Kerala Court July 2002 Judgments
Pious Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALT(Cri)457
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. 1. The challenge in the appeal is with regard to the conviction entered against the appellant as accused in C.C. No. 18/97 of the II Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam, (Special Court for trial of the NDPS Act Cases), for the offence under Section 22 of the NDPS Act and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 15 years and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh (in default, rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months) imposed therefor.2. The prosecution case was that during the second show in the 'Saritha Theatre', Ernakulam, it was reported by one of the persons, who had come to the theatre to view the film, that in the toilet, a person was seen giving injection of drug to another and that PW2, who was the Assistant Manager of the theatre, passed on the information to the Police pursuant to which, the Flying Squad reached the spot and kept the accused, who was in possession of a bag, under surveillance until PW. 7 - Sub. Inspector of Police arrived at the scene along w...
Tag this Judgment!Thomas K. Varghese Vs. Asha Mary Alexander
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC22
R. Bhaskaran, J. 1. A petition for divorce was filed by the 2nd respondent herein before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The allegations in the petition was that the husband and wife last resided together in Thiruvananthapuram and therefore that court has jurisdiction to hear the case. Before the written statement was filed in the main Original Petition, the Indian Divorce Act was amended and Section 3(3) provided that the District Court within whose jurisdiction the marriage was solemnised was also competent to decide the cases. The question of jurisdiction was directed to be considered as per orders passed by this Court in O.P. No. 11602 of 2002. It was thereafter that the Indian Divorce Act was amended with effect from 3.10.2001. The Family Court held that though it is not proved that the parties last resided together within Thiruvananthapuram District, by virtue of the amendment, that Court has got jurisdiction and that the case could be continued. 2. The short question there...
Tag this Judgment!Makkarkunju Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ547Ker
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. More than six years have elapsed since the filing of this case. Challenge in this Original Petition is against Ext. P1 notification issued by the Government. In spite of that, either the Government or respondents 2 and 3 who are to administer Ext. P1, have not chosen to file a counter affidavit. The petitioner submits that Ext. P1 amendment to the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Scheme, 1985 is totally arbitrary and unreasonable insofar as the amount paid by them in respect of the Welfare Fund account to their workers to be forfeited to the fund when the workmen becomes not eligible for the amount so paid by the employer.2. Clause 46 of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Scheme provides for payment of Welfare Fund to Motor Transport Workers on completion of one year service. This provision was challenged earlier. The challenge was repelled as per the decision of this Court in Unni Mammu Haji v. State of Kerala (1989 (1) KLT 729). Even...
Tag this Judgment!Skipper Steel Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Inspector and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: [2003]130STC156(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioners in this batch of cases are suppliers of tapered steel tubes to BSNL. The BSNL has issued purchase orders to the factory of the petitioners located in Calcutta, wherefrom the items are despatched to the destination of BSNL in Kerala. The goods were detained at the check-post, Walayar, Palakkad, demanding entry tax as check-post authorities felt that the item fell under declared goods and therefore liable to entry tax. In some cases, entry tax was paid, and in some others under orders of this Court, the goods were released to the petitioners but at the same time this Court directed the BSNL to retain 4 per cent of the bill amount,2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Special Government Pleader for the State. The contention of the petitioners is that the items are custom made and are telephone poles used by BSNL. These are not declared goods falling under the Second Schedule and therefore there is no liability for entry tax...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dynamic Orthopedics P. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR446(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Cochin, in I. T. A. No. 115/Coch of 1993 dated January 13, 1999. The assessment year in question is 1990-91. The appellant is a private limited company engaged in manufacturing and sale of orthopedic appliances like compression bandages, fixation bandages, etc. In the return of income filed, the assessee returned an income of Rs. 1,50,730. In the profit and loss account, depreciation was provided at the rates specified in the Income-tax Rules. While completing the assessment of income, the Assessing Officer recomputed the book profit for the purpose of Section 115J of the Act after allowing depreciation as per Schedule XIV to the Companies Act read with Section 350 at a lower rate. Against that order, the assessee took up the matter ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Dynamic Orthopedics (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Ker)432
S. Sankarasubban, J.This appeal has been filed by the Commissioner, Cochin, under section 260A of the Income Tax Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), against the order passed by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Cochin in ITA No. 115/Coch/93 dated 13-1-1999. The assessment year in question is 1990-91, The appellant is a private limited company engaged in manufacturing and sale of orthopaedic appliances like compression bandages, fixation bandages, etc. In the return of income filed, the assessee returned an income of Rs. 1,50,730. In the profit and loss account depreciation was provided at the rates specified in the Income Tax Rules. While completing the assessment of income, the assessing officer recomputed the book profit for the purpose of section 115J of the Act after allowing depreciation as per Schedule XIV of the Companies Act read with section 350 at lower rate. Against that order, the assessee took up the matter before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appea...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Mookken Devassy Ouseph and S ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR1133]; (2003)ILLJ94Ker
P.R. Raman, J.1. The Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, is the appellant herein.2. The first respondent is an establishment by name 'Mookken Devassy Ouseph & Sons' which is engaged in the business of General Merchants & Commission Agents. The respondent herein filed an application before the E.I. Court as I.C. 17 of 1992 challenging Ext. P12 order dated 3.3.1992 of the appellant claiming contribution to the tune of Rs. 21,649/- from the respondent.3. The respondent herein was an establishment covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act by virtue of the notification issued by the Government on 29.3.1975. In addition to the establishment at Kochi, they got branches at various places within the State. Though the coverage itself was based on the total strength of Cochin Establishment and other branches, according to the respondent applicant, even this position changed and from 20.4.1989 the strength of employees in the establishment came down to 20 including th...
Tag this Judgment!Bhima Jewellery Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Commercial Ta ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: [2004]138STC272(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in gold jewellery who has applied for and was granted the benefit of payment of tax at compounded rate under Section 7(1) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Exhibit P1 is the order levying compounding fee under Section 7(1) of the Act. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that the assessing officer-first respondent has reckoned surcharge paid for the previous year also for the purpose of levying tax at compounded rate. According to counsel for the petitioner, surcharge is a separate levy governed by Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that what is paid towards tax at compounded rate is the tax payable under Section 5 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and since surcharge is a separate levy under a separate statute, the same should not be reckoned for the purpose of demanding tax at compounded rate for the relevant year, i.e., 2000-2001.2. I heard the Government Pleader ...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Falgunan and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]128STC297(Ker)
M. Ramachandran, J. 1. Exhibit P6 proceedings of the Sales Tax Officer and exhibit P7 penalty proceedings are under challenge. The petitioner also wants this Court to interfere with the recovery proceedings emanating therefrom. The petitioner was a dealer of Indian-made foreign liquor. For the assessment year 1993-94, on the basis of exhibit P1, the petitioner was subjected to tax liability, by order dated January 9, 1995. Thereafter, a notice under Section 19 had been issued to him suggesting that there was under-assessment since turnover had escaped from the assessment. Notwithstanding the objections of the petitioner, exhibit P6 revised assessment had been passed. A fresh turnover was determined, and the balance tax was demanded along with penal interest. Exhibit P7 was a consequential notice, proposing action under Section 45A of the Sales Tax Act. The submission put in by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that exhibit P6 was issued without authority of law and therefore co...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.M. Antony
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Ker)504; [2002]257ITR616(Ker)
B.N. Srikrishna, C.J.1. This writ appeal impugns a common judgment of the learned single judge dated June 14, 1996, in O. P. Nos. 11187 and 11190 of 1991 (P.M. Manuel v. ITO : [1997]226ITR616(Ker) ).2. The short facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under :The petitioners in both the original petitions are partners in six different firms. The income from the firms is the substantial income of the petitioners. The petitioners filed returns and paid advance tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as per the accounts of the firms for the assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86. The assessment orders for the said three assessment years were made on March 25, 1987, March 7, 1988 and March 28, 1988. The firms were also assessed for the assessment years and the incomes returned by the firms were increased by additions. Consequently, the incomes returned by the petitioners as incomes from the firms also were not accepted and assessed at hig...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »