Kerala Court May 1998 Judgments
Khataisons Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-28-1998
Reported in: [2003]133STC580(Ker)
Om Parkash, C.J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. These revision cases, briefly, raise a common but short question for consideration whether carpets in which the assessee is dealing, fall under item 100B or under item 3 of the Third Schedule appended to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act').3. The meaning of the word 'pile' as per the Concise Oxford Dictionary is 'soft hair, down, wool of sheep, soft surface on cloth especially on velvet, plush, etc. or on carpet'. The submission of learned counsel for the assessee is that the carpets the assessee deals in, are not the pile carpets, but the pile carpet is one which has layers one upon another. Layers in carpet weaving are unknown and, therefore, we reject the contention of learned counsel for the assessee that pile carpet means a carpet woven by wool, a pattern of which contains layers one upon another. Pile carpets--in common parlance--are carpets, which have the smooth surface irrespective of the fact whethe...
Tag this Judgment!E.L. Joseph Vs. Dharmarajan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-27-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4099
D. Sreedevi, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the order of acquittal dt. 8-12-1994 in S.T. Case No. 111/1992 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kunnamkulam. The appellant is the complainant in the above case. The respondents are the respondents before the Court below. The respondents were charged for offences under Sections 143, 147, 447, 427 and 506(ii) read with Section 147, I.P.C. The complaint of the appellant is that when the case was posted for evidence on 8-12-1994, he could not appear before the Court as the date was mistakenly noted by his advocate clerk. He was made to understand that the case stands posted to 9-12-1994. On the day when the case was called on for hearing, as the appellant was not present in Court and no representation was made, the Court below acquitted the accused. According to the counsel the appellant was prosecuting the matter diligently and because of the inadvertent mistake of the posting date, he could not appear before the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. S.S. Subramanian Vs. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-27-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4738
D. Sreedevi, J.1. The appellant is the accused in C.C. No. 219/1995 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda. The offence alleged against the accused is punishable under Section 193 I. P. C. The appellant is a practising physician. During the course of his practice he treated one Sri K. D. Thomas for severe pain on the left side of chest, cough and fever. Thomas met with a motor accident on 8-7-1990 and was treated in the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur. Even though he was discharged from the Medical College Hospital, the pain persisted and hence he was treated by the appellant from 10-8-1990 onwards and the appellant has issued a permanent disability certificate stating that he has sustained 15% permanent disability, which was marked as Ext. A 1 in that case. Thomas filed M.V.O.P. 2394/1993 before the 1st respondent. The said certificate was marked through Sri Thomas. The Claims Tribunal found a fracture also in the certificate. According to him, Thomas has ...
Tag this Judgment!Travancore Chemical and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-22-1998
Reported in: [1999]237ITR821(Ker)
K.K. Usha, J.1. A reference, at the instance of the assessee under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arises out of a decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I. T. A. No. 145/Coch. of 1979. The relevant assessment year is 1977-78. Three questions are raised for the opinion of this court. It is admitted by both sides that instead of the words 'excise duty' the words 'electricity charges' are to be substituted in question No. 1. So also, in question No. 3, the words 'capable of being used' are to be read as 'capable of being obtained'. The questions are therefore reframed as follows :'1. Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 5,58,697 received by the assessee by way of refund of electricity charges in the subsequent year is taxable in the year under consideration under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in its view that the Supreme Court decision rendered during the accounting...
Tag this Judgment!Travancore Chemical and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-22-1998
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Ker)256
Mrs. K.K. Usha, J.:Reference, at the instance of the assessee under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arises out of a decision of the Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA 145/Coch/79. The relevant assessment year is 1977-78. Three questions are raised for the opinion of this Court. It is admitted by both sides that instead of the words 'excise duty' the words 'electricity charges' are to be substituted in question No. 1. So also, in question No. 3, the words 'capable of being used' are to be read as . capable of being obtained'. The questions are therefore re-framed as follows:'1. Was the Tribunal justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 5,58,697 received by the assessee by way of refund of electricity charges in the subsequent year is taxable in the year under consideration under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?2. Was the Tribunal justified in its view that the Supreme Court decision rendered during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year under considerati...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Lakshmykutty Amma and ors., Sre ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-21-1998
Reported in: 1999ACJ597; [1999]97CompCas46(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, j. 1. The subject matter of these appeals is the interim awards passed by the Additional M. A. C. Tribunal, Mavelikara, under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). These appeals were filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the motor vehicle, involved in a rail-motor collision which took place on May 14, 1996, at the railway level crossing on public road near Mampra-Alum-mood junction. In the collision 33 persons died and their legal heirs filed applications under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation. In these appeals we are concerned with three of such applications. After filing the main applications the claimants filed separate petitions under Section 140 of the Act praying for interim awards. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000 each in those applications by three separate interim awards after hearing the parties. Those awards are under challenge in these appeals filed by the insurer.2. Heard learned counsel for t...
Tag this Judgment!Kesavan Thankappan Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD(Cri)607; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)202; [1998]93CompCas574(Ker); 1999CriLJ714
K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. The complainant in S. T. C. No. 32 of 1990, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Cherthala, is the appellant.2. The appellant filed the complaint before the lower court alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the respondent. According to him, the respondent borrowed Rs. 10,000 from him on July 15, 1989, from his house and issued a chequefor Rs. 10,000 drawn on the District Treasury Savings Bank, Alappuzha, and when the cheque was presented for encashment on December 26, 1989, it bounced. It is also alleged that when the appellant came to know about the dishonour of the cheque on January 9, 1990, he caused to send registered notice to the respondent on January 18, 1990, informing about the dishonour of the cheque and calling upon him to pay the amount. But that notice was returned unserved and again he caused to send another notice dated January 30, 1990. But the respondent has not ...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Lakshmi Silks Vs. Remanika Silks Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-21-1998
Reported in: [1998]94CompCas440(Ker)
K.A. Mohammed Shafi , J. 1. This petition under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act is filed by the petitioner for winding up of the respondent-company,2. The respondent is a private limited company incorporated on May 4, 1993, under the provisions of the Companies Act engaged in the business of manufacturing, designing, printing, processing, purchasing, exporting, importing, selling and dealing in silk sarees and other silk materials. The petitioner is a dealer in sarees particularly silk sarees in Coimbatore. The respondent used to place orders with the petitioner for supply of sarees in the course of the business and the petitioner used to supply sarees as per the orders.3. According to the petitioner, they supplied sarees worth Rs. 45,51,830 under invoice Nos. 5087 to 5097 dated February 1, 1994, and invoice Nos. 5360 to 5369 dated May 25, 1994. Deducting a sum of Rs. 23,20,945 being the value of the goods returned on various dates, a sum of Rs. 20,05,150 was due to the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!N.R. Somasundaran Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-21-1998
Reported in: 1999(107)ELT303(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J.1. The short question for consideration in these tax revision cases (T.R.C., for brevity) is whether plastic storage tanks fall under Entry 145 or 217 of the First Schedule appended to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.2. Entry 145 runs as under :'145. Plastics and articles made of plastics including plastic pipes.'Entry 217 if extracted below :'217. Water supply and sanitary equipments and fittings.'3. The contention of the revision-petitioner before us is that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was wrong in holding that plastic water tanks fall under Entry 217. It is contended that plastic tanks being articles of plastic, fall under 145.4. The Appellate Tribunal found as follows :'4. These plastic containers are traded in the market as water tanks. It is made up of plastic. A water tank can be made by different materials. Therefore if we apply the commercial parlance test or even the predominant functional test, it is found that the plastic tanks sold by the appell...
Tag this Judgment!G. Jayakumar Vs. Superintendent, Central Excise, Customs Preventive an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-21-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4427
K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. Four accused persons stood trial before the Sessions Court, Thiruvanantha-puram for the offences punishable under Sections 21 and 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act on the basis of the complaint filed by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Customs Preventive and Intelligence Unit. Divisional Office, Thiruvananthapuram in O.R. 3/N.D.P.S./93.2. The prosecution case is that on 27-12-1993 at about 5 p.m. accused Nos. 1 to 3 were found in Kunnukattil Veedu, Pamamkode, Pappunamcode in the possession of the 1 st accused and they were in possession of 506 gms. of brown sugar which is a narcotic drug having estimated value of Rs. 1.5 lakhs for the purpose of illegal sale in contravention of the provisions of the N.D.P.S Act and accused Nos. 2 to 4 purchased, possessed and transported the brown sugar to the aforesaid house of the 1st accused immediately before the case was detected by PW1, the Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs.3. The lower Court framed charge against the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »