Kerala Court April 2002 Judgments
Saramma Scaria Vs. Mathai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ213
Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal was filed against the award in O.P. (MV) 395/99 of MACT Muvattupuzha. Original Petition was dismissed with cost of the contesting respondents. Appellants herein were the petitioners before the Tribunal. First petitioner is the widow of the deceased and other petitioners are the son and daughters of the deceased. The deceased was a fisherman and a coolie who was the sole breadwinner of his family consisting of his wife and children.2. The deceased was riding a bicycle from south to north along the Piravom-Muvattupuzha public road, while so, a bus owned by the K.S.R.T.C. driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner from south to north hit the deceased from behind. Deceased fell down on the road and the back tyre of the bus run over his body and he died on the spot. Deceased was aged 58 years at the time of the accident. He was earning a monthly income of Rs. 2000/-. Claimants were depending on the income from the deceased for their liveli...
Tag this Judgment!Power Best Electrical (P) Ltd. Vs. Managing Director, Kerala Feeds Ltd ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-2002
Reported in: [2002]128STC496(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The petitioner is a contractor engaged in supply and erection of electrical items for respondents 1 and 2 who are public sector undertakings. According to the petitioner, the sales 'to the purchasers are entitled to concessional rate of sales tax under S.R.O. No. 1728/93 as modified by S.R.O. No. 1091/99, if declarations are issued by them in terms of the annexure attached to the notifications. The petitioner has requested for such declarations and according to the petitioner, buyers who are entitled to avail concessional rate should issue the declarations for the petitioner to claim concessional rate of sales tax on the sales made by the petitioner to respondents 1 and 2. However, respondents 1 and 2 have orally declined to grant such declarations. The petitioner prays for direction to respondents 1 and 2 to issue certificates in the format of declaration contained in the notification.2. The contract for supply and installation admittedly is for an all in...
Tag this Judgment!Reliance Generators (P) Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Works Contract/Lux ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-2002
Reported in: [2006]146STC57(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran, J.1. Petitioner in both the original petitions is a contractor engaged in the supply as well as installation of generators for B.S.N.L. Petitioners are registered dealers before the Sales Tax Officer, Works Contract, the 2nd respondent. Petitioners raise various contentions, which are briefly stated hereunder. Firstly, petitioner should not be subjected to tax at 10 per cent as against 4 per cent leviable to the petitioner by virtue of S.R.O. No. 1728/93 read with S.R.O. No. 1091/99. Secondly, according to the petitioner, awarder is to remit tax and when there is failure on the part of the awarder to remit tax, it is for the department to recover tax from the awarder Under Section 7(10) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Thirdly, the department cannot issue garnishee order in form No. 16 to the awarder for payment of tax assessed on the petitioner.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the Government Pleader and the Standing Counsel f...
Tag this Judgment!Kurian Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT298
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court on account of non-payment of compensation for cutting trees for the reason that the petitioner does not hold patta or title for the property. Ext.P1 shows the inventory regarding the items cut, which are all coconut trees, arecanut trees, jack fruit tree, mango tree, etc. Going by the items referred to in Ext.P1 there is no forest tree or tree of spontaneous growth. All these are obviously planted by farmers in their property. So far as the KSEB is concerned, it is not the title of the property that is relevant, but the person who sustained damage on account of cutting of trees. I am not deciding the petitioner's title over the property because the same is not relevant for directing the Board to give compensation to the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner is a cultivator and occupier of the land and the trees were planted by him or his predecessors. In the circumstances, he is entitled to compensation. All that th...
Tag this Judgment!Abdulla Vs. Pathumma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT289
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This revision petition is filed by plaintiffs 2 to 5 against the order in LA. No. 24 of 1998 in O.S. No. 164 of 1994 of the Munsiffs Court, Payyannur. LA. No. 24 of 1998 was filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint.2. Plaintiffs instituted the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 1 and 4 from obstructing the plaintiffs from using plaint schedule property as pathway leading to plaint A Schedule property and also for a mandatory injunction. It is alleged that the plaintiffs and their predecessors have been using the plaint B Schedule pathway for the last 56 years openly and without any interruption and the plaintiffs have got easement right over plaint B Schedule property both by prescription and necessity. Due to oversight, plaintiffs have omitted to include the prayer of declaration for easement right and hence it has become necessary to amend the plaint incorporating additional p...
Tag this Judgment!Rajan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT965
G. Sasidharan, J.1. Petitioner is the accused in Crime 276 of 2001 of Pandalam Police Station registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The above crime was registered on the basis of a complaint given by the 5th respondent in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Adoor and which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner was the Managing Director of a U.A.E. based company by name 'Best Home Contracting Company'. The company was under the absolute control and management of the petitioner and the business done by the company was to engage in building contracts. Sabah Engineering and Marine Services had business transactions with the petitioner and he had awarded many subcontract works to Sabah Engineering and Marine Servicesfor fabricating and erecting various industrial sheds, canteens, labour camps etc. in various places in U.A.E. According to the 5th respondent, the complainant, Saba...
Tag this Judgment!Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR633(Ker)
V.P. MOHAN KUMAR, J.1. The assessee challenges the orders whereby its claim for allowance of deduction with respect to its share of income from advertisement as claimed by it is partly disallowed. The facts of the case are as under :2. The appellant is a company engaged in the business of publishing newspapers, weeklies and other publications. The appellant has been publishing its newspapers, weeklies, etc., during the accounting years relevant to the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92 from its industrial undertakings (hereinafter referred to as 'units') at Kottayam, Cochin, Kozhikode and Thiruvanantha-puram. For the said assessment years, the appellant claimed benefit for its newly started industrial undertaking or unit at Thiruvananthapuram under Section 80-I(1) read with the proviso thereto. In respect of new industrial undertaking company, deduction of an amount equal to 25 per cent. of its profits and gains shall be allowed in computing the total income of the asses-see for a pe...
Tag this Judgment!Surjith Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ983
ORDERG. Sasidharan, J.1. The petitioners in these petitions are accused in three different crimes of Kunnamkulam Police Station. These petitions are filed for quashing the final report filed by the police in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kunnamkulam. The Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Kunnamkulam is the Officer who filed final report in these cases. According to the petitioners, the final report can be filed only by an officer in charge of the police station. The submission is that the Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Kunnamkulam was not the officer in charge of the police station and hence he had no authority to file final report in Court.2. Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code says that after completing the investigation of the crime the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to aMagistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government. It is on pointin...
Tag this Judgment!Baby Marine (Eastern) Exports Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Ker)151; [2003]262ITR88(Ker)
V.P. Mohankumar J.1. These four appeals raise similar questions. Of them two appeals are preferred by the assessee whereas the other two by the Revenue. Conflicting views have been expressed by the Tribunal on identical sets of facts necessitating both the Department and the assessee to invoke the jurisdiction of this court. While I. T. A. No. 4 of 1999 and I. T. A. No. 5 of 1999 have been preferred by the assessee, I. T. A. No. 97 of 2000 and I. T. A. No. 98 of 2000 have been preferred by the Department. We shall deal with the set of facts separately.I. T. A. Nos. 4 and 5 of 1999 :2. These are the appeals preferred by the assessee. They relate to different assessment years but the facts herein are identical. We will summarise the facts after omitting those which are not material, as under :The assessee is the appellant in the above appeals. The assessee is engaged in processing and export of marine products. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1993-94, the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala State Co-operative Coir Marketing Federation Vs. Sreekumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ101Ker
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal was preferred against the common order in OA 271/74, 272/74, 273/74 and 274/74 which were disposed of by the Tribunal on 15.12.1989 rejecting the applications preferred under Section 8 of Act 26/71. 2. All the above mentioned applications were earlier dismissed by a common order dated 22.8.1977. Aggrieved by those orders MFA, 326, 386, 387 and 388 of1977 were preferred by the applicants before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh and dispose of those cases in accordance with taw. There is some controversy with regard to the scope of the remand order. We may extract the relevant portions of the remand order to resolve that controversy: 'The appellants in these cases are four brothers. They filed applications before the Forest Tribunal, Palghat claiming that certain extents of land which they obtained under a partition of 1972 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »