Kerala Court November 2002 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.
Government Servants' Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR1142]; (2003)ILLJ236Ker
R. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. Petitioner, Government Servants Co-operative-Society Limited No. 130, Wadakkancherry, filed this original petition for an order quashing Exhibit P1 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha in I.D. No. .49/90. 2. Petitioner is a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. It was alleged that the above society had got an authorised staff pattern and the employees were appointed in the clerical cadre in accordance with the qualifications prescribed under the Statute. The second respondent Smt.C.S. Shakeela Begum was engaged as an apprentice with effect from January 4, 1978 and she was continuing as such. In 1982 the Reserve Bank of India in its Inspection Report objected the engagement of the second respondent. Accordingly she was terminated front service with effect from October 1, 1982. The above order was challenged by the second respondent by filing an arbitration case and the above case was dismissed...
Dr. Joy P. Chungath Vs. Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-2002
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN324(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.The matter arises under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appellant is a Doctor by profession and is an assessee to income-tax under the Act. The assessment year concerned is 1992-93. For the said assessment year the assessee filed return on 23-6-1992 disclosing an income of Rs. 62,020 including capital gain of Rs. 3,500. The return was processed under section 143(1)(a). Subsequently a notice under section 143(2) was issued and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 28-8-1995 fixing the total income at Rs. 1,31,020 including long-term capital gain of Rs. 72,500 after allowing deduction under section 48(2) of the Act. While computing the capital gain the assessee claimed to have received from his former tenants during the year under consideration a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 and this was shown as an additional compensation on the sale of property effected as per document No. 1488/90, dated 19-10-1990. The Commissioner on perusal ...
Binu Vs. Sajan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Ker93
ORDERR. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The wife filed this Original Petition for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.2. The respondent filed a counter denying all the allegations levelled against him. But, he made a counter claim for a declaration that the marriage was null and void under Sections 18 and 19 of the Act on the ground of fraud. When the respondent sought to let in evidence for proving his allegation of fraud in obtaining his consent for the marriage, the petitioner objected contending that the respondent is not entitled to a decree declaring the marriage null and void in a proceedings initiated by the petitioner for dissolution of marriage under Section 10 of the Act. Accordingly, the above question has to be considered as a preliminary issue and the learned counsel for both sides were heard on the preliminary issue.3. The only question for consideration is whether the respondent is entitl...
Dominic Vs. Family Court
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT340
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. These two Original Petitions arise from an order passed by the Family Court, Thrissur, in I.A. No. 1790 of 2001 in O.P. No. 631 of 2001, by which the petitioners in both the Original Petitions were restrained from proceeding with M.T. No. 18 of 2000, a proceeding initiated by the petitioner in O.P. No. 9443 of 2002 before the Eparchial Tribunal for an order of divorce. O.P. No. 631 of 2001 was filed before the Family Court, Thrissur, by the wife who is the second respondent in both the O.Ps. for an injunction against the petitioners in these two Original Petitions restraining them from proceeding with an action initiated by the petitioner in O.P. No. 9443 of 2002 before the Eparchial Tribunal for divorce. In that O.P. the second respondent filed J.A. No. 1790 of 2001 under Order XXXIX Rule I C.P.C. for an order of temporary injunction to restrain the petitioners from proceeding with the matter in M.T. No. 18 of 2000. The Family Court assuming that it has got j...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. the Nedungadi Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Ker)403; [2003]264ITR545(Ker); 2003(2)KLT443
G. Sivarajan, J.1. All these Appeals arise under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act). The main question involved in all these cases is as to whether the Government securities held by the appellants as required under the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 are stock-in-trade of the assessee Banks and consequently the assessee Banks are entitled to re-value the said securities at the close of the assessment year and claim depreciation in respect of the notional loss suffered by the assessee Banks in respect of the said securities in the assessment under the Act. The other questions in some of the Appeals are (1) regarding the validity of the assessments made under Section 147 of the Act and (2) regarding the entitlement for deduction of the interest paid for the broken period claimed by the assessee.2. All these appeals are filed by the Revenue challenging the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The Nedungadi Bank Ltd., Calicut is the responden...
Cit Vs. Nedungadi Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN93(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.All these Appeals arise under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The main question involved in all these cases is as to whether the government securities held by the appellants as required under the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 are stock-in-trade of the assessee Banks and consequently, the assessee Banks are entitled to re-value the said securities at the close of the assessment year and claim depreciation in respect of the notional loss suffered by the assessee Banks in respect of the said securities in the assessment under the Act. The other questions in some of the Appeals are (1) regarding the validity of the assessments made under section 147 of the Act and (2) regarding the entitlement for deduction of the interest paid for the broken period claimed by the assessee.2. All these appeals are filed by the revenue challenging the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The Nedungadi Bank Ltd., Calicut is...
South India Carbonic Gas Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-2002
Reported in: [2004]135STC541(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. These three tax revision cases are at the instance of an assessee to sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner in all the three cases is same, though in T.R.C. No. 42 of 2001 the name of the petitioner is shown as Sicgil India Limited. The assessment years concerned are 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94. The only question that arises for consideration in all these cases is as to whether the cleaning and testing charges of cylinders which are used for filling carbon dioxide incurred by the assessee will fall within the definition of turnover under Section 2(xxvii) of the Act. According to the petitioner, the said charges will not form part of the definition of 'turnover' whereas the assessing authority has taken the view that the said charges are liable to be included in the turnover and liable to be assessed under Section 5(1)(iii) of the Act.2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of supply of carbon dioxide in cyli...
Aley Antony Vs. Ouseph Chacko
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT867
Pius C. Kuriakose, J. 1. This proceeding under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act') impugns the order of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) Thrissur setting aside an order passed by the Land Tribunal, Pala allowing an application under Section 80B of the Act filed by one Ouseph Antony. Revision petitioners are the legal heirs of Ouseph Antony. I may summarise the facts as follows:2. The alleged kudikidappukaran filed the O.A before the Land Tribunal, Pala arraying Sri. Ouseph Chacko, the 1st respondent herein, as the land owner. The respondent resisted the application on various grounds. The Land Tribunal enquired into the application in detail and ultimately by order dated 17.10.1987 dismissed the O.A. holding that it is barred by res judicata in view of the decision in an earlier O.A. --O.A.10 of 1978 on the files of the Changanassery Land Tribunal. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant preferred an appeal, L.R.A.S. No. 160 of 1987 before the Appellat...
G. Sundaresan, Sundaresh Cashew Company Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: [2006]146STC441(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The assessee is the revision petitioner. The State is the respondent. The assessment year is 1978-79. The petitioner is engaged in cashew business under the trade name 'Sundaresh Cashew Company' started on December 1, 1978 with main office at Kollam and cashew processing factory at Thripramala in Nagercoil District in Tamil Nadu. The assessment of the petitioner under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the year 1978-79 was completed by the Additional Sales Tax Officer, IInd Circle, Kollam, as per order dated November 20, 1981 (annexure C) determining the taxable turnover at Rs. 88,15,169.68. The petitioner is mainly aggrieved by the inclusion of a turnover of Rs. 27,95,463 under raw nut purchase in Kerala and an addition of Rs. 13,97,731.50 being 50 per cent of the said purchase to cover up probable omissions and suppressions and an addition of Rs. 44,92,135.18 representing alleged consignment sales of kernels processed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›