Kerala Court January 2003 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.V. Thomas and Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Ker)116
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the CIT, Trivandrum, against the order of the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in ITA No. 712/Coch/95, dt. 17th Aug., 1999. The assessment year concerned in 1992-93. The following questions of law are formulated by the appellant, and notice was ordered on the said questions : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the decision Apogee International Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. : [1996]220ITR248(Delhi) the Tribunal is right in holding the intimation issued by the AO under Section 143(1)(a) on 26th Nov., 1993, after issuing the notice under Section 143(2) on 13th July, 1993, was not a valid intimation that could be upheld in law.' (ii) 'such an invalid order under Section 143(1)(a) could not be rectified under Section 154 of the IT Act. Hence, the impugned order of rectification is to be annulled.' '2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the principle...
Alexander George Vs. Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-2003
Reported in: [2003]128TAXMAN851(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.This reference is at the instance of the assessee. The year in question is 1986-87. The facts of the case are as follows :2. Assessee was the owner of 2.47 acres of land situated in Thrikkakara Panchayat. The assessee received a total sum of Rs. 15,56,015 as compensation on acquisition of the land by the State Government. Before the assessing officer, the assessee had claimed that it was agricultural land and so the capital gains arising on the transfer was not liable to tax under the Income Tax Act. The assessing officer did not accept that claim and he prepared to make the assessment of the capital gains at. Rs. 13,33,987.3. In the assessees appeal, the Commissioner (Appeal) held that the capital gains arising on the transfer of the land constituted income within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act and so it was rightly brought to tax. Another contention that the assessee had raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) was that the capital gains, if at all taxabl...
Ajith Kumar Vs. Director General of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC24; AIR2003Ker214; 2003(1)KLT671
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. Sri. M.S. Ajith Kumar and Sri. S. Ramadas who were conducting travel agencies and contract carriage services, filed this Original Petition for declaring that the respondent police officials have no power or authority to detain and seize tourist vehicles belonging to the petitioners and other operators for the alleged violation of the offences under Chapter XIII of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short to be referred as the Act hereinafter) and in the guise of inspection and on trivial offences and also for directing respondents 1 to 3 to consider and pass orders and to dispose of Exts. P12 and P13 representations made by the petitioner.2. The allegations in the petition briefly as follows: Petitioners were conducting travel agencies and also conducting contract carriage services. Their business include arranging tours and contract carriage operation for which they have obtained the required licence. They used to issue tickets for conveying passengers for travel in su...
Kerala Water Authority Vs. Valsan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT971
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. The question to be decided in this order is whether the Kerala Water Authority can file an appeal without paying court fee. By the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002, (hereinfafter referred to as the 'Ordinance') Section 73A was inserted in the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, which reads as follows:'73A. Special provision regarding suits, appeals, revision etc. filed by or on behalf of the Government before the Court - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, where a suit, appeal, revision, review or other pleadings or documents are filed or presented by or on behalf of the Government or its officers in their official capacity before any Court, no Court fee shall be chargeable in respect of such suit, appeal, revision, review or other pleadings or documents under the provisions of this Act.'Under the above provision, the Government or its officers in their official capacity can file a s...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kottan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC634; 2003ACJ1816; 2003(2)KLT29
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. The insurer has filed these appeals challenging the awards passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod in O.P. (MV) No. 611 of 1996 and 417 of 1996 respectively whereby the appellant was directed to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased and the injured in a motor accident.2. The vehicle in question is admittedly a tractor as defined in Section 2(44) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Neither the deceased nor the injured was the owner of any goods carried in the vehicle or his representative. Further, the vehicle was not carrying any goods at the relevant time. As per the definition of a 'tractor', it is not one designed to carry goods. Even if it was carrying goods while it was being used, it will not come within the definition of goods carriage, as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act.3. Ext.B6 is the registration certificate of the vehicle in question which shows that it has the sitting capacity to...
Navu Vs. Chinnayyan Chettiar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT283
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment in R.C.A. No. 8 of 1991 of the 1st Additional District Court, Palakkad. Tenants have come in revision. R.C.P. No. 60 of 1987 was filed by the landlord. According to the, landlord, the petition schedule building was taken on rent by the original tenant for the purpose of his residence. The tenant was a dhobi. So, he was also doing business of laundry in the petition schedule building. The present petition for eviction was filed on the ground of bonafide need for some of the petitioners. According to the petitioner - landlord, his son has married and he wants the petition schedule building for occupation. The trial court dismissed the petition stating that the bonafide need is not proved. The Appellate Court held that there was bonafide need and also found that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the proviso.2. There is another ground for eviction that the respondents - tenants were using ...
Delta Foundations and Constructions Vs. Kerala State Construction Corp ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker201; 2003(1)KLT626
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This Review Petition has been preferred by the defendants in the suit stating that this Court while applying Article 55 of the Limitation Act had committed an error apparent on the face of the record, consequently liable to set right the error.2. Counsel appearing for the review petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Raja Shatrunjit v. Mohammed Azmat Azim Khan (AIR 1971 S.C. 1474) and contended that the grounds for review under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure includes mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record. Error apparent on the face of the record must be an error which must strike on mere looking at the record and would not require long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly said to be an error apparent, on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its ...
Vincent Vs. Housing and Urban Development Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker176; III(2003)BC148; 2003(1)KLT474; [2003]44SCL351(Ker)
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J. 1. Three strangers who filed apetition to get themselves impleaded in O.A. No. 42 of 2001 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam are the petitioners in this Original Petition. In the petition it is averred that the petitioners entered into an agreement with one Ajith Associates Private Limited, a Company which is engaged in developing plots and constructing flats in Vyttila and Ernakulam. It is averred that the petitioners were allotted apartments in a multistoreyed complex which remains incomplete and the construction of which was undertaken by the Ajith Associates Private Limited in pursuance to the sale agreements. It is averred that the petitioners have paid the full amount which was due to the developer of the plot but he did not complete the construction and on enquiry it is understood that the Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. (HUDCO for short) has filed an Original Application as O.A. No. 42 of 2001 before the Debts Recovery T...
Chitaranjan Vs. Jayarajan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-17-2003
Reported in: IV(2005)BC167; 2005(1)KLT790
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. In these Revision Petitions the very same petitioner/complainant assails the dropping of criminal proceedings initiated by him against the very same common respondent/accused in respect of two cheques under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner/complainant alleged that the respondent/accused had issued two cheques each for Rs. 35,000/- with different dates for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. The cheques were dishonoured on the basis of stop memos issued by the accused. Notices of demand were issued. But they did not succeed in securing payments. It was stated in reply that the cheques for the specified amount were actually issued but they were not issued for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt/liability. The complainant came to the Court alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. According to the complainant he had brought the original cheques to the Court at the time of...
Prakash Vs. Director General of Boarder Roads
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT536
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. 1. The petitioner is a retired employee of the GREF. He applied for voluntary retirement from service on medical grounds. But the petitioner is not being paid pension for the reason that he has not completed 20 years of service. The representation filed by the petitioner claiming pension has been rejected by Ext. P3 order dated 4.9.2002. The stipulation contained in Rule 48A(1) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules is challenged by the petitioner as unconstitutional and therefore, invalid. According to him, the fixation of minimum 20 years as qualifying service is highly arbitrary and unjust.2. A Division. Bench of this Court, in Pankajakshy v. George Mathew (1987 (2) KLT 723) has succinctly stated the grounds available for challenging the validity of a subordinate legislation. The relevant portion of the said Judgment reads as follows:-'12. Thus, the rule made under a statute by an authority delegated for the purpose can be challenged on the ground (1) ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »