Kerala Court December 2002 Judgments
international Computers-Indian Manufacture Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: [2004]135STC419(Ker)
Sivarajan, J.1. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The first five tax revision cases are filed by the assessee and the last three tax revision cases are filed by the revenue. The main question involved in the revisions filed by the assessee relates to exigibility to sales tax on the rental charges received by the assessee-company from leasing out of computer system to customers in Kerala under the Act.3. The petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale including leasing of computer system on rental basis with its registered office at Bombay having an administrative office at Madras. It is a non-resident dealer and an assessee on the files of the Assistant Commissioner, Assessment, Special Circle, Thiruvananthapuram. The assessment years concerned are 1984-85, 1985-86, 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91. According to the petitioner, it entered into agreements with two customers, viz., M/s. H.M.T. Ltd., Kalama...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Laju
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2773
J.B. Koshy, J.1. This appeal is filed by the State against the order of acquittal of the respondent who was the sole accused in S.C. No. 86 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. He was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C.2. The prosecution case was that on 21-11-1995 at 9 p.m., the accused with the intention of committing the murder of one Shaji stabbed him on his left chest with a knife causing grievous hurt as a result of which Shaji died at 9.45 p.m. at St. John's Hospital, Kattappana. The incident took place at Kanchiyar Pallikkavala-Anchuruli road on the north-east of the house of one Kanjiramthanathu Surendran. The prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 15 and marked Exts. P1 to P14 and M.Os. 1 to 9. On the side of the defence, Exts. D1 to D14 were marked.3. PWs. 1 to 3 were examined as occurrence witnesses. PW 1 who is the first cousin of the deceased and co-accused in the counter case gave Ext. P1 First Information Statement. P...
Tag this Judgment!Fr. Antony Kavalakkatt Vs. District Educational Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT295
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment in O.P. No. 6240 of 1998. First appellant is the Manager of St. Thomas High School, Malayattoor. Second appellantis a person, who applied for appointment in the School under the Dying in Harness Scheme. The second respondent is a person, who has also applied for a post under the Dying in Harness Scheme. The facts of the case are as follows:2. A vacancy of clerk arose in the St. Thomas High School on 31.1.1998. Second petitioner/second appellant and second respondent submitted applications for appointment under the Dying in Harness Scheme. The second respondent's father was a Teacher in the School, who passed away on 17.3.1987. The second appellant's mother was a teacher in St. Mary's L.P. School, Malayattoor, who passed away on 21.7.1991. Both the schools are under the management of the first appellant. Claims for appointment of second appellant and the second respondent were recognised by the management and consequ...
Tag this Judgment!Ryru Vydiar Vs. Saseendran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT367
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Tenant is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought for under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. Rent Control Court dismissed the petition. On appeal by the landlord, Appellate Authority allowed eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act.2. Petition schedule room was let out to the tenant by the grandfather of the landlord on a monthly rent of Rs. 17.50. Petition schedule shop room and the propertyin which rooms are situated were bequeathed to the present landlord and to his brothers as per registered Will executed by his grandfather in the year 1971. Second respondent before the Rent Control Court is landlord's brother who is away in Gulf. Landlord could not secure any employment. However, he had practised videography and used to cover various important functions as a professional videographer. Second respondent before the Rent Control Court is the brother who had helped him with money to buy video camera and accessories. Petitioner wanted to ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Sudhir
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT840
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J. 1. This reference is made by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur under Section 395(2) of Cr.P.C. Following are the questions referred : (a) Whether the grant of sanctions by the Government for a different action in a different forum already made curtails the power of the criminal court to act independently under Section 156(3) or Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. to direct a further investigations (Under Section 156(3) or Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.)? (b) Whether under those circumstances a direction by the Criminal Court for further investigations Under Section 156(3) or Under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. would amount to a seek to review the stand taken by the Government? (c) Whether under those circumstances the Criminal Court is duty bound to accept the view of the Investigating Officer blindly without making any independent decision of its own, since the Government has already chosen to refuse to accept the view of the Investigating Officer/Director, Vig...
Tag this Judgment!Jayarajan Vs. Yesoda
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT325
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. Revision petitioner is the tenant in R.C.P. No. 147 of 1991 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Thalassery. The petition for eviction was filed by the landlady under Section 11(2)(a)(b) and Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. According to the petitioner, the petition schedule building was let out to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 140/- on the strength of a 'kaichit' dated 27.10.1989. It was statedJhat the rent upto 27.10.1989 had been paid. It is further alleged that the landlady's husband was in bona fide need of starting a grocery business in the petition schedule building in order to enable him to earn a decent living. Her husband who was earlier employed in Abu Dhabi has returned to India six years ago. He has no other building in his possession and is dependent on the landlady for the building.3. In the counter statement, it was contended by the revision petitioner that th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chackolas Spinning and Weaving Mills Lt ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Ker)537; [2004]266ITR623(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban J.1. This income-tax appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I.T.., No. 843 (Cochin) of 1990 dated December 8, 2000. The relevant assessment year is 1992-93. The assessee, M/s. Chackolas Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of yarn. For the assessment year 1992-93, the assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 23,46,558 towards payment of bonus which includes a sum of Rs. 12.81,108 a liability as per the agreement for payment of bonus entered into on December 22, 1992. In the assessment the Assessing Officer allowed deduction for a sum of Rs. 10,65,450 only which was the provision created in the accounts during the previous year and disallowed the balance of Rs. 12,81,108.2. The assessee challenged the above order in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction of the to...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ5086
J.B. Koshy, J.1. This reference is made by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur under Section 395(2) of Cr.P.C. Following are the questions referred :(a) Whether the grant of sanctions by the Government for a different action in a different forum already made, curtails the power of the criminal Court to act independently under Section 156(3) or Section 173(8) Cr. P. C. to direct a further investigations (Under Section 156(3) or Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.)?(b) Whether under those circumstances a direction by the Criminal Court for further investigations Under Section 156(3) or Under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. would amount to seek to review the stand taken by the Government?(c) Whether under those circumstances the Criminal Court is duty bound to accept the view of the Investigating Officer blindly without making any independent decision of its own, since the Government has already chosen to refuse to accept the view of the Investigating Officer/Director, Vigilance an...
Tag this Judgment!K.A. John Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC199
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The petitioners in these Original Petitions are partners of a firm which has taken a loan from the Financial Corporation. The property mortgaged by the petitioners was attached by the Tahsildar and sold in revenue recovery proceedings. The petitioners' case is that the sale was not in accordance with the procedure and which has resulted in the sale at a low price. However, the purchaser who has obtained the property in auction has agreed to reconvey the property to the petitioners on payment of his cost, i.e., the price paid by him, conveyance cost and interest at the rate of 12%. The stand taken by the purchaser is absolutely reasonable and, therefore, there is no need for this Court to go into the contentions raised by the petitioners against the sale in recovery proceedings. This Court vide interim order dated 12.11.2002 requested the petitioners to find out a buyer and report the matter before this Court. Today, learned Counsel for the petitioners has ...
Tag this Judgment!Razack Trading Company Vs. J.K. Industries Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Ker171; 2003(1)KLT743
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff in a suit for realisation of Rs. 20,35,849/- is the petitioner. The plaintiff filed the suit on 17.10.2002 after paying one tenth of the court fee. The learned Additional Sub Judge before whom the suit was filed ordered summons to the defendant as provided under OrderV Rule 9(1) of Code of Civil Procedure. On the next day the batta for issuing summons ordered under OrderV Rule 9(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure was paid and the suit was posted for return of notice on 16.11.2002. On 16.11.2002 the learned Additional Subordinate Judge was on leave. The case was called before the court of the Principle Sub Judge. According to the petitioner then only his Advocate came to know that in addition to the service of summons ordered under Order V Rule 9(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure the learned Sub Judge had also ordered to issue summons to the defendants by registered post with acknowledgment due as provided under Rule 9(3) of Order V of the Code of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »