Reported in : II(2007)BC406; [2006]133CompCas904(Ker); 2007CriLJ1486
.....bench on a reference in ramkrishnan's case : 2003(2)klt613 . the division bench, relying on the provisions of section 25(3) of the indian contract act and section 46 of the negotiable instruments act had come to the conclusion that the cheque drawn for the discharge of time-barred liability would still fall within the purview of section 138 of the negotiable instruments act. 6. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the precise question as to whether such an acknowledgment can be reckoned as a valid acknowledgment under section 18 of the limitation act in the light of the decisions in commissioner of income-tax v. ogale glass works ltd. : [1954]25itr259(sc) , chacko varkey v. thommen thomas [1957] klt 870 [fb], ramachandran v. velayudhan [1986] klt 647 and food corporation of india v. assam state co-op. marketing and consumer federation ltd. : (2004)12scc360 was not specifically considered by the division bench and in these circumstances the said decision may require reconsideration. 7. i have considered the submissions. i am unable to agree with learned counsel. it is evident that the decision of the division bench does not rest on the interpretation of section 18.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2006(4)KLT432
.....contained in that section, this original petition has come up before this court, which essentially is in the nature of a suit for partition.3. the facts of this case makes interesting reading. the 1st petitioner in this original petition, namely, smt. krishnakumari thampuran is a member of the cochin royal family. she originally married a namboodiri and begot a male child in that wedlock. later on, while the said husband was still alive, without obtaining divorce, the 1st petitioner married a muslim and begot two children in that marriage, who are petitioners 2 and 3 in this original petition. essentially, this original petition relates to the claim of petitioners 2 and 3, the children of the 1st petitioner, in her illegitimate marriage, for share in the family properties, namely, the valiamma thampuran kovilagam estate and the palace fund in accordance with the partition act. while the palace administration board denies the right of petitioners 2 and 3 as members of the cochin royal family, the petitioners claim that they are members of the thavazhi of their mother and as such are entitled to equal shares in the family properties just like any other member of the family.4......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007(1)KLT125
.....to pay tax.2. in order to appreciate the contentions raised, we have to refer to the relevant provision of the statute and in this regard we extract hereunder section 3(1) of the act with the proviso thereunder:3. charge of agricultural income tax -- (1) tax at the rate or rates specified in the schedule to this act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.provided that no tax is payable by any person other than a company or a firm where the total extent of landed properties, the agricultural income from which is assessable at his hands under the provisions of this act do not exceed three hectares.3. the contention of counsel for petitioner is that the total extent of land to be considered for the purpose of exemption is only the land where from agricultural income is derived. the special government pleader appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that as is evident from the proviso, exemption is available only if the total extended of landed property is within 3 hectares. it is seen that the limit of holding for exemption is.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007(1)KLJ69; (2007)9VST569(Ker)
.....copy of the notification produced in court that the government issued the clarification on application for sales tax exemption by a section of manufacturers and dealers of nylon fish net including matsya fed, an organisation under government control. when the parties sought for exemption, government felt that no exemption was required as the item falls under the third schedule to the act. in spite of government orders, the assessing officers levied tax because this court held in a series of decisions that section 59a under which the government issued the above clarification is invalid. counsel for the assessees besides referring to government orders relied on the decision of the supreme court in reliance trading co. v. state of kerala [2006] 147 stc 211, wherein the supreme court in a similar case held that tarpaulin made up of cotton fabric is entitled to exemption even though tarpaulin was brought under the first schedule taxable at the point of first sale in the state. situation in this case is almost the same as in the tarpaulin case because original entry 7 later substituted by entry 11 of the third schedule to the act provides for exemption from man-made fabric covered.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (2007)10VST565(Ker)
.....are entitled to exemption under section 5(3) of the cst act. the question raised and considered before the tribunal is whether there is manufacturing or processing of raw hides and skins to produce tanned and dressed hides, to disentitle the petitioner to claim exemption under section 5(3) of the cst act. the tribunal, following the unreported decision of this court in t.m. shajahan v. state of kerala in s.t. rev. nos. 107, 108, 109, 110, 119 and 122 of 2003, considered only whether there is manufacturing or processing involved in converting raw hides and skins into tanned or dressed product for disentitling exemption under section 5(3) of the act. however, on going through the assessment in one case, i.e., s.t. rev. 197 of 2006 for the assessment year 1989-90, we find the assessing officer in principle accepted the petitioner's eligibility for export exemption under section 5(3) in respect of raw hides and skins processed and exported, but disallowed exemption because none of the ingredients of section 5(3) were satisfied by the petitioner. in the detailed order, the assessing officer found that exports are not made by the petitioner directly and exports are through.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : AIR2006Guj251
.....no efforts were made by the plaintiff to resolve the dispute with regard to breach of terms and conditions of the agreement dated 10-10-1972 and in fact the claim against the defendant no.2 was not pressed. he has relied upon following decisions in support of his submission that the bank is nothing to do with the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant no.2; it is not permissible for the bank to refuse payment on the ground that the buyer is claiming that there is no breach of contract; nor can the bank try to decide the question of breach at the time of discharging bank guarantee and refuse payment to the seller; and the bank is bound to discharge the bank guarantee on production of relevant documents and on demand, unless there is a fraud. 1.ansal engineering project ltd. v. tehri hydro development corporation ltd. and anr. reported in : (1996)5scc450 2.itc ltd. v. debts recovery appellate tribunal and ors. reported in : air1998sc634 3.u.p. cooperative federation ltd. v. singh consultants and engineers (p) ltd. reported in : [1988]1scr1124 4.makharia brothers v. state of nagaland and ors. reported in : air1999sc3466 5.federal bank ltd. v. v.m. jog engineering ltd and.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007(34)PTC1(Guj)
.....into seven lines. a quasi judicial authority should shun such a practice which is abhorrent to the principles of natural justice. all the relevant facts of the case should be brought out in the order and the reasons for arriving at the conclusion be discussed in the order.3. before i deal with the merits of the matter, the judicial conscience warrants me to discharge an unpleasant duty.mr. p.m. thakkar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the fact that a decision of the ipab in the matter of asian paints (supra) was cited before respondent no. 2 the assistant registrar before he passed the impugned order. but, still, he has passed the order impugned overlooking a binding decision of ipab. that being so, this court called upon learned advocate for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 to file an affidavit, so that it may not be said that before passing an order against respondent no. 2, an opportunity was not given.it is shocking that an assistant registrar has filed an affidavit which shocks the judicial conscience. the assistant registrar respondent no. 2 in his affidavit affirmed on 05.08.2006 has admitted that the decision of ipab was cited before him.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : RLW2007(1)Raj123
.....loss. then, also considering the provisions of section 76 of the indian railways act, it was held, that the defendants have failed to show any satisfactory reason, as to why goods were not rescued from the place of accident for about 3 months and 21 days. likewise, even after collecting the goods from the accident site, the delivery was not given to the plaintiff till after three weeks, while the delivery was to be effected within a period of seven days from the date of booking. then, it was found, that the loss occurred to the plaintiff was, on account of negligence of the railway authorities. thus, this issue was also decided against the railway authorities. in view of the above findings the plaintiff's suit was decreed.9. arguing the appeal it was contended, firstly, that the learned trial court was in error in deciding issue no. 1, as it is not established on record that the plaintiff firm is registered partnership firm, and unless it is so registered, the suit is not maintainable. the other submission made is, that the accident was an act of god, as it happened on account of some fault in the railway track, and therefore, in view of the provisions of section 74(3) of the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : II(2007)ACC178
.....the motor vehicles act against the judgment/award dated 19.3.1996 of the motor accident claims tribunal, jaipur city, jaipur.2. briefly stated the facts are that the bus rj 19p p11 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1 hit the jeep rst 1262 at about 6.00 a.m. on 9.5.1992 in front of the pink city petrol pump, jaipur. the appellants who were travelling by the jeep suffered injuries in the accident. after hearing the parties the learned tribunal by a common judgment dated 19.3.1996 passed an award in favour of the claimants-appellants as under:------------------------------------------------------------name of claimant-appellant appeal no. award amount------------------------------------------------------------raju sharma 628/96 rs. 30,000boduram 620/96 rs. 30,000ram dayal 630/96 rs. 45,000roodmal 631/96 rs. 5,000smt. nathi devi 633/96 rs. 15,000------------------------------------------------------------3. aggrieved by the judgment/award the claimant-appellants have filed these five appeals.4. mr. k.n. tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned tribunal in the five cases is grossly inadequate and, therefore,.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....as under.pending disposal of the aforesaid appeal the operation of the provisions of the karnataka hindu religious charitable institutions endowment act and rides, vix, sections 9 to 16, 17 to 19, 25, 37 and 78(2)(a) and rules 5 and 17, 8 to 20, 22 and 36 in so far as appellants are concerned be and the same are hereby stayed.10. a cursory glance at the order indicates that the stay granted is confined to the appellant therein and the provisions of the 1997 act are not stayed in general. but, be that as it may, i find no need or necessity to entertain the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner to question the legality of an innocuous notification as at annexure-b, particularly as all that is achieved by this notification is providing the alternative forum which can now examine the causes that were pending either before the assistant charity commissioner or before the charity commissioner, in the context of such proceedings which were already pending before such authorities tinder the 1950 act, who were not admittedly the court, if an alternative forum is provided, assuming that it is conferred on any civil court as has been done under the present notification,.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT