Kerala Court August 2002 Judgments
Vijayan Pillai Vs. R.T.O. Trissur
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT184
R. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. O.P. No. 10125/97, 11450/97, 938/98, 6160/98, 24201/98, 35209/2000 and 9977/2002 were filed mainly for directing the respondents, the R.T.A., the Transport Commissioner and the State of Kerala, not to issue any special permits to stage carriages for operation as contract carriages. O. P. 10125/97 was filed by the Secretary of the Kodungallur Area Drivers Union representing the owner-cum-driver of tax cars and contract carriages. The petitioners in O.P. 11450/97 are owners of vehicles having contract carriage permits. O.P. 35209/2000 was filed by 47 persons wherein petitioners 1 and 2 are passengers regularly travelling in stage carriages whereas petitioners 3 to 47 are owners operating their vehicles as contract carriages. O. P. 9977/2002 was filed by the Tourist Bus Operators' Association, Irinjalakuda. O.P. 938/98 was filed by the All Kerala Contract Carriage Operators' Association along with four contract carriage operators. O.P. 6160/98 was filed by the Path...
Tag this Judgment!Jose Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT210
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. 1. The petitioner was a teacher of the third respondent's school. He challenges the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on him. The brief facts of the case are the following:2. The allegation against the petitioner was that he molested a girl student on 3.10.1990. This incident came to light on the basis of a complaint given by the father of the girl on 8.10.1990. The petitioner was served with a Memo of Charges on 7.12.1990 by the Manager. He was placed under suspension on 11.10.1990. The Manager being dissatisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, passed an order on 24.12.1990 for holding a formal enquiry.3. The petitioner submits that even before such a formal motion is made by the Manager under the Rules, the Enquiry Officer - the District Educational Officer, started the enquiry as evident by Ext.P9 enquiry notice dated 6.12.1990. Even before issuing Ext.P9, the DEO secretly took the evidence of the victim on 27.11.1990. On 20.12.1990, n...
Tag this Judgment!Jithamol Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT14
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner is the wife of one Mr. Nikesh who died on 4.7.2001 while working as a Police Constable. She applied for appointment on compassionate grounds under the dying-in-harness scheme. Her application has been returned to her by Ext.P4 order dated 8.7.2002, on the ground that she did not forward the consent letter of other dependents for giving employment to her. She has been directed to get such a consent letter and forward the same along with the application.2. The appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme is governed by G.O.(P) No. 12/99/P&ARD; dated 24.5.1999. Clause14(c) of the said G.O. reads as follows:-'In the case of dependents other than widow/widower the consent of the widow/widower shall invariably be obtained.'It means if the widow or widower is the applicant, there is no question of any consent of others. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P4 is plainly ultra vires and unauthorised.3. I heard the learned...
Tag this Judgment!Ernakulam Dt. Wholesale Co-op. Consumer Stores Ltd. Vs. Ittimani
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT268
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. Both these Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the order in R.C. A. No. 44 of 2001 of the District Court, Ernakulam. While the tenant is the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 3384 of 2001, landlords are the petitioners in C.R.P. No. 218 of 2002. Original proceeding is R.C.P. No. 57 of 1995 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. The petition for eviction was filed under Section 11(3) bona fide use, Section 11(4)(i) subletting and Section 11(4)(ii) using the building in such a manner as to reduce its utility and value, of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Before the trial court, it was contended by the tenant that the Rent Control Petition is not maintainable. The tenant also contended that there are two buildings, which were taken on rent and a single petition is not maintainable. This contention was accepted. Further, the Rent Control Court held against the petitioners - landlords under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abad Fisheries
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR641(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. Income-tax Appeal No. 91 of 1999 is filed by the Revenue while I. T. A, No. 150 of 2000 is filed by the assessee. Both these appeals are filed challenging the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I. T. A. No. 607/Coch. of 1995. The relevant assessment year is 1991-92. The facts of the case are as follows :The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in export of marine products. The assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 1991-92 on March 27, 1992, declaring taxable income of Rs. 19,800 which was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148 of the Act and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) determining the total income of Rs. 17,58,230.2. While working out the deduction under Section 80HHC, the assessee has included export bills amounting to Rs. 11,10,377 which have not been realised befo...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Cancer Centre Vs. Gopalan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT982
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. Challenge is against Ext. P4 order passed by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission. The first respondent filed Ext. P1 petition before the said Commission alleging human rights violation consequently on an alleged act by the petitioners herein, during his treatment at the hospital of the 1st petitioner. The 2nd petitioner is the Director of the hospital. The petitioners objected on the grounds of limitation. Section 36(2) the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 provides that 'State Commission shall not enquire into any matter after expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting violation of human rights alleged to have been committed'. Therefore, Ext. P1 petition was filed belatedly beyond the said period from the date of alleged-human rights violation namely, administration of certain chemicals on 13.1.2000, 14.1.2000 and 15.1.2000. Even according to the 1st respondent on 13.1.2000,14.1.2000 and 15.1.2000 he was given M4N and G4N injections...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Abad Fisheries
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Ker)532
S. Sankarasubban, J.ITA No. 91 of 1999 is filed by the revenue while ITA No. 150 of 2000 is filed by the assessee. Both these appeals are filed challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA No. 607/Coch/1995. The relevant assessment year is 1991-92. The facts of the case are as follows :2. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in export of marine products. The assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 1991-92 on 27-3-1992, declaring taxable income of Rs. 19,800 which was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').Thereafter, the assessing officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) determining the total income of Rs. 17,58,230.3. While working out the deduction under section 80HHC the assessee has included export bills amounting to Rs. 11,10,377 which have not been realised before six months from the end of the assessment year. The Chie...
Tag this Judgment!Surendran Vs. Safiya Beebi Umma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT451
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. C.R.P. Nos. 1786, 1888 and 1930/2002 are filed by the respondents in R.C.P. No. 12/95 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Teliicherry. C.R.P. No. 2866/2001 is filed by the landlord who was the petitioner in the above Rent Control Petition.2. The landlord filed a petition for eviction under Sections 11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to the landlord, the petition schedule building belongs to her and it was leased out to the first respondent in the Rent Control Petition as per registered kychit on a monthly rent of Rs. 175/- on 13.9.1963. Respondents 2 and 3 in the R.C.P are the sub tenants and first respondent sub leased portions of the building to them with the consent of the then landlord. Without consent of the landlord first respondent sub leased a portion of the building to 4th respondent. It was also alleged that respondents 1 to 3 are not doing any busines...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner (Law), Commercial Taxes Vs. Associated Engineering ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: [2003]129STC324(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This T.R.C. is filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, in T.A. No. 580 of 1997. The revision relates to the assessment year 1988-89. The assessee is a dealer in electrical goods, marble tiles, etc. Controversy in this revision relates to the rate of tax on sales turnover of marble tiles. The assessing authority taxed the said commodity at the point with first sale in the State at 20 per cent since the said commodity falls under entry No. 88 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.2. The assessee filed an appeal. The appellate authority found that they are glazed tiles. The assessee relied on entry No. 88. The appellate authority on examination found enough glazing on the surface of the samples. Thus, the appellate authority held that marbles are glazed tiles coming under entry No. 88 of the First Schedule taxable at 20 per cent on its first sale. Against that the assessee filed second appeal before ...
Tag this Judgment!Greenex Polymers Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: [2003]130STC184(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. These T.R.Cs. are filed against the com-mon order passed in T.A. Nos. 144 and 145 of 1999 on the file of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Palakkad. The assessment years in question are 1994-95 and 1995-96 respectively. The petitioner is the assessee. It is an SSI unit, represented by its partner. The petitioner is manufacturing PVC flexible pipes and garden hose. The petitioner conceded a turnover of Rs. 57,92,953.45 and claimed exemption for the entire turnover under the SSI exemption for the year 1994-95 and Rs. 50,96,026.99 for the year 1995-96. The assessing authority completed the assessment on best of judgment rejecting the return and accounts and fixed the total turnover at Rs. 58,00,750 and Rs. 51,35,250 respectively. The main reason for the estimation is that the petitioner has not maintained manufacturing account.2. The assessing authority, while completing the assessment levied tax at 7 per cent on ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »