Kerala Court December 2002 Judgments
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Muneer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ1102; 2003(1)KLT137
R. Basant, J. 1. The insurer is the appellant. The insurer is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation paid to the claimants. The claimants are the father, mother and brother of a child aged about 4 years. The Tribunal had awarded a total amount of Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation. It is submitted at the bar that the requisite leave under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was given to the insurer by the Tribunal.2. The quantification of the compensation payable for the loss suffered by the parents of a minor child has been one of the vexing problems of law. There are so many imponderables. In the instant cse the child was aged about 4 years. It is too early an age to ascertain the potentials of the child. It is too early to assess the capabilities, special skills etc. of the child. How then is the compensation to be assessed? The multiplier method is not a very safe one in such a case, it is trite. Reliance was placed on the decision reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajith...
Tag this Judgment!Sales Tax Inspector, Sales Tax Check-post and ors. Vs. Aljo Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: [2006]146STC602(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The respondents in O.P. No. 36841 of 2001 are the appellants. They are officials of the Sales Tax Department. The respondent herein is an assessee to sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act'). He has filed the original petition challenging exhibits P1, Pl(a), P4, P4(a) and P4(b) notices issued by the first appellant Under Section 29-A(2) of the Act. As per an interim order passed in this case, the respondent got release of the goods detained as per the impugned notices. Later the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the detention of the goods Under Section 29-A for the alleged suppression in freight charges is not justified. According to the learned single Judge the remedy available to the appellants is provided Under Section 28-A of the Act. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submits that the learned single Judge was not justified in holding that Section 29-A of the Act is not availa...
Tag this Judgment!Palma Bread and Pastries Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: [2006]143STC619(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. All these tax revision cases are filed by the same assessee against the common order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench I, Palakkad, in T.A. Nos. 398, 399 and 400 of 2000. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of bread and bakery items. The assessment years concerned are 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97. In the assessment for the aforesaid three years the assessee claimed exemption from payment of sales tax on the basis of notifications issued under Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act'). The assessee had obtained an eligibility certificate dated August 18, 1994 from the District Level Committee of sales tax exemption to small-scale industrial units. As per the eligibility certificate the assessee is entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax up to an amount of Rs. 6,55,942 in respect of the sale of bakery items manufactured by it for the period from June 19, 1993 to June 18, 2000. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Gowri Group Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Department of Commercial Taxes and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: [2006]143STC194(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The petitioner is challenging sales tax assessment, namely, exhibit P1, which is issued based on exhibit P4 clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 59A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The petitioner's contention is that even though the clarification is not specifically referred to in exhibit P1 assessment order, the same is relied on by the assessing officer. According to the petitioner, in view of exhibit P4 clarification issued by the Commissioner, based on which assessment is completed, there is no scope for filing appeal before another departmental officer, who is also subordinate to the Commissioner and who is bound by the clarification. The clarification in exhibit P4 issued under Section 59A is directly on the point and the petitioner's submission is that since the appellate authority is not free to decide the appeal on merits independently, the original petition should be entertained against clarificati...
Tag this Judgment!Ooppootil Kurien and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Ker)310; [2004]266ITR409(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Cochin has referred the following two questions of law under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, as directed by this Court in judgment, dt. 18th Nov., 1998, in O.P. 13673 of 1998 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in not entertaining the additional grounds as referred in the order of the Tribunal ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the interest paid on money borrowed by which the property constructed is not allowable deduction, since such interest was not payable to the partners of United Investment Corporation by the assessee-company in whose hands the income from the property is computed ?'2. The brief facts are as follows : The assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested and it is deriving income from house property and also income fr...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Urban Development Finance Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Ker)422; [2004]266ITR245(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. These IT references arise out of a common order of the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in ITA Nos. 914, 915, 916 & 917/Coch/1994 and 290 & 291/Coch/1996 filed by the Kerala Urban Development Finance Corpn., Calicut, in respect of the asst. yrs. 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95. At the instance of the assessee-corporation the Tribunal has referred the following common question of law for the decision of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law, in holding that the HUDCO administration service charges collected and retained by the assessee at the time of disbursal of the loans to the urban local bodies had accrued due to the assessee at that stage itself, and, therefore, assessable to tax in the year in which the loan amount was disbursed ?'2. The brief facts are as follows. The assessee is a company set up by the Government of Kerala. The said company, inter alia, used to act as a nodal. agency for ...
Tag this Judgment!Bindu David George Vs. Malanadu Development Society and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC561; [2003]114CompCas322(Ker)
R. Rajendra babu, J.1. The first respondent herein, Malanadu Development Society, filed C. C. No. 101 of 2001, before the J. F. C. M. Court-I, Kanjirap-pally, against the first accused Kamadenu Milk and Milk Products, Kuttikattu-kulangara, partnership firm and its three partners alleging commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as the cheques issued by the second accused, the managing partner of the firm, had been dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the firm. The third accused, who was one of the partners of the firm, filed C. M. P. No. 3873 of 2002 stating that she was only a sleeping partner of the firm and she had nothing to do with the issuance of the cheque and the conduct of the business of the firm and as such she should be discharged of the, alleged offence. The court below, after considering the allegations in the complaint, rejected the above prayer. Aggrieved by the above order, the third accused has come up ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G. Krishnan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR727(Ker)
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The Revenue is the appellant. It feels aggrieved by the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal affirming the decision of the first appellate authority that the requirement to file the certificate as provided under Sub-section (4A) of Section 80HHC along with the return is only directory. The questions of law framed for the decision of this court are the following :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the absence of a certificate from the Export House being filed along with the return, the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80HHC with regard to the foreign sales made ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of Sub-section (4A) of Section 80HHC read with State Level Committee v. Morgardshammar India Ltd. [1996] 101 STC 1 and Dr. Mrs. Renuka Datla v. CIT : [1999]240ITR463(AP) , is not the provision mandatory and does not non-compliance of the provision resu...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Muthoottu Mini Kuries
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Ker)315; [2004]266ITR213(Ker); 2003(1)KLT433
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. 1. The point raised for decision in this Writ Appeal is whether before passing an order under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, the assessing authority should hear the assessee. The brief facts of the case are the following:-2. The respondent assessee is a firm engaged in the business of chitty. It filed the returns of income for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 respectively on 7.3.2000 and 27.3.2000. The first appellant took up the matter for assessment. The assessee was directed to appear in his office on 23.5.2000 at 11 a.m. Though the representative of the assessee appeared, no hearing took place as the first appellant was not present on that day. While so, the assessee was served with Ext. P7 orderdated 12.7.2000 passed by the assessing authority under Section 142(2A) directing it to get its accounts pertaining to the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 audited by Shri. P.E.B. Menon, Balan & Co., XXIX/200, B...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Kannan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT509
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court, Kollam. Five accused were charge sheeted for offences punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC. It was the case of the prosecution that on 15.9.1995 at 11 p.m. near the bridge at Asramam Public road in Vadakkumbhagom in Kollam East Village, the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with common object of committing murder of Gokul Das @ Das, son of Gopinathan armed with sword stick etc. and in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly committed murder and A1 beat Gokuldas with a stick on the head and kicked him on the abdomen and when Gokuldas fell down A2 inflicted cut injuries on the right thigh and right leg with a sword while A3 to A5 with sticks beat and kicked the victim and on 20.9.1995 at 6 a.m. Gokuldas succumbed to the injuries and thereby committed the charged offences.2. The First Information Statement...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »