Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Sorted by: old Court: kerala Year: 1999 Page 2 of about 14 results (0.012 seconds)

Nov 23 1999 (HC)

Adv. S. Rajeev Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Nov-23-1999

Reported in : 2000(1)ALT300

a.r. lakshmanan, j.1. heard mr. t. ravi kumar for the petitioner and mr. k. ramakumar, senior central government standing counsel, for the respondents. we also heard mr. john varghese, additional central government standing counsel, who appeared for the respondents in o.p. no. 6115 of 1997, which is also on the same subject matter. 2. the petitioner is an advocate on the rolls of the kerala bar council, who is practising in this court and in other courts and tribunals. he applied for a new telephone connection within the territorial jurisdiction of parur telephone exchange in 1997. he made a representation on 13-2-1997 explaining the hardships faced by him due to the lack of telephone connection at his office and requested to give new telephone connection to the petitioner at his office on a priority basis considering his profession as a lawyer. he also stated in the representation that he had obtained telephone connection at his house in the ordinary category. the representation is marked as ext.p-3. the sub-divisional engineer, department of telecommunications, north paravoor sent a reply to ext.p-3 representation informing the petitioner that for getting a new telephone connection on priority basis by including his name in the non-oyt (special) category, the petitioner should not have a phone connection either at his office or at his residence and since the petitioner has a telephone at his residence, he is not eligible for special category registration. the reply is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 27 1999 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Geo Sea Foods

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Nov-27-1999

Reported in : [2000]244ITR44(Ker)

..... ) is a rule of evidence. presumptions which are rebuttable in nature are available to be drawn. the initial burden of discharging the onus of rebuttal is on the assessee. the rationale behind this view is that the basic facts are within the special knowledge of the assessee. section 106 of the evidence act, 1872, gives statutory recognition to this universally accepted .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 18 1999 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kishorekumar Shamji

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Dec-18-1999

Reported in : (2000)161CTR(Ker)225; [2000]244ITR702(Ker)

..... 1976) is a rule of evidence. presumptions which are rebuttable in nature are available to be drawn. the initial burden of discharging the onus of rebuttal is on the assessee. rationale behind this view is that the basic facts are within the special knowledge of the assessee. section 106 of the indian evidence act, 1872, gives statutory recognition to this universally .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 17 1999 (HC)

Komath Kumba Amma and ors. Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Nov-17-1999

Reported in : AIR2000Ker215

..... losses of earnings, and the present cost of his future expenses, ought to be determined by using in the calculations a discount rate of 4 to 5 per cent. the rationale was that there was no other practicable basis of calpulation that is capable of dealing with so conjectural a factor as inflation with greater precision. . . . . the question before the house .....

Tag this Judgment!


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