Court that when complainant and investigating officer are one and the same, it cannot be said to be fair in a proceeding under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short N.D.P.S. Act) and the learned Judge made the following observations in the reference order:Therefore, the question to be considered by us is that whether it is obligatory under N.D.P.S. Act that the Investigation Officer who file a complaint before the court should be a higher official than the person who detects the crime and whether detecting officer and the investigating officer can be one and the same.2. While deciding Naushad's case, learned Single Judge referred to his own earlier judgement in Xavier v. State of Kerala (1988 (1) KLT...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Upasana Hospital and Nursing Home
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-2001
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Ker)350
S. Sankarasubban, J.At the instance of the Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, the following questions of law referred to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, on a fair reading of item (ii)(2) of Appendix-I read with rule 5 of the Income Tax Rules, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding.(i) Whether the hospital is a welfare centre or not is a debatable issue and not free from doubt ?(ii) the assessing officer was not justified in allowing depreciation at the lower rate of 10 per cent ?(iii) the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in cancelling the order passed by the assessing officer under section 154 of the Income Tax Act ?The revenue is the petitioner. The assessment years are 1984-85 and 1985-86. The common ground involved in these cases is whether the assessee is entitled to allowance of depreciation on furniture at 10 per cent.2. The assessee is a partnership firm running a hospital and a nursing home at Quilon. For the years 1984-85 a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »