Kerala Court November 2000 Judgments
Vilasini Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2000
Reported in: [2001]123STC127(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This TRC is filed against the judgment in T.A. Nos. 427 to 429 of 1995 and 247/97. The petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act in respect of the business turnover in Yamuna Tourist Home, Adoor. The petitioner was assessed for sales tax for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 by the Additional Sales Tax Officer, Adoor, fixing assessable turnover at Rs. 11,50,330 for the year 1990-91, Rs. 14,16,925/- for the year 1991-92, Rs. 17,30,100/-for the year 1992-93 and Rs. 21,50,790/- for the year 1993-94. The assessments were made on estimate rejecting the returns filed and accounts produced for theyears. The petitioner filed 4 appeals against the said assessment. The appellate authority modified the assessment for the first three years to some extent and dismissed the appeal for the 4th year confirming the assessment order in toto. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. True copy of the order of the T...
Tag this Judgment!E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Balaraman
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR848]; (2001)ILLJ777Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Employees' State Insurance Corporation challenges the judgment of the Employees' Insurance Court in I.C. No. 93/89. A Tile Factory owned by one Francis was attached by the Civil Court at the instance of his creditors. The Sub-Court, Irinjalakuda appointed a Receiver. The respondent herein took the possession of the factory on lease arrangement from the Court Receiver. Prior to his taking over, for two years the factory was not working. After the renovation when the factory started functioning he engaged more than the required employees and started the coverage of the employees under the E.S.I. Scheme. Contributions were regularly paid. Thereafter he purchased the factory in Court auction. The ownership was vested in a partnership firm in which respondent was the Managing Partner. Then the factory was sold by him in 1985 to M.D. John & Sons and they are running the factory now. But contribution was demanded for the period from 5.7.1975 to 26.11.1977 by letter dated 4.10...
Tag this Judgment!Premier Steels Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-2000
Reported in: [2001]122STC522(Ker)
M. Ramachandran, J. 1. The petitioner, a registered partnership-firm, is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. It is submitted that they deal with taxable and non-taxable goods, and while submitting returns for the years 1988-89 to 1990-91, mistakes had arisen due to misclassification.2. Finding the above, in respect of the year 1988-89 the Sales Tax Officer had issued an order (exhibit P4) imposing Rs. 5,000 as penalty. It is seen that the Deputy Commissioner suo motu cancelled the order and directed a review by the first respondent. The result was exhibits P5, P6 and P7 and penalty imposed for the three assessment years went over Rs. 12 lakhs. In the revision, the second respondent, by exhibit P8, substantially reduced the penalty which came to about Rs. 4 lakhs.3. The petitioner had filed a revision from the orders, under Section 45A(5) of the Act. Pending the above, the Commissioner (third respondent) gave notice proposing to set aside exhibit P8 order and for restori...
Tag this Judgment!Raghavan Vs. Sreedhara Panicker
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Ker203
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. The petitioner in R.C.P. No. 158 of 1985 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode, being the landlord of a building, is the petitioner in this Revision filed under S. 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act. The landlord sought eviction of the legal representatives of the tenant, one Kelappa Panicker, from the petition schedule building on the allegation that the building has been sublet by them to respondent No. 3 before the Rent Control Court Kelappa Panicker, the predecessor of respondents 1,2 and 4 to 8, was an Astrologer. He died in the year 1973. Respondent No. 3, before the Rent Control Court, according to him, had learnt astrology from Kelappa Panicker, the original tenant. His case was that he was practising the profession of that of an Astrologer alongwith Kelappa Panicker in the petition schedule building even during the life time of Kelappa Panicker. After the death of Kelappa Panicker and hence there was no sub-letting ...
Tag this Judgment!Annakutty Robert Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Ker220
G. Sivarajan, J.1. These Writ Petitions relate to the grant of Higher Secondary Course popularly known as 'Plus-two Course' to the High School -Government and Private -Both Aided and recognised Unaided in the State for the academic year 2000-2001. All the petitioners except the petitioner in O.P. 21667/2000 are aggrieved by the non-inclusion of their respective Schools in the order dated 26.7.2000 issued by the Government pursuant to the directions contained in the common judgment dated 7.7.2000 of the Division Bench in O.P. No. 11779 of 1997 and connected cases. O.P. Nos. 21699/2000, 22448/2000 and 22254/2000 are filed in respect of Government High Schools, O.P. Nos. 21854/2000, 22142/2000, 22253/2000, 21667/2000, 22460/2000, 21606/2000, 22462/2000, 21979/2000, 22236/2000 and 24053/2000 are in respect of Private Aided Schools and O.P. Nos. 22670/2000 and 21625/2000 are in respect of Private Unaided Schools. Except in O.P. No. 21667/2000, petitioners in all the other O.Ps. seek for dir...
Tag this Judgment!Moni Senan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Ker)585; [2001]248ITR452(Ker)
M. Ramachandran, J.1. The original petition has been filed by Smt. Moni Senan, who is the wife of Mr. Chandrasenan, an assessee under theIncome-tax Act (PAN 46-011-PZ-9065). For the assessment years 1982-83 to 1987-88, there was non-remittance of tax. In respect of those years, the Settlement Commission on September 28, 1994, ordered that an amount of Rs. 34,16,388 is payable in four instalments- The amount was not paid and the Department had levied interest under Section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It comes to Rs. 84,64,563 and the total arrears aggregated to Rs. 1,18,80,951. Exhibit P-3 addressed to the petitioner is the notice issued by the Tax Recovery Officer whereby the petitioner was directed to pay the amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. Following exhibit P-3, as there was no payment made, notices had been issued proclaiming sale of immovable properties, jointly owned and possessed by the petitioner and Sri Chandrasenan. Item No. 1 was an extent of 25.45...
Tag this Judgment!Universal Trades Corporation Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR291(Ker)
M. Ramachandran, J.1. Universal Trades Corporation, a partnership firm, challenges exhibit P-3 order issued under Section 119(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The issue concerns claim for waiver of interest, leviable under sections 234B and 234C of the Act. The dispute arose in respect of the assessment year 1997-98.2. A return of income had been submitted by the petitioner on October 31, 1997, in respect of the assessment year 1997-98. Being an exporter of sea foods, in view of the double taxation avoidance agreement between the Government of India and the Netherlands, they claimed reliefs. But they could not furnish documents supporting their claims, and the Assessing Officer, accepting the returns, raised a demand for Rs. 15,02,250 which included interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act. The matter was, therefore, taken to the first respondent, Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, by way of a waiver petition after paying the tax minus the interest. No appeal had been filed by...
Tag this Judgment!Moni Senan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: [2001]114TAXMAN440(Ker)
The original petition has been filed by Smt. Moni Senan, who is the wife of Mr. Chandrasenan, an assessee under the income-tax (PAN 46-011-PZ9065). For the assessment years 1982-83 to 1987-88, there was non-remittance of tax. In respect of those years, the Settlement Commissioner on 28-9-1994 ordered that an amount of Rs. 34,16,388 is payable in four instalments. The amount was not paid and the department had levied interest under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It comes to Rs. 84,64,563 and the total arrears aggregated to Rs. 1,18,80,951. Ext. P3 addressed to the petitioner is the notice issued by the TRO whereby the petitioner was directed to pay the amount within 15 days of receipt of the notice. Following Ext. P3, as there was no payment made, notices had been issued proclaiming sale of immovable properties, jointly owned and possessed by the petitioner and Shri Chandrasenan. Item 1 was an extent of 25.452 cents of land, item 2,6508 ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdurahiman Vs. Nassera
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-2000
Reported in: I(2001)DMC378
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order in O.P. No. 297 of 1999. That was a petition filed by the wife under S. 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, for dissolution of the marriage with the appellant-husband. We may narrate the facts as we get in the O.P.2. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnised on 15.5.1997 as per the custom and law prevalent in the Muslim community. After the marriage petitioner was residing in the house of the respondent for about 2 months. According to the wife, her life during the said time was miserable. On the next day of the marriage, the respondent went for shopping with a lady who came from Bombay. He continued to live with that lady in various places. He also treated the petitioner with cruelty. He used to manhandle her after consuming liquor. At the time of marriage petitioner was given gold ornaments weighing about 100 sovereigns and an amount of Rs. I lakh. Respondent demanded an amoun...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Bahadur Thakur Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Ker89
Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Appellant in M.F.A. 768/87 filed O.A. 72/1977 before Forest Tribunal, Palakkad under Section 8 of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assigment) Act, Act 26 of 1971, for exemption of 232.13 acres of land. Those areas were claimed as eucalyptus plantations, grass lands/waste lands, which were not enclaves within wooded areas, fire-belt, water sources and cardamom and coffee plantations. All the 232.13 acres were divided into 14 plots. Forest Tribunal vide its order dated 19-7-1980 had allowed the application holding that the disputed lands do not form part of a vested forst under the provisions of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. Matter was taken up in appeal by the state before this Court vide M.F.A. 177/ 81. Appeal was allowed by this Court and directed the Forest Tribunal to reconsider the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the parties. Against the judgment of this Court in M.F.A. 177/81 the company preferred SLP. 14401/...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »