Kerala Court September 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Punnous @ Kurian, Udaya Engineering Works and ors. Vs. K.O. Devassy an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC440
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. An employer, opposite party in a workman's compensation case has approached this Court with this appeal challenging the award of compensation in favour of dependents of a deceased in an accident in the boatyard of the appellant. The death took place due to electric shock.2. The main contention urged by the appellant is that the deceased was engaged only as casual labourer, that too, for cleaning the compound, where both the residence as well as the factory building are situated and that the said casual employment was in no way related to the trade or business of the appellant. Therefore, he was not a workman in terms of Section 2(n) as it stood before the amendment effected in 2000. The provision as it stood then reads as follows:workman-means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purpose of employer's trade or business)....In order to exclude one form the term as defined, it shall to be...
Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Global Marine Products
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-17-2002
Reported in: [2003]114CompCas733(Ker); 2003(1)KLT48
K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J. 1. The plaintiff Bank in O.S. 24 of 1988 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Alappuzha is the appellant. The judgment dated 12.8.1993 is under challenge.2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of the money advanced by it to the first defendant partnership firm on different counts. Defendants 2 to 4 are the partners of the firm and defendants 5 to 8 are the guarantors who furnished security for the loan by way of mortgage to the plaintiff. The 9th defendant is a Limited Company which is an export house in Delhi having arrangement with the first defendant to export the goods in their name.3. The plaintiff claimed a total amount of Rs. 16,29,582.86/- with interest thereon at 16.5% per annum.4. The fact that the appellant bank allowed the following facilities to the first respondent, partnership firm is admitted.1. Packing credit facility 2. Term loan 3. Temporary Overdraft 4. Foreign demand bills purchase facility. 5. The appellant ...
Kuttukaran Machine Tools Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Ker)104
G. Sivarajan, J.1. IT Ref. No. 302 of 1997 is at the instance of the assessee. The Tribunal has referred the following three questions for decision by this Court at the instance of the assessee :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that there was a transfer of the assets of the firm giving rise to capital gains liable to tax ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that as the business as a going concern was the capital asset which was the subject of the transfer and not the individual assets and the gain, if any, on the transfer of the business as a whole had to be computed and brought to tax ?3. Whether the Tribunal ought to have held that the cost of acquisition and cost of improvement of the business as a going concern were not ascertainable and so a business as a going concern was not an asset on the transfer of which a liability to capital gains arose ?'2. ...
Kuttukaran Machine Tools Vs. Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-17-2002
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN690(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.I.T.R. No. 302 of 1997 is at the instance of the assessee. The Tribunal has referred the following three questions for decision by this court at the instance of the assessee : ''1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that there was a transfer of the assets of the firm giving rise to capital gains liable to tax ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal ought to have held that as the business as a going concern was the capital asset which was the subject of the transfer and not the individual assets and the gain, if any, on the transfer of the business as a whole had to be computed and brought to tax3. Whether the Tribunal ought to have held that the cost of acquisition and cost of improvement of the business as a going concern were not ascertainable and so a business as a going concern was not an asset on the transfer of which a liability to capital gains arose ?'2. I.T.R. N...
Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Jolly
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC238
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order in LA. No. 93 of 2000 in LP. No. 1 of 2000 of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. Petitioner is the 93rd respondent in LP. No. 1 of 2000 filed by the respondents herein on the file of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. The respondents in the Civil Revision Petition filed the above petition for adjudging as insolvents under the provisions of the Kerala Insolvency Act on the ground that huge debts were incurred in money lending business by the first respondent herein under the name and style 'National Union Trust' at Kothamangalam. 2. The petitioner-herein is a Banking Society incorporated as per the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and Rules framed thereunder and having branches among other places at Kothamangalam in Ernakulam District. The respondents had, availed two loans of Rs. 9 lakhs from the petitioner - Bank on 17.11.1995, on the security of the immovable properties belonging to the r...
Siemens India Limited Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: [2003]132STC418(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. These T.R.Cs. are filed against the common order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam, in 12 appeals. The assessment years are 1986-87 to 1991-92 and from 1992-93 to 1995-96. Assessee is M/s. Siemens Limited. The facts necessary for the disposal of this case are as follows : 2. Petitioner is an assessee on the rolls of the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax, Special Circle II, Ernakulam. While completing the assessment in respect of the assessee for the relevant years, the assessing authority disallowed the following claims of exemption made under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to -as 'the CST Act') :1986-87 ... Rs. 50,17,537.001987-88 ... Rs. 31,84,914.001988-89 ... Rs. 46,00,265.001989-90 ... Rs. 4,53,114.001990-91 ... Rs. 27,99,864.001991-92 ... Rs. 29,63,052.001993-94 ... Rs. 7,63,225.001994-95 ... Rs. 1,42,15,090.001995-96 ... Rs 62,42,389.00The assessee claimed exemption o...
Leela Mathew Vs. Krishnamoorthy
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Ker25
ORDERR. Bhaskaran, J.1. The registry has rightly refused to number the case as a Second Appeal. The suit was filed for realisation of Rs. 13,600/-. Though the trial court decreed the suit, the lower appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court. The Second Appeal was filed on 1.7.2002 on which the date the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 2002 came into force. Section 102 of the Code, as amended, reads as follows:'102. No Second Appeal in certain cases.- No Second Appeal shall lie from any decree, when the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees.'In this case, the valuation in the suit is only Rs. 13,600/- and therefore no second appeal is maintainable under Section 102.2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants brought to my notice the decision of the Supreme Court in Garikapati v. Subbiah Choudhry (AIR 1957 SC 540) where the Supreme Court has held as follows:'From the decisions cited a...
Palakkad District Co-operative Printing Press Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT622; [2004]135STC207(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. This revision is at the instance of the assessee. The assessment year concerned is 1986-87. The assessee is a Co-operative Printing Press, inter alia, engaged in themanufacture and sale of printed Account Books and Registers. In the assessment year concerned, the assessee contended before the assessing authority that printed Account Books and Registers are stationery items exigible to tax only at the rate of 5 per cent as they are unclassified items. The assessing authority took the stand that these two items will fall under Entry 97B of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act as it stood at the relevant time. In appeal, the first appellate authority considered both items with reference to Entries 97 and 97B of the First Schedule to the said Act as they stood at the relevant time and took the view that the two items will not fall under any of the said two entries and held that it is liable to be assessed only as unclassified items exigible to tax at 5 ...
Chammanadu Devaswom Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Ker55
ORDERM. Ramachandran, J.1. Demand for building tax had been resisted by the petitioner, which is a Devaswom. They had constructed a Sadyalayam and the Tahsildar, Cherthala (first respondent herein) had assessed the said structure under the Building Tax Act, as a building coming under the definitions given under the Act. Ext. P1 is the order. At that time, petitioner had preferred an Original Petition challenging the order, inter alia contending that the said officer had no jurisdiction to make an assessment, and in view of Section 3(2) of the Act, the question was to be exclusively decided by the Government. The learned Judge, therefore, accepting the objections, had directed reference of the issue to the Government. 2. The Government after consideration of the issue has passed Ext. P5 order and held that the building is not eligible for exemption from payment of building tax. This is now under challenge. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was heard by one ...
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. I ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: [2003]132STC431(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The assessee who is a registered dealer in Kerala both under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act, obtained a purchase order from Tata Tea Limited for supply and delivery of 225 bundles of barbed wire at the buyer's place at Valpari in Tamil Nadu. Pursuant to the purcahse order so obtained, the assessee placed a supply order with a Calcutta supplier with direction to send the goods to the buyer's place. At the request of the assessee, the supplier sent the goods to Valparai under cover of invoice in favour of the assessee and sent E1 form to the assessee to claim exemption on subsequent inter-State sale under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessee also issued C form obtained from Kerala for the purchase made to Calcutta party. After such purchase, the assessee made sale to Tata Tea Ltd., and claimed exemption under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Though sale by endorsement of title to goods (LR) ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »