Kerala Court February 1999 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
B. Sreedharan Nair Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-08-1999
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Ker)550
P. Shanmugam, J.:Petitioner challenges the attachment proceedings initiated against the properties gifted by the 5th respondent-father. The case of the petitioner is that -property belonging to the 5th respondent was transferred on 10-7-1989, with the knowledge of the order of assessment and, therefore, it is submitted that towards the gift tax arrears properties gifted to the petitioner are not liable.2. The 4th respondent, T-RO has filed a counter wherein it is averred that to the knowledge of the respondents, the 5th respondent has no other property. the property item No. 7 in Ext. P1 has already been sold to Sri. Karunakaran Nair and his wife Vijayakumari. The sale was executed before the service of attachment notice under r. 2 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961. Even then, this property was also attached by the issue of ITCP-16 for avoiding further alienation. By virtue of s. 29 of the GT Act, the gift-tax may be recovered from the donee, if in the opinion of the G...
V.K. Johney Vs. Executive Engineer, Division No. Ii, Kerala State Hous ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: [2000]118STC498(Ker)
P. Shanmugam, J.1. Sub-section (7B) of Section 7 as amended is under challenge Section 5 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' is a charging section. Section 5(1)(iv) of the Act deals with the works contract. Section 7 of the Act deals with compounding of tax. Sub-section (7) of that section enables every contractor in civil works of construction to exercise an option to pay tax at the rate of two per cent on the whole amount of contract. Sub-section (7A) of Section 7 enables the contractor other than the civil work construction to pay tax at the rate of seventy per cent shown in the Fourth Schedule, Proviso to Sub-section (7A) states that if the contractor's contracted amount does not exceed rupees fifty lakhs, he can opt to pay tax at five per cent of such contracted amount.2. Sub-section (7B), as it stood prior to April 1, 1998, obliged that every awarder shall deduct at the rate of 2 per cent in respect of civil contracts and 5 per cent in ...
N.V. Joseph Vs. Dist. Collector and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker189
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner is challenging Ext. P4 proceedings of the Collector revising the building tax. Petitioner's building was assessed to building tax by order dated 21-7-1990. Petitioner's appeal was disposed of by Ext. P2 proceedings dated 17-1-1992. Section 13(2) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 provides that District Collector shall not suo motu revise an order under Sub-section (1) if that order has been passed more than three months previously. Since the appellate order was passed two years ago, District Collector cannot invoke the provisions ofSection 13(2). Another question raised by the respondent is that it can be under Section 15 of the Act. Section 15 relates to rectification of mistakes. Ext. P2 order is passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki. That can be rectified by the same officer. A revisional authority cannot rectify the appellate authority's order under Section 15. Section 15 is for correcting mistakes apparent on the basis of record by the...
Ravindran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2364
N. Dhinakar, J.1. The accused in S.C. No. 146 of 1997 was tried and convicted under Section 302, IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Thalassery. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The allegation against him before the trial Court was that on the noon of 14-7-1996 he caused the death of his wife Thankamani by strangling her with a towel as he suspected her chastity. To prove the above allegation, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 19 and marked Exts. P1 to P1 1 as well as M.Os. 1 to 9.2. The appellant, who hereinafter will be referred to as 'the accused' is the husband of the deceased. P.Ws. 1,2 and 4 are the elder brothers of the deceased. P.W. 3 is the wife of P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 is the wife of P.W. .4. P.W. 11 is the husband of the niece of the accused. The accused and the deceased were residing at Edoor adjacent to the house of P.W. 4. The accused suspected that the deceased was in illicit intimacy with P.W. 11, the husband of his niece. On account of such suspicion he was pi...
Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker290
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and it is fully owned by the Government of India. It constructed residential flats in 24 multi-storeyed flats and one building for telephone exchange. In the return tiled by the company under the Kerala Building Tax Act and Ext. F2 objections, company contended that it is a company fully owned by the Government of India and, therefore, buildings are owned by Government and it is exempted under Section 3(1) of the Act and before assessment this question should be referred to the Government under Section 3(2). Second contention raised was that each flat in the residential complex is built to provide accommodation to the employees and, therefore, each flat is separate. Since most of the flats arc below 75 square metres they arc exempt and in any event assessment should be made on each flats separately.2. First, I may take the contention that each flat should be considered as separate b...
T. Jayarajan Vs. P.R. Muhammed and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1856
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. This Crl. M. C. is filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 436/95 on the file of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thalassery to set aside the order dt. 6-6-98 passed by the Sessions Court, Thalassery in Crl. R. P. No. 50/98. No. 50/98.2. The petitioner filed a private complaint against the 1st respondent alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court after trial found the 1st respondent guilty of the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisionment for 4 months. The complainant filed Crl. R.P. No. 50/98 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery for enhancement of the sentence awarded by the trial Court. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 6-6-1998 dismissed the revision petition by finding that a revision petition by the complainant for enhancement of the sentence is not maintainable before the Sessions Court. This Crl. M.C. is ...
Jose Augustine and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker293
P. Shanmugam, J. 1. This Original Petition challenges the vires of Section 157 (dealing with no confidence motion) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', and the consequential notices and proceedings taken.2. The petitioners arc elected members of Kalloorkad Village Panchayath. The 1st petitioner is the Vice-President of the Panchayath and the 2nd petitioner is the Standing Committee Chairman of the Panchayath. The total strength of the Panchayath is 8.A notice under Section 157(2) of the Act was received by the Deputy Director of Panchayats, the 3rd respondent herein on 12-1-1999. In pursuance to the said notice the Deputy Director has convened the meeting of the elected members of the Panchayath on 29-1-1999 to consider the no confidence motion as per Sections 157(3) and 157(5) of the Act. At this stage this Original Petition is presented inter alia contending that the removal of a Chairperson once elected is not contemplated under the Constitutional ...
Principal, St. Thomas College Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker343
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J. 1. The petitioner constructed a building for educational purposes and claimed exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Section 3 of the Act is as follows :--'Exemptions -- (1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to - (a) buildings owned by the Government of Kerala or the Government of India or any localauthority; and (b) buildings used principally for religious, charitable or educational purposes or as factory or workshops. Explanation.-- For the purposes of this sub-section, 'charitable purpose' includes relief of the poor and free medical relief. (2) If any question arises as to whether a building falls under Sub-section (1) (or under Section 3A) it shall be referred to the Government, and the Government shall decide the question after giv-i ng the interested parties an opportunity to present their case. (3) A decision of the Government under Sub-section (2) shall be final and shall not be called in que...
New Road Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker262
A.S. Venkatachala Moorthy, J.1. The case of the petitioner is that it is a club constituted by the youths of Kochi to involve in social services for the betterment of Kochi and for the advancement of sports, arts and cultural activities. In this original petition, the petitioner prays for getting relief to people at large from public nuisance. It is stated in the original petition that extremely grave nuisance is being caused to the residents of Mohammed Abdul Rahiman Road and nearby areas due to the conducting of public meetings at the Mahalara Junction. It is claimed that the said Mahalara Junction is a small junction which is the converging point of 4 roads, situated at the heart of a highly populated residential area. A mosque and one school is situated very near the junction, and within a radius of 100 metres from the Junction there are more than 500 families, living in the areas namely Bungalow Parambu, Panachikka Parambu, Kodukuthan Parambu, Valiya Parambu and Sealat lane and th...
K.A. Sudesh and ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-1999
Reported in: [2000]241ITR562(Ker)
A.S. Venkatachala Moorthy, J. 1. The present original petition has been filed questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Special Range, Trivandrum (first respondent), dated December 1, 1995, a copy of the same is marked as exhibit P-8.2. The second respondent, which is a private limited company, proposed to sell some property in favour of the petitioners herein. As the sale consideration exceeded rupees two lakhs, as required under Section 230A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, an application was made for the issuance of the certificate which alone would enable the parties to get the document registered. In this case, the application was made by the petitioners. In the order dated December 1, 1993, the first respondent has expressed his inability to issue a certificate under Section 230A unless all the legal requirements for issue of the same are satisfied by the second respondent. Aggrieved by this, the present original petition h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›