Kerala Court March 2002 Judgments
George Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1579
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J. 1. The challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition is against the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner under Section 16(1)(d) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, ('Act' for short) and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl. Appeal No. 34 of 1992.2. PW.1, the Food Inspector filed the complaint alleging that at or about 11 a.m. on 18.3.1985, he inspected the shop in which the revision petitioner was conducting a provision store. According to the complainant, he disclosed his identity to the accused and asked for sample of coriander powder kept in small packets, each containing 100 grams for the purpose of analysis. The revision petitioner refused to sell the sample to him. It is alleged that the accused told PW1 that if he wants to take any sample, the accused will decide from what food article sample should be taken. When the Food Inspector insisted that he wanted coriander powder itself as sample, the revision petition...
Tag this Judgment!Vasantha Kumari Vs. Canara Bank
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR728]; (2002)IIILLJ1002Ker
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. 1. The main point to be decided in this case is whether the petitioner is ineligible for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme on the ground of the alleged affluence of her parents. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case are the following: 2. The petitioner's husband was a Clerk of the first respondent Canara Bank. While working at the Calicut Branch of the said Bank, he died in harness on 6.9.1996. He left behind the petitioner and her two minor children aged 14 and 8 and also his aged mother. At the time of death of her husband, the petitioner was aged 36 and was a graduate. The petitioner's husband did not have any income other than his salary and he was the only earning member of the family. After his death, the petitioner has to look after her minor children and also his aged mother and therefore, for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme, she submitted an application, Ext. PI dated 28.10.1996. The second respondent Deputy G...
Tag this Judgment!Natarajan P.P. Vs. State Bank of Travancore and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR1234]; (2002)IIILLJ201Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner joined service of the fist respondent Bank as a clerk/typist on January 14, 1972. He as promoted as Junior Management Grade Scale I Officer in 1980. He was posted as an Accountant at Mattanchery Branch on August 3, 1987. The Post of Accountant at Mattanchery Branch was upgraded to Middle Management Grade Scale II and that of the Branch Manager to Middle Management Grade Scale HI with effect from January 1, 1988. Upon such upgradation of the post of Accountant, petitioner was required to officiate in the higher grade as Middle Management Grade Scale II Accountant pending the posting of a regular Middle Management Grade Scale II officer to the post. In the meantime, petitioner was instructed to relieve the then Branch Manager to Udyogamandal Branch at the close of businesson May 21, 1988 and to assume the temporary charge of Middle Management Grade Scale III Branch Manager as well, along with the officiating duties of Middle Management Grade Scale II Accountan...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavani Amma Vs. Surendran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2516
K.K. Denesan, J.1. This Contempt of Court Case is filed by the petitioner in O.P. No. 4564 of 2001 which was disposed of by a leaned Single Judge of this Court as per judgment dated 5.4.2001.2. Petitioner, who is the proprietor of Udaya Agencies at Palakkad, is a wholesale kerosene dealer under the Kerala Kerosene Order. 44 retail dealers in Palakkad Taluk are to lift kerosene from this wholesale dealer. An association under the name and style 'Kerala State Podhuvidharana Sangatana' which is an organisation allegedly sponsored by the Communist Party of India made certain complaints about the functioning of the wholesale dealership of the petitioner, and in pursuance thereof action was taken by the authority under Kerosene Order to delink 11 retail shops from the petitioner's wholesale depot. Aggrieved by this action, petitioner approached the District Collector, Palakkad, seeking orders relining the 11 retail shops to the petitioner's wholesale depot. Petitioner alleged before the Dist...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeena Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: II(2003)DMC226
B.N. Srikrishna, C.J. 1. The petitioners' mother belongs to Ezhava Community and the father to Vannan Community, which is a Scheduled Caste under the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950. It is the case of the petitioners that they were brought up as members of the Vannan Community and are also living in their father's ancestral house with other paternal family members. The petitioners' father obtained a caste certificate (Ext. P1) from the Additional Tahsildar, Taliparamba, stating that he belongs to Vannan Community, which is recognised as a Scheduled Caste under the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950. The school records of the petitioners, including their SSLC certificates, however, show them as members of Ezhava Community, which is recognised as Other Backward Community (OBC). The petitioners have applied for various posts under the State Government and claimed posts reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates, by seeking the benefit of Government Order, G.O. (MS) No. 11/...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.T.N. Textiles Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Ker)543; [2002]257ITR161(Ker)
V.P. Mohan Kumar, J.1. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, for the assessment year1991-92. The assessee is a company running a textile mill. While completing the assessment for the year 1991-92, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for deduction of a sum of Rs. 11,11,600 on the head of replacement of electric control panel. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the expenditure incurred in replacement of electric control panel cannot be considered allowable deduction as current repairs under section 31(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. He was of the view that the same is not a current expenditure but was capital expenditure. The matter was taken up in appeal which was disposed of revising the same and holding it amounted to current repairs coming within the ambit of section 31(1) of the Income-tax Act. The appeal filed by the Revenue was also rejected by the Tribunal confirming the order. Aggrieved the Department has co...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Parry Agro Industries Ltd. (Formerly Cw ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Ker)257; [2002]257ITR41(Ker)
V. P. Mohan Kumar, J. 1. The appeal is against the order passed in I. T. A. No. 680/Coch of 1994 by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, CochinBench. The assessment relates to the year 1989-90. The assessee admittedly is a company substantially interested and is deriving income from plantations. It holds tea estates at Anamalai in South India as also Deckiajuli in the State of Assam. It claimed deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act for the relevant assessment year 1989-90. The contention was that as the export profit is clearly detectable from the accounts maintained by the assessee, the procedure laid down under Section 80HHC(3) need not be followed. The Assessing Officer was of the view that for the computation of the relief, the only basis should be to follow the rule in Section 80HHC(3) after fixing the export turnover out of the total turnover, i.e. the turnover of tea from all the estates, including the estates in South India. On that basis the assessment was made and...
Tag this Judgment!Ashraf Vs. Jennathu Beevi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4419
ORDERT.M. Hassan Pillai, J. 1. Calling in question the legality, propriety and regularity of the order passed by the learned Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Muvattupuzha in M.C. 19/1999 filed by the divorced wife of the revision petitioner (erstwhile husband) under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, (for short 'the Act') claiming Rs. 4 lakhs towards reasonable and fair provision, to be made Rs. 9,000/- towards maintenance to be paid to her during the period of Iddat and Rs. 40,000/- given to the former husband by her father at the time of marriage (under various heads the total amount claimed by the divorced wife from her former husband is Rs. 4,49,000/-) this revision has been filed.2. Learned Magistrate, on an evaluation of the evidence led by the parties in support of their rival cases (erstwhile husband refuted all the allegations made against him by the divorced wife in the petition and contended that he is not liable to pay any amount as cla...
Tag this Judgment!Anthony S/O Kunju Uthup Vs. Kunjavarankutty Hajee and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Ker45
Sankarasubban, J.1. These two appeals are filed against the orders in E.A. No. 131 of 1999 and K.A. No. 87 of 2000 in O.S. No. 644 of 1992 on the file the Sub Court. Tirur, E.F.A. No. 43 of 2001 is filed against the order in E.A. No. 131 of 1999, while E.F.A. No. 44 of 2001 is filed against the order in E.A. No. 87 of 2000. Both these are claim petitions filed under Order 21. Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C.'). 2. Appellant, in both these appeals, Anthony is the decree holder in O.S. No. 644 of 1992 of the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. He filed the suit against the defendant--T.V. Viswanathan for recovery of money. After the filing of the suit, the appellant herein attached before judgment two items of properties by filing POP No. 22 of 1988. These two items of properties are 34.25 cents in sy. No. 297/4A and 1 acre and 28 cents in Sy. No. 268/2. On 27-2-1998, the Court called upon the respondent--Viswanathan to furnish security and to satisfy the p...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Siva Traders
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Ker)285; [2002]255ITR77(Ker)
V.P. Mohan Kumar, J. 1. With respect to the decision rendered by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in I. T. A. No. 10/(Coch) of 1997, the Revenue framed as many as ten questions for reference to this court under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. After considering all the aspects, the Tribunal re-framed and formulated the following question for the answer by this court, viz :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the reopening of the assessment after a lapse of four years under Section 143(3) read with Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is invalid and illegal and therefore the addition made in the reassessment cannot be confirmed ?'2. The brief facts in this case are as under. The assessee is a firm doing business in toddy. The assessment for the year 1986-87 ending with March 31, 1986 is on a total income of Rs. 5,51,700. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer had notic...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »