Kerala Court July 2001 Judgments
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner (Assessmen ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-2001
Reported in: [2002]125STC470(Ker)
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. Of these Original Petitions first two are filed by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ltd. and the Bharat Petroleum Corporation ltd. and the other Original Petitions are by the Indian Oils Corporation ltd.2. The common questions that arises for consideration in these Original Petitions is the justifiability of the penalty imposed on the petitioner by the Sales Tax Authorities invoking power under S. 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act.3. As part of the business activity expected of the petitioners, they have to purchase petroleum products from the Cochin Refineries Ltd. and to sell it to the various retail pumps or to the distributors outside the State. In view of the specific provision in the K.G.S.T. Act no sales tax is due from the petitioner where the petroleum products are got released from licensed warehouse of the Cochin Refineries Ltd. and the sale being from one Oil Company to another. However, under S. 5A of the Act they are so liable to pay tax...
Tag this Judgment!T.i. George Vs. New Bank of India (Now Punjab National Bank)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-2001
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas277(Ker)
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. 1. The revision petitioner, who is the judgment-debtor in O. S. No. 284 of 1986 of the Sub-Court, Kottayam, is aggrieved that the contentions raised by him during enquiry pursuant to the notice under Order 21, Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding unenforce-ability of the decree were found against and warrant ordered. 2. The petitioner contended before the execution court that the decree holder-bank has calculated interest at 19.5 per cent. per annum on an agricultural loan availed of by the petitioner; that interest at such rate is inadmissible and that if interest is correctly calculated, it could be seen that the judgment-debtor has actually paid more amounts to the bank than what is actually due. 3. The execution court, after hearing the parties, found that the validity of the terms of the decree cannot be reopened at the execution stage and that the execution court is bound to execute the same as it is. It was based on the said finding tha...
Tag this Judgment!Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Industrial Tribunal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR1104]
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. In this Original Petition filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short 'LIC') challenging Ext. P8 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam interfering with the punishment of 'removal from service' imposed by the LIC and ordering instead 'reinstatement without backwages', the important question that arises is whether the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal stands barred with regard to claims made by employees of LIC.2. The 2nd respondent entered service of the LIC as an Apprentice Development Officer on 1.3.1984. On 1.11.1984 he was appointed as Probationary Development Officer. The probation period was one year. On 1.11.1985 the probation was extended by one more year and on completion thereof, his probation was declared with effect from 1.11.1986.3. On 6.12.1986 one Kuttappa Panicker wrote to the LIC stating that his son P.K. Sasidharan Nair in whose name a new proposal for insurance was presented by the petitioner had actually passe...
Tag this Judgment!Varghese Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1712
ORDERT.M. Hassan Pillai, J.1. Heard.2. Concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below (holding the revision petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as amended (for short the Act) are under challenge in this revision preferred by the convicted accused. The 2nd respondent filed compliant against revision petitioner alleging commission of an ofence under Section 138 of the Act by him and the gist of the allegation made against him (revision petitioner) was that an amount of Rs. 1,45,000/- was owed by him to the 2nd respondent and in discharge of his liability the revision petitioner issued Ext. P1 cheque drawn on the State Bank of Travancore, Kizhakkambalam Branch and that cheque was returned by the drawee bank unpaid with the remark 'insufficient fund' when presented for collection. On receipt of that information 2nd respondent issued registered notice (Ext.P6) demanding payment of the amount covered by the cheque i...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Plywood and Timber Pdroducts (P) Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Companie ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-26-2001
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas601(Ker)
ORDERG. Sasidharan, J.1. A person cannot be tried again for the offence for which he had already been tried or on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under S. 221(1) Cr. P.C. or for which he might have been convicted under sub-s. (2) of that section is the principle embodied in S. 300 Cr. P.C. The question whether prosecution under S. 58A(5)(a) and (b) and 58A(6) (a) and (b) of the Companies Act will be hit by S. 300 Cr. P.C. for the reason that the same persons had already been tried for the offence punishable under R. 11 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 for violation of R. 3A and R. 4A of the said rules arises for consideration in the revision.2. The first petitioner in this revision is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of plywood and timber products and the other petitioners are the Directors of the company. The first respondent gave a complaint in the trial court...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Raghu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-2001
Reported in: I(2002)ACC217; II(2002)ACC552; 2002ACJ217
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. All these appeals are filed against the common award O.P. (MV) Nos. 2002/95, 540/96 and 541/1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam. Appellants in these appeals are the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Along with the above claim applications, O.P. (MV) Nos. 538 and 539 of 1996 were also filed. The amount awarded under those claims was very small and no appeal has been filed against it. The facts of the case are as follows:2. Petitioners in these claims seek compensation for injuries sustained to them in a motor accident. The accident occurred on 25.6.1994 at 12.00 hours at a place called Mambattapadi within Shoranur Police Station limit. A Jeep No. KL-10-5207 driven by the driver came from southern direction along the road at the place of accident and hit at the Autorickshaw bearing No. KL-10A-2566 driven by fourth respondent and that came from opposite direction. As a result of collision, the Autorickshaw ran out of control and knocked do...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Malabar Tile Works
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR650(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. These income-tax references at the instance of the Revenue, relate to the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87. The question referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, will not the omission to apply the law, namely, Section 183(b), amount to mistake apparent on record ?'2. The facts of the case are as follows :For the relevant assessment years, the assessee-firm applied for registration under Section 185(1)(b) of the Act. Registration was refused by the Assessing Officer and for all these years, the assessee was an unregistered firm. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 154 of the Act stating that a mistake was committed by the assessee in not assessing the respondent/assessee under Section 183(b) of the Act.3. An objection was filed to the petition by the assessee. It was also rejected. Against that order, ...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter of M/S Remanika Silks (P) Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas296(Ker)
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The important question that is posed before this Court is whether the constitution of the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short 'the RDB Act') and the proceedings initiated by the Tribunal for recovering certain due to the Federal Bank Ltd. from M/s. Remanika Silks Pvt. Ltd., which company is under liquidation proceedings before this Court stands in the way of the Official Liquidator continuing with sale proceedings; and also whether during the pendency of the proceedings by the Official Liquidator, the sale proceedings initiated by the Debts Recovery Tribunal has to be stayed.2. The Provisional Liquidator appointed by this Court vide order dated 23.1.2001 has filed a report that pursuant to the orders of this Court he issued notice under R.130 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 and thereafter held a meeting on 13.2.2001 in which Ex-Directors, representatives of the creditors and...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kerala State Coir Corporation Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-2001
Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Ker)298; [2001]252ITR503(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. This reference is at the instance of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). The questions of law referred are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the levy 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that when the rectification order was passed no mistake apparent from the record as a result of the retrospective amendment to Section 143(1A) of the Income-tax Act and, therefore, the levy of additional tax is deleted 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding, -- (i) the 'intimation' dated January 24, 1991, sent by the Assessing Officer is no 'intimation' at all and has no legal sanction in terms of Section 143(1)(a) read with ...
Tag this Judgment!Dennis Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-2001
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas353(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Appellants in both the appeals are challenging Regulation 15(e) of the Regulations relating to Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy as arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires of the powers conferred on the Board under S. 79-J of the Electricity Supply Act. On the basis of Regulation 15(e) the Board could deny reconnection or new connection to any premises where there are arrears on any account due to the Board. However, if the new owner/occupier/allottee remits the amount due from the previous consumer, the Board shall provide reconnection or new connection depending on whether the service remains disconnected/dismantled. The regulation also enables the Board to refund the amount to the new owner or occupier on realisation of the same from the previous consumer through revenue recovery or other legal proceedings. 2. Appellants in these appeals admit that there were arrears of electricity dues from the previous consumers. As far as M.F.A. No. 100 of 2001 is con...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »