Kerala Court December 2002 Judgments
Kamath Marbles Vs. Ito and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: [2003]260ITR470(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.The petitioners in these original petitions are income-tax assessees engaged in business. They are challenging the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provides for 20 per cent disallowance of expenditure in excess of Rs. 20,000 where such payments are made other than through account payee cheques or demand drafts drawn on a bank. Section 40A(3) prior to its amendment with effect from 1-4-1997, provided for disallowance of entire expenditure subject to rule 6DD in excess of payments over Rs. 10,000 made other than through account payee cheques and demand drafts. However, until the amendment of rule 6DD(j) with effect from 1-12-1995, the assessing officer was free to allow deductions on cash payments in excess of Rs. 10,000 if he was satisfied that such payments are made in unavoidable circumstances or it was not practical to make payment other than through cash or payment through account payee cheques or demand drafts would have caus...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Taj Garden Retreat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: [2004]138STC112(Ker)
P.R. Raman, J.1. These tax revision cases are filed by the State of Kerala represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Law, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam against the order of the Appellate Tribunal. T.R.C. No. 412 of 2000 relates to the assessment year 1993-94, T.R.C. No. 457 relates to the assessment year 1996-97, T.R.C. No. 458 relates to the assessment year 1994-95 and T.R.C. No. 460 relates to the assessment year 1995-96 respectively. The Appellate Tribunal disposed of the matter by a common judgment rendered in the above four cases. The respondent-assessee is a new hotel started at Kumarakom. For all these years in question the assessee had only a beer parlour licence issued in form No.F.L.13 under the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1982. The assessee was not a star hotel and also did not have a bar licence (F.L.3) during these years. Only subsequently with effect from April 1, 1998 the assessee has got a star status and obtained F.L.3 licence. Hence, during the period in question the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Ambikakutty Vs. Kerala Co-operative Tribunal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT153
R. Basant, J. 1. How is inter se seniority to be determined between two employees of a Cooperative Society when there is no rule or term of employment specifically covering the situation? This is a question that falls for determination in these appeals.2. W.A. No. 2086/1982 arises from the judgment in O.P. No. 11330/1995. The learned single Judge found that in the absence of any or term of employment, the date of actual commencement of service alone has to be reckoned as the crucial input. The Original Petition filed by the appellant challenging the decision of the Co-operative Tribunal was dismissed.3. By the impugned common judgment, O.P. No. 14396 of 1995 was also disposed of by the learned single Judge. In the said Original Petition, the 6th respondent in this appeal had challenged the finding in the judgment of the Co-operative Tribunal in so far as it was against her. The Co-operative Tribunal had held that in the absence of rules, regulations, bye-laws etc. it is the rank on mer...
Tag this Judgment!Damodaran Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR451]; 2003(1)KLT395; (2003)IILLJ55Ker
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Contribution in terms of Employees State Insurance Act was demanded from the appellant on a payment of Rs. 1,22,105.10, which according to the ESI Corporation was the bata paid to the running staff. Bata was a part of wages which attracted contribution. An application was filed before the Insurance Court by the appellant/ employer stating that the bata did not represent the wages. It was an additionalremuneration to meet special expenditure. Therefore it came within Clause C of Section 22(c), which is not included in the wages. But the Insurance Court found that the payment so made was based on a settlement dated 28.6.1984 which was also produced before the Court. It was also not disputed by the employer. The settlement provides for separate rate of bata for persons employed as cleaner, conductor and driver and in respect of the distance covered during duty. As the payment was made out of a settlement which forms part of the conditions of service; the E.I. Court...
Tag this Judgment!Omana Vs. Sussi Kunjachan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT525
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The respondent in I.A. 1406 of 2001 in Election O.P. 5 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Munsiff of Kochi is the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner and respondent were candidates who contested for the Panchayat election to Ward No. XII of Njarakkal Grama Panchayat held on 27.09.2000. The revision petitioner was the successful candidate. The respondent had filed the Original Petition for the relief that the election of the revision petitioner is void and also for a further relief that the respondent be declared as the duly elected candidate from that Ward. The revision petitioner alone is made respondent in the Original Petition, though two other candidates also contested the election. Originally the respondent filed a petition to implead those two persons as additional respondents. In view of the legal position that when a defeated candidate seeks a further relief of declaration that himself be declared as duly elected, all candidates who con...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT381
ORDERG. Sasidharan, J.1. This revision is filed by the de facto complainant in C.C. 73/1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Thrissur. Petitioner filed petition, M.P. 4288/2001 in the above case praying that direction may be given to the first respondent, who is the accused in the case, to give his thumb impression for comparison by expert. That petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate and the order by which the application was dismissed is under challenge.2. The allegation against respondents 1 and 2 is that they committed the offences under Sections 471, 474 and 465 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, It is stated thatin 1953 and 1956 two documents were executed by the first respondent in favour of the father and mother of the petitioner transferring 41 1/2 cents of property and subsequently in 1996 the first respondent executed sale deed in respect of the very same property in favour of the second respondent. The application filed by th...
Tag this Judgment!Devaki Pillai Vs. Gouri Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT421
R. Bhaskaran, J. 1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff in a suit which was originally filed for fixation of boundary and later converted into recovery of possession. In this second appeal, the only question to be considered is with respect to a pond existing on the north-western portion of the plaintiffs property. Though there was a dispute with regard to a mango tree situated on the boundary of the plaintiffs property, the learned counsel for the appellant did not press that point in the second appeal.2. With regard to the pond in question, the trial court originally denied the relief to the plaintiff and directed the boundary to be fixed on the eastern side of the pond and excluding the pond from the plaintiffs ownership and possession. The plaintiff filed an appeal and the appellate court remanded the case to the trial court. The appellate court observed that the learned Munsiff accepted Ext. C2 plan and he was of opinion that the survey demarcation in Ext. C2 plan is corr...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. N ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: [2004]135STC78(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The scope of Section 35 of the Act arises for consideration in this case.2. The assessee is the revision petitioner. It is a dealer in provisions. The assessment year concerned is 1988-89. The original assessment of the assessee for the year 1988-89 was completed on November 27, 1990. The assessee took up the matter in first appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, who by his order dated May 6, 1991 (annexure B) modified the assessment. The assessee and the State filed appeal arid cross appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal disposed of the said appeals by order dated August 5, 1994 (annexure C) whereby the appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed and the State appeal was dismissed. In the meantime the assessing authority gave effect to the first appellate authority's order by pas...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Mathai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)ARBLR29(Kerala); 2003(2)KLT835
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. The State has filed this appeal when its application under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 has been dismissed. The main objection raised was with respect to claim A and I. In the judgment only claim A is generally dealt with. The claim I is not seen dealt with in detail. 2. Claim A was in respect of enhancement of the rates for the extra items of work agreed as per the supplementary agreement. There was an arbitration earlier for the work carried upto 30.6.1986. The arbitration in question here is for the work carried out after 30.6.1986. The Arbitrator found that the rates agreed upon in the supplementary agreement are the original rates, viz. the rates for the original contract. The arbitrator had gone beyond the agreement and found that there was no 'fruitful negotiations' between the parties to agree so: Therefore, the mutually agreed rates cannot be reckoned. The arbitrator found that 'the claimant was compelled to enter into supplementary agreemen...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rasheed Vs. the State Bank of Travancore
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: III(2003)BC270; 2003(2)KLT557
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The first defendant in O.A. No. 1768 of 1998 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal is the petitioner in this Original Petition. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P-4 order passed by the Tribunal on 28th August 2002 by which the Tribunal stopped the cross-examination of A.W.1 who was in the box -while the same was going on and directing the first defendant to file a counter-affidavit if any on the proof affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant on further issues.2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the Original Petition are as follows: The first respondent-Bank filed Original Application No. 1768 of 1998 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for realisation of the amount of more than Rs. 2,39,11,200. The petitioner filed a written statement denying his liability to pay the amount. The amount claimed in the O.A. is an amount, which according to the Bank it had to pay to a foreign buyer on account of a Judgment passed by a Court in France. The cont...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »