Court : Kerala
Decided on : Feb-13-2003
Reported in : [2003]114CompCas777(Ker); [2003]45SCL170(Ker)
..... a representative of the life insurance. corporation of india as well which is an 18 per cent. shareholder of the company. the company also pointed out it has no intention whatsoever to sell any property of the company without obtaining prior approval of the debt recovery tribunal. if the petitioner, a solitary shareholder, has any grievance he has to move the company law board under sections 397 and 398 of the companies act, 1956, after getting sufficient majority as provided in the companies act. the annual general ..... or without modification the following resolution as an ordinary resolution. this resolution will be considered for passing by postal ballot method. please refer to note (1) herein below : 'resolved that, pursuant to section 293(1) and other applicable provisions of the companies act, 1956, the consent of the members of the company be and is hereby accorded, subject to applicable permissions, approvals, consents, if any, required of any other authorities, to the board of directors for sale, lease or dispose otherwise from time to time any part (including substantially the whole ..... every action taken by the board of directors it would lead to endless litigation and pin down the company within the four walls of a company court. the company court should shut its doors to them and deny entry.43. a division bench of our high court in r. r. rajendra menon (no. 2) v. cochin stock exchange ltd. [1990] 69 comp cas 256 held that the company court cannot exercise jurisdiction .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Nov-03-2003
Reported in : 2004(1)KLT245; [2004]135STC241(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioners in these cases challenge Sections 14(1), 14(1A) and 14(5) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as The Act') as unconstitutional and invalid. All the petitioners herein are dealers registered under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and under the Central Sales Tax Act (in short 'Central Act'). Section 13 of the Act requires compulsory registration of every dealer whose total turnover exceeds a particular limit. At present, Rs. 1 lakh is the limit prescribed under the Act. Section 14(1) prescribes the fees for registration. Section 14(1) after the amendment of the Act by Act 17 of 1988 with effect from 1.4.1988 with enhancement of rates pending till Act 23 of 1996 is as follows:'14. Procedure for registration : (1) An application for registration shall be made to such authority, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by a fee as specified below:- (a) Where the total turnover is less than...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Oct-27-2003
Reported in : (2004)187CTR(Ker)199; [2004]269ITR285(Ker)
K.S. RADHAKWSHNAN, J. 1. This reference has been made by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the IT Act to consider the following questions :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of Section 43B r/w Section 36(1)(va), the Tribunal is right in law in folding-- (i) second proviso imposes the condition of payment before the due date only in respect of any sum received by an assessee from his employees to which the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) apply. (ii) the assessee is entitled to deduct the sum of Rs. 32,900 being the contribution to Group Gratuity made on 18th Jan., 1991?' 2. The assessee is a partnership firm, carrying on business as shipping agents. One of the grounds raised by the assessee before the Tribunal was regarding disallowance under Section 43B of the IT Act in respect of the expenditure by way of premium payable under the Group Gratuity Scheme to the Life Insurance Corporation. It was contended by the assessee that the CIT(A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Oct-27-2003
Reported in : [2004]134TAXMAN503(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.This reference has been made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act to consider the following questions :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) the Tribunal is right in law in holding(i) second proviso imposes the condition of payment before the due date only in respect of any sum received by an assessee from his employees to which the provisions of section 2(24)(x) apply.(ii) the assessee is entitled to deduct the sum of Rs. 32,900 being the contribution to Group Gratuity made on 18-1-1991 ?'2. The assessee is a partnership firm, carrying on business as shipping agents. One of the grounds raised by the assessee before the Tribunal was regarding disallowance under section 43B of the Income Tax Act in respect of the expenditure by way of premium payable under the Group Gratuity Scheme to the Life Insurance Corporation. It was contended b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Oct-17-2003
Reported in : 2003(3)KLT981; (2004)IILLJ277Ker
R. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. Petitioners who were employed in the Canteen established by The Cochin Port Trust filed this petition for directing the respondents, the Cochin Port Trust to grant all benefits to the petitioners as regular staff of the Port Trust including Scale of Pay and other service benefits and for quashing Ext. P7 issued by the Port Trust on 24.3.2000 and also for other reliefs.2. It was alleged that the petitioners were the employees of the respondent-Cochin Port Trust and were working in the Canteen from 8 to 13 years continuously, that the above canteen was providing services to the workers under the Cochin Port Trust and was a statutory canteen established under Section 46 of the Factories Act. However, for the convenience, the Cochin Port Trust had entrusted the running of the Canteen with Contractors for some time and the contractors were running canteen with the employees permanently engaged by the Port Trust, with the facilities made available by the Port Trust in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Oct-01-2003
Reported in : 2004(2)KLT227
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioners in these Original Petitions challenge Ext. P-2 Government Order amending Rule 4 and introducing Rule 8A and increasing the royalty payable for granite. Petitioners are engaged in quarrying and mining operations. The Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 was enacted by the Central Government for the development of mines and minerals. Section 3 (a) and (e) of the Act deals with definitions, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:'(a) 'minerals' includes all minerals except mineral oils;(e) 'minor minerals' means building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes, and any other mineral which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a minor mineral.'2. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(e) of the Act, the Central Government declared the following as minor minerals:'(a) Boulder, Shingle, Chalaceony, Pebbles used for ball mill pur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-02-2003
Reported in : 2004(1)KLT695; (2004)IILLJ846Ker
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. Ext.P1 Government Order dated 24.9.1998 directing the Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation to comply with Clause 26A of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme and directing the respondents from discontinuing or reducing the rate of employees contribution under the E.P.F. Act from 12% on the amount of salary in excess of Rs. 5,000/- per month was under challenge at the instance of some of the employees and the Ernakulam Regional Co-operative Producers Union Officers Association.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation was contributing an equal amount of contribution as employers share to the Employees Provident Fund Scheme. The Audit Department raised objection noting that the share of contribution made by the employer was in excess of the limits under Clause 26A(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme. The above matter was brought to the notice of the Government....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Aug-27-2003
Reported in : 2003(3)KLT946; (2004)ILLJ617Ker
A.K. Basheer, J.1. Does the appellant-Association of Steamer Agents come within the purview of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948? This is the short question in this appeal under Section 82 of the Act, which has been referred to the Full Bench. First, the facts.2. The appellant is a registered Association consisting of Steamer Agents functioning in the Cochin Port. The appellant-Association has 57 Steamer Agents as members on its roll. The ships/steamers which visit the Cochin Port require services of Steamer Watchmen to do 'watch and ward duty'. Earlier the services of Steamer Watchmen were made available to the ships/Steamers by 'Watchmen Contractors'. In the year 1981, the labour unions raised a dispute regarding the service conditions of the Steamer Watchmen who were employed through the contractors. A conciliation meeting was convened by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Ernakulam. Representatives of the Indian Chamber of Commerce, Cochin and the Cochin Chamber of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jul-09-2003
Reported in : 2003(3)KLT42
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Does the proviso to Section 77(1A)(b) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 debar the Corporation from making any claim after five years from the date on which it had arisen? This question was answered in the negative by a Division Bench of this Court in Vijayan Pillai v. E.S.I. Corporation (1998 (1J KLT 373). It was held that 'by a legal fiction contained in Clause(b) the cause of action in respect of a claim by the Corporation from the principal employer arises on the date on which the Corporation makes the claim for the first time. The words 'five years of the period to which the claim relates' contained in the said proviso shall not be interpreted to mean that five years of the period in relation to which the amount of contribution is due.' The correctness of this view was doubted by a Division Bench. It was observed that 'the proviso to Clause(b) shows that no claim shall be made by the Corporation after five years of the period to which that claim ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jul-09-2003
Reported in : (2003)IIILLJ768Ker
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C. J.1. Does the proviso to Section 77(1-A)(b) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, debar the Corporation from making any claim after five years from the date on which it had arisen? This question was answered in the negative by a Division Bench of this Court in Vijayan Pilial N. v. ESI Corporation 1998-I-LLJ-1190 (Ker-DB). It was held that at p. 1192:'4.... By a legal fiction contained in Clause (b) the cause of action in respect of a claim by the Corporation from the principal employer arises on the date on which the Corporation makes the claim for the first time. The words 'five years of the period to which the claim relates' contained in the said proviso shall not be interpreted to mean that five years of the period in relation to which the amount of contribution is due.'The correctness of this view was doubted by a Division Bench. It was observed that:'the proviso to Clause (b) shows that no claim shall be made by the Corporation after five years of the ...
Tag this Judgment!