Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: explosives act 1884 section 4 definitions Court: kerala Year: 1989 Page 4 of about 103 results (0.092 seconds)

Jan 31 1989 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kerala State Industrial Development Cor ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jan-31-1989

Reported in : [1990]182ITR62(Ker)

..... the above count, is a revenue expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee and so admissible as deduction under section 37(1) of the income-tax act in computing the income under 'profits and gains of business.'4. the above conclusion of the appellate tribunal is assailed by the revenue. in the questions formulated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1989 (HC)

K. Narayanan Vs. K. Sreedevi

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jan-18-1989

Reported in : AIR1990Ker151

..... the wife was not living with the husband in his house from 23-3-1979.6. the true content and import of desertion clause (1)(b) of section 13 of the hindu marriage act imparts a definite idea of complete and endless abandonment of one spouse by the other. this must be without the other's consent and without justifiable cause. ..... has done is improper. this sole circumstance will not be sufficient to constitute a ground for divorce based on cruelty.11. prior to the amendment act of 1976, cruelty was not an offending act constituting a ground for divorce. but now under section 13(1)(a) it is added as one of the grounds. the term 'cruelty' is not defined in the ..... varghese kalliath, j. 1. this appeal arises from an original petition. the husband is the appellant. he wanted divorce under sections 13 and 13a of the hindu marriage act. the grounds alleged are desertion arid cruelly. the courts below considered the evidence adduced in the case by the husband and wife and came to a conclusion that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 1989 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kerala Agro Industries Corporation

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Dec-04-1989

Reported in : [1990]183ITR197(Ker)

..... hukumchand jute mills ltd. v. second industrial tribunal, : (1979)illj461sc . in fact, this aspect of the matter is discernible from the second proviso to section 36(1)(ii) of the act. certainly, the first proviso to section 36(1)(ii) will not be attracted to the case of payment of customary or contractual bonus.7. the assessee contended that the bonus was ..... the tribunal for the decision of this court.4. we heard counsel on both sides. the question that has to be decided is one under section 36(1)(ii) of the income-tax act. the above section reads thus :'36(1) the deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with therein, in ..... opinion that the tribunal has not adjudicated the matter in the true spirit of the provisions of law, particularly clauses (a) to (c) of the second proviso to section 36(1)(ii) of the act.8. in the circumstances, the specific aspect as to whether the bonus paid by the assessee may stand the tests specified in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 1989 (HC)

Joy Mathew Vs. Superintendent of Police and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jan-13-1989

Reported in : (1991)ILLJ518Ker

..... appears that they claim rights for its members to do the loading and unloading works under the kerala headload workers act, act 20 of 1980. the provision of that act applies to headload workers as defined in it. the definition in section 2(m) makes it clear that a person engaged by an individual for domestic purposes will not fall within ..... had he engaged any outsider to attend to the loading and unloading work in his establishment. in such a situation act 20 of 1980 has no application to the petitioner. further 'employer' is defined in section 2(i) of the act. the said definition reads as follows:(i) 'employer' means.(i) in relation to a headload worker engaged by ..... the ambit of that section. the petitioner has got his permanent workers to attend to the loading and unloading works in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 16 1989 (HC)

Kunnathunad C.C. Coop. Society Vs. Regional Director, Esic

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Feb-16-1989

Reported in : (1989)IILLJ27Ker

..... or establishment, whether such work is done by the employee in the factory or establishment or elsewhere;..3. a society registered under the kerala co-operative societies act as per section 9 is a body corporate known by the name under which it is registered having perpetual succession and a common seal and with power to hold property, ..... process is being carried on with the aid of power or is ordinarily so carried on but does not include a mine subject to the operation of the mines act, 1952' section 2(9) defines the expression 'employee'. the relevant part of the definition is extracted below:2(9) 'employee' means any person employed for wages in or ..... becomes a body corporate with a perpetual succession and it is legally independent of its members who constitute the society. this is made clear by section 38 of the pondicherry cooperative societies act, 1972. once the society is independent of its members and has a separate legal existence apart from its members, then there is no bar for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 1989 (HC)

National Garments, Kaloor, CochIn Vs. National Apparels, Ernakulam, Co ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Apr-05-1989

Reported in : AIR1990Ker119

K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The defendant in an action for passing off is the appellant.2. The suit is for the grant of a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from using the words 'National Garments' and 'the yellow colour get up in the box' used in connection with the sale of the goods manufactured by the defendant and for seizure of all the materials used for printing the aforesaid words viz. 'National Garments', 'Tonoform' and the colour boxes etc. and to have them destroyed at the cost of the defendant. There are certain other minor reliefs sought for in the suit, but they are not stated here as they are not relevant in the context.3. The temporary injunction sought for has been granted by the order under challenge.4. Facts relevant and requisite for the purpose of deciding the dispute He in a narrow compass. The plaintiff is a firm of which the appellant was a partner till her retirement on 1st September, 1987. The plaintiff has applied to the authority concerned for...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 23 1989 (HC)

Canara Bank Vs. T.K. Thankappan

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jun-23-1989

Reported in : [1993]76CompCas199(Ker)

..... in ittyavira mathai v. varkey varhey, air 1964 sc 907, it is held that a decree passed in a suit, entertained by ignoring the bar of limitation under section 3 of the limitation act, is nevertheless a valid decree, and cannot be ignored as one passed without jurisdiction. in craies on statute law, seventh edition, it is stated at page 269 ..... revenue recovery proceedings by resort to notification s. r. o. no. 797 of 1979 issued by the government of kerala in exercise of the powers under section 71 of the kerala revenue recovery act (act 15 of 1968). the relevant part of the notification is extracted below :'s. r. o. no. 797 of 1979.--in exercise of the powers conferred ..... by section 71 of the kerala revenue recovery act, 1968 ( 15 of 1968 ), and in supersession of notification no. 68933/b3/78/rd, dated 24th november, 1978, published as s. r. o. no, 1199 of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 1989 (HC)

Parameswaran Vs. M.K. Parameswaran Nair

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jan-31-1989

Reported in : II(1989)ACC65; 1991ACJ124; (1993)IIILLJ707Ker

..... in the cutting machine on occasions when regular cutter shri vasudevan was not available. he therefore found that the applicant was not a workman as defined in section 2(n) of the act, that the accident did not arise out of the employment and therefore dismissed the application. the applicant appeals that decision.5. the point of law which ..... unless these -two circumstances are present cumulatively, a person who is otherwise a workman may not cease to be a workman because of the exclusion contained in section 2(n) of the act. another division bench of this court in kochappan v. krishnan, 1987 (1) klt 86, also held that'it is only when both the ingredients are together ..... intention of the statute and not to stultify the same by rigid and mechanical approaches. if the claimant before him was a workman as defined in section 2(n) of the act, he should have seen to it that the workman receives the compensation. it is unfortunate that he embroiled himself in a highly technical debate which would .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 07 1989 (HC)

K. Kelappan Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Sep-07-1989

Reported in : 1990CriLJ697

..... desisted from employing the expression such as 'with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property' in section 47 of the act. if there is no prohibition of entry to or on a ground belonging to government or appropriated to public purpose, there is likelihood of making use of those ..... untimely hour and as he could not explain his presence there at the odd hour, both the courts below were justified in holding that he has committed offence under section 47 of the act. in our view naseema's case 1983 ker lt 579 : (1983 cri lj noc 199) has not correctly laid down the law.there is no merit ..... the revision petitioner could not give any reasonable explanation for his presence there at the untimely hour, the inescapable conclusion is that he has committed an offence under section 47 of the act. if he had any reasonable excuse for his presence, the position would be different. for example, if a person takes shelter in the veranda of a public .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 1989 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.V. John

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Sep-02-1989

Reported in : [1990]181ITR1(Ker)

..... the company tothe sons of the assessee could be considered as dividend in the hands ofthe assessee. it is certainly not dividend as understood in general law orunder section 205 of the companies act. in the decision in kantilal manilal v. cit : [1961]41itr275(sc) , the supreme court observed that (atp. 278) : ''dividend' in its ordinary meaning is a distributive ..... for the benefit of, the assessee, a shareholder. the other shareholders are the mother and grandfather of the payees. in the circumstances, we hold that section 2(22)(e) of the act is not applicable to the facts of the case and that the burden is on the revenue to prove that the payment was made on behalf of, or ..... , on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal is right in law, facts, substance and reality in holding that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the act were not attracted in this case ?'7. we heard counsel. any dividend declared by a company or distributed or paid by it within the meaning of sub .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //