Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2003)181CTR(Ker)487; [2003]263ITR279(Ker)
G. Swarajan, J.1. The matter arises under the IT Act, 1961 (for short, the Act). The appellant is an assessee to income-tax on the files of the respondent. The appellant was holding 255 equity shares of face value of Rs. 100 in a company by name SISCO Ltd. Another company M/s Essar Shipping Ltd. (Essar) of Essar Group made an open offer vide its letter dt. 24th June, 1991, for acquisition of the shares of M/s SISCO Ltd. As per the offer for the transfer of each share, the Essar Shipping Ltd. would give a consideration in cash Rs. 65 and 50 equity shares of Essar Shipping Ltd, of the face value of Rs. 10 each as fully paid. Pursuant to the said offer, the appellant sold his 255 shares to Essar. The assessee got 12,750 shares of Essar and Rs. 16,575 as consideration for the transfer of 255 shares of SISCO.2. The appellant filed his return of income under the Act for the asst. yr. 1992-93, wherein he had returned capital gains on account of the sale of 255 equity shares of SISCO Ltd. at R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2007(114)FLR301]
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. A question of law which had gained the attention of the Supreme Court of India in several cases including a Constitution Bench decision, has again been raked up by a management in an industrial dispute relying on an observation by a recent Supreme Court decision by a bench of lesser strength.The issue relates to the point of time at which a management has to seek opportunity to adduce fresh/additional evidence for justifying the disciplinary action taken against a workman, in the event of the domestic enquiry conducted by the management, on the basis of which punishment was imposed on the workman, is held to be not valid and proper. The question is whether such an opportunity should be requested for by the management at the threshold of the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, namely at the time of filing of written statement itself by the management, or whether it is sufficient if the request for the opportunity is made at any time before the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2000]99CompCas359(Ker)
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. M.C.A. No. 6 of 1999 is filed by a company named St. Mary's Finance Limited, Nedumchalil Buildings, Mullassery Canal Road, Cochin-682011, under Section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'). The said company will be referred to as the company hereinafter. The company prayed that a meeting of the creditors be held 'for the purpose of considering and if thought fit, approving, with or without modification a scheme of compromise or arrangement proposed to be made between the company and the said creditors'. The proposed scheme is produced as annexure 'F'. The application was filed on January 20, 1999. On January 21, 1999, when it came up for admission, this court passed an order appointing a chairman for the conduct of the said meeting to be held on March 7, 1999. In the said application it is admitted by the company that it had been declared a 'Nidhi' company as per notification dated December 17, 1988, by the Central Government. Nidhi company is referred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2006Ker26; I(2006)DMC155; 2005(4)KLT1
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Defendants 1 to 4 in a suit for partition are the appellants in this second appeal challenging the preliminary decree passed by the trial court, confirmed in first appeal. The first appellant having died during the pendency of the second appeal, appellants 2 to 4 were recorded as her legal representatives.2. Sri. Ramunni, a Hindu, died intestate on 25-2-1974. His estate is sought to be partitioned. The late first defendant was his widow. Defendants 2 to 4 are their children. Plaintiff and defendants 5 to 8 are, admittedly, the children of Ramunni through Kallyani, who is not a party to the suit, but examined as P.W.2.3. Defendants 1 to 4, the appellants herein, contended that there was no valid marriage between Ramunni and Kallyani and accordingly, the plaintiff and defendants 5 to 8 were the illegitimate children of Ramunni and hence not entitled to succeed to his estate.4. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court found that Ramunni and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(2)KLJ488
ORDERT.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This Revision Petition is filed by the tenants challenging the judgment rendered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. This respondent herein is the landlord. The landlord filed RCP No. 42/1998 to evict the tenants under Sections 11(2), 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The rent control court dismissed the eviction petition, and on appeal by the landlord the appellate authority has allowed eviction under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Act.2. The facts of the case which are necessary for disposing of the revision petition are the following:The tenant premises is a shop room in the ground floor of a multi storeyed building. The landlord is occupying a similar shop room adjacent to it on the northern side of the petition schedule room. The same is owned by his wife, and the landlord is conducting jewellery shop named 'Maharani Jewellers' in the said shop room. The petition schedule shop room was purchased...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. These revisions under Sections 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") and Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arise from orders passed by the learned Additional Munsiff-II, Neyyattinkara on various applications preferred by the petitioners in the revisions in E.P. No.80 of 1979 in O.S. No.67 of 1957 of that court. Judgment debtors, aggrieved by the respective orders against them have filed the revisions while additional decree holder No.3 who is respondent No.1 in the revisions has filed W. P(C) No.28525 of 2010 aggrieved by that part of the order against him. Parties are referred to as petitioners (in the revisions) and respondent No.1 (petitioner in the Writ Petition). 2. Punnakkulathu tarwad, in Neyyattinkara Taluk owned large extent of properties. While so, Easwara Pillai Krishna Pillai of the tarwad created mortgage over a plot of land called "Charivuvila Purayidom" comprised in Sy.No.478/1B and belonging to the said tarwad in favour of one Padman...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2004Ker187; 2004(1)KLT952
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. In S.A.No. 887 of 1999, defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No. 466 of 1992, on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thrissur, are the appellants. In S.A. No. 205 of 1999, the defendant in O.S.No. 2002 of 1990 before the same court is the appellant. The suits were tried separately and decided by separate judgments. Appeals were also filed separately and decided by separate judgments. Since common questions are involved and the plaintiffs in the two suits are sisters and plaint schedule properties are adjacent buildings, both the second appeals are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. The plaint schedule properties belonged to the plaintiffs' mother. The plaint schedule in O.S.No. 2002 of 1990 is a shed having a length of 68 feet and a width of 151/2 feet, with walls and tiled roof. According to the plaintiff, it was given to the defendant's father on a licence arrangement for running a workshop. After the death of defendant's father, the defendant was allowed to run the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2007Ker1; 2006(4)KLT311; 2007(34)PTC231(Ker)
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal is against an order of temporary injunction passed on an application under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their principal officers, directors, agents, franchisees, servants, licenses and all other persons acting for and on behalf of the defendants from publishing, advertising, reproducing, storing in any manner in any medium now known or in the future being developed, transmitting, offering for sale, selling, distributing, issuing to the public, licensing, renting, allowing access either through their website or CD-ROMS either free or for a fee, judgments which are identical, of a substantial and/or colourable reproduction of the text of the judgments of the Kerala Law Times (including head-notes, short notes, long notes, editorial notes, citations, various copy editing inputs described therein), as published in the KLT, or in any other p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2009(235)ELT435(Ker); 2008(3)KLT694
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. This batch of Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common judgment since common questions relating to interpretation of the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Standards Act'), the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Enforcement Act') and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') are involved in these cases.2. W.A. Nos. 218 of 2003 and 1098 of 2003 arise out of O.P. No. 16488 of 1998. The Original Petition was filed by Godrej/GE Appliances Limited, first respondent in the Writ Appeals. These Writ Appeals are being dealt with at first so that the decision herein can be followed, to the extent possible, in other cases.3. O.P. No. 16488 of 1998 was filed for the following reliefs:(a) for an order and declaration of this Hon'ble Court that the provisions of Standards of W...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : III(2003)BC241; 2003(2)KLT613
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. Is the plea of limitation available to the accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this Revision Petition, which has been referred to a Division Bench. A few facts may be noticed. 2. On May 31, 1991, the petitioner-accused had given a cheque for an amount of Rs. 75,000/- to the 1st respondent-complainant. It was presented to the Bank. It was returned with the remarks - 'funds insufficient'. The position was conveyed to the 1st respondent by a letter dated June 6, 1991. On June 17, 1991, the 1st respondent issued a notice to the petitioner. It was accepted by him. However, the amount was not paid. Thus, the 1st respondent filed the complaint against the petitioner in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam. 3. After trial, the court vide its judgment dated April 26, 1995, held that the petitioner-accused was guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the N...
Tag this Judgment!