Kerala Court June 2002 Judgments
Shibu S. Nair and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Ker)120; [2003]260ITR586(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioners claim to be employees of the third respondent-company which supplies security personnel to various companies including the second respondent. They are at present employed by the third respondent for looking after the security matters of the second respondent-company. The petitioners are challenging exhibit P-1 income-tax recovery notice dated June 14, 2001, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle II, Madurai, to various companies, the names and addresses of which are contained in the list attached to exhibit P-1, which includes the second respondent herein. Exhibit P-1 is a garnishee proceeding initiated for recovery of arrears of income-tax due from the third respondent, i.e., the petitioner's employer-company. The petitioners are challenging the said notice on the ground that the amounts to be paid by the second respondent to the third respondent are to be utilised towards payment of salary to the petitioners and if...
Tag this Judgment!CochIn Cadalas (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN47(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J. The main question to be considered is whether the Tribunal was right in modifying the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account for the purpose of computation of book profit. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal had modified the net profit. Similar case was disposed of by the Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT : [2002]255ITR273(SC) in which it is stated thus :Net profits in profit and loss account prepared in accordance with Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies ActAccounts scrutinised and certified by statutory auditorsassessing officer has no power to scrutinise except as provided in Explanation.In view of the above law declared by the Supreme Court, the order of the Tribunal cannot stand. Hence, we set aside the order of the Tribunal passed in all these cases and remand the case back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal may, if necessary, remand the case back to the lower authorities.2. The ITA and ITRs are disposed of as above....
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan Kakkanath Vs. Ravi and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4056
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The question that is posed before the Court in this revision is of some novelty and that is whether when a case and counter case exist, permission for withdrawal under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. could be granted in the main/counter case alone.2. The facts : The petitioner is an accused in C.C. No. 264 of 1998 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kasargode, where the allegation is that obstruction was caused to the Sales Tax Officials when they tried to conduct inspection in a business place. The present petitioner filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasargode on 24-2-1998 alleging that the first respondent herein, who was the Intelligence Officer of the AIT & ST Squad No. 2, Tellicherry was coming out of Shalimar Jewellery, Kasargod at about 1.50 p.m. on 18-11-1997; that he wrongfully restrained the petitioner and prevented him from moving from the place shouting that he was the leader of the group and that he ...
Tag this Judgment!Purushan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3523
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The interesting question that is posed in this case is with regard to the ingredients necessary for constituting the offence under Section 55(a) and Section 58 of the Abkari Act.2. The accused, it was alleged, was found in possession of 8 litres of arrack intended for sale kept in aplastic keg of 10 litres capacity in a public place at about 8 p.m. on 25.2.1992. Based on the evidence of PW1, who is the Preventive Officer, who made the seizure, as also PW2, who is an Excise Guard, the trial court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (in default R.I. for three months).3. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not press before me any contention with regard to the fact of seizure of the arrack in question, but it was contended that the conviction should have been for offence under Section 58 of the Abkari Act and not under Section 55(a)...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nimmy and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-2002
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR304]; (2002)IIILLJ375Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. A workman employed by the fifth respondent while riding a scooter, owned by the fifth respondent, died in an accident during the course of employment. It has come out in evidence that when the accident arose he was discharging his duties. The appellant insurance company was the insurer of the scooter. The contention raised by the insurance company is that in the absence of workmen compensation policy, the liability on the insurance company under the Workmen's Compensation Act can be fastened only under first proviso to Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. First Proviso to Section 147(1) reads as follows:'Provided that a policy shall not be required- (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising under the Workmen's C...
Tag this Judgment!Haizaz Pashaw Vs. Gulzar Banu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALT(Cri)322; 2002CriLJ3282; I(2003)DMC106
ORDERN. Krishnan Nair, J.1. Is an ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained by a husband a bar to the consideration of his wife's claim for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code? That is the question to be resolved in this revision. The 1st respondent herein filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod claiming maintenance for herself and her minor child (2nd respondent). The 1 st respondent is the wife of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is the child born out of the wedlock. The allegation of the 1st respondent was that the petitioner treated her with cruelty while she was living with him in the matrimonial home. It was further alleged that the petitioner has neglected and refused to maintain the respondents without any lawful excuse despite having sufficient means of income. The petitioner admitted the marriage and also the paternity of the chil...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmarajan Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALT(Cri)349; 2002CriLJ3399
ORDERN. Krishnan Nair, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 16.5.2002 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam in SC 241/2001.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this revision may be stated as follows: The petitioner is the accused in S.C. 241/2001 (popularly known as 'Suryanelli case') on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam. He is charged with the offences punishable under Sections 120(6), 363, 366(A), 368, 332, 373, 376, 376(2)(g), 392 read with Sections 109 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the petitioner submitted a list of 45 witnesses for the defence. The Court below by the impugned order allowed him to examine 12 witnesses out of the 45 witnesses and refused permission to examine the remaining 33 witnesses. Aggrieved by the refusal of the court below to permit him to examine all the persons mentioned in the witness schedule, the petitioner has come up with this revision.3. Heard the counsel f...
Tag this Judgment!Kurumber Betta Estate Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-13-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR328(Ker)
B.N. Srikrishna, C.J.1. This writ appeal impugns the judgment of the learned single judge dated November 15, 1995 : [1996]217ITR631(Ker) , dismissing the original petition. The question of law that arises here for our consideration is : whether the amount kept in simpliciter deposit with the Revenue authorities without being appropriated towards the tax due of an assessee would be liable to attract interest for the period it was lying in deposit 2. The petitioner is a partnership business which was running a cardamom and tea estate known as Kurumber Betta Estate in the Nilgiris. The partnership consisted of three partners, one of whom, S. Chenniah, was a resident of Mysore, Karnataka and the other two partners were residents of Kerala State. The said Chenniah was a defaulter of tax and accumulated income-tax arrears. All his properties in Karnataka were subjected to recovery proceedings by the income-tax authorities. A notice dated December 28, 1968, was issued by the Tax Recovery Offi...
Tag this Judgment!Kurumber Betta Estate Vs. Ito and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Ker)426
B.K Srikrishna, C.J.This writ appeal impugns the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15-11-1995 (Kurumber Betta Estate v. ITO & Ors. (1996) 130 CTR (Ker) 345Ed.), dismissing the original petition. The question of law that arises here for our consideration is : whether the amount kept in simpliciter deposit with the revenue authorities without being appropriated towards the tax due of an assessee would be liable to attract interest for the period it was lying in deposit 2. The petitioner is a partnership business which was running a cardamom and tea estate known as Kurumber Betta Estate in Nilgiris. The partnership consisted of three partners, one of whom, S. Chenniah, was a resident of Mysore, Karnataka, and the other two partners were residents of Kerala State. The said Chenniah was a defaulter of tax and accumulated income-tax arrears. All his properties in Karnataka were subjected to recovery proceedings by the income-tax authorities. A notice dated 28-12-1998 (sic), was issu...
Tag this Judgment!Recovery Officer and Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Kerala ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR1024]; (2002)IIILLJ643Ker
B.N. Srikrishna, C.J. 1. This appeal impugns the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 22nd June, 1994 allowing the Original Petition and quashing recovery notices issued by the Recovery Officer and Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to the first respondent Corporation. 2. The appellant before us is the 'Recovery Officer' within the meaning of Section 2(kb) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'E.P.F. & M.P. Act'), who is also empowered to recover Provident Fund dues by reason of Section 8G of the Act. The first respondent is a Corporation established under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. The second respondent is a scheduled bank carrying on business at Trivandrum in the State of Kerala. 3. A company by name 'M/s. Darpan Electronics (Private) Limited' (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') was running an industrial concern engaging employees and was covered by the provisions of the E.P.F. & M.P. Act...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »