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.
Abdul Haque Vs. I.C.D.S. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT166
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order in Arbitration O.P. No. 266/2000 on the file of the District Court Ernakulam. An application was filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the award' dated 29.4.2000 passed by the 2nd respondent herein. Application was resisted by the 1st respondent on the plea that such a petition would not be maintainable in the District Court, Ernakulam. Reference was made to Clause 20 of the agreement between the parties. Clause 20 of the said agreement reads as follows:- 'This Agreement is made and accepted at Manipal and hire instalments specified in Schedule 'B' shall be payable at Manipal or such other places specified by the owner and all the terms and conditions of this Agreement are to be observed and performed at there itself and the Courts in Dakshina Kannada alone and no other Courts whatsoever will have jurisdiction to try all or any suits in respect of any claim or disputes a...
Ambika Mammen Vs. Varghese
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT726
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the landlady against the judgment in R.C. A. No. 80 of 2001 on the files of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam. The case of the petitioner is as follows:2. The petition schedule building was rented out to the respondent-tenant in 1967. The tenant is conducting a business there. Petition was filed under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to the petitioner, she is now residing at Madras. But her native place is Ernakulam. She is closely associated with the business of rubber and rubber products. She is a partner of a business called 'Rubber Mach Industries'. This Firm is engaged in assembling and servicing of machines used for manufacture of rubber equipments. This work has great scope for development if a Branch of the Firm is established in Kerala, which is the major producer of rubber.3. The petitioner is a Director of a ...
Lucia Vs. Mini and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC242; 2003ACJ759
A. Lekshmikutty, J.1. Against the order in W.C.A. No. 3122 of 1995 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kollam, this appeal is preferred by the applicant No. 1. The appellant's son Stephen while employed with Neendakara Port Workmen's Society, a contractor of I.R.E. Ltd., Chavara died on 21.12.1993 on account of the injuries sustained to him during the course of employment. The appellant and her disabled son Xavier filed W.C.C. No. 32 of 1994 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kollam. The respondents are wife and child of late Stephen. The Commissioner found that the appellant and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the dependants of late Stephen. Commissioner also found that Neendakara Port Workmen's Society is liable to pay compensation. An amount of Rs. 85,428 was deposited before the Commissioner by the Neendakara Port Workmen's Society towards the award in W.C.C. No. 32 of 1994. The Commissioner apportioned the amount without taking into considerati...
Damodara Pai Vs. Challamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT487
J.M. James, J. 1. The landlord is the revision petitioner. His prayer to evict the tenants under Section 11(4)(i)of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, in short, 'the Act' in R.C.P. No. 44/90 on the file of the Rent Controller, Cochin, was rejected. He challenged it by filing R.C.A. No. 16/92 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam. But the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision.2. The landlord rented out the petition schedule building on 1.8.1959 to Chandrasekhara Menon. The rent fixed, after enhancement, was Rs. 100/- per month. The tenant, his mother and his younger brother were residing in the scheduled building. In 1964, the tenant joined Defence Department and served upto 1987. The mother of the tenant was retaining the scheduled building, residing therein and was paying rent on behalf of the tenant. Meanwhile, he got married with the 1st respondent herein. On certain stage, she also joined his company. The tenant died. T...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. K.O. Mathews
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Ker)406; [2003]261ITR702(Ker)
1. The following question of law is referred under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case/ the assessee is entitled to claim exemption of the price received by him on the sale of the car under Section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth-tax Act ?'2. The respondent/assessee was a non-resident Indian, who returned to India for permanent settlement on May 2, 1985. While returning to India, he had brought a Mercedes Benz car and claimed the value of the same as exempt under Section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth-tax Act. This claim was allowed up to the assessment year 1988-89. During the previous year relevant tp the assessment year 1989-90, the assessee sold the car for Rs. 4,50,000 and the sale proceeds were invested in movable properties and claimed exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxiii) on the amount of Rs. 4,50,000. The Assessing Officer disallowed the exemption holding that under Se...
Chandramathi Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC401; 2004ACJ155; 2003(2)KLT988; (2003)IIILLJ1122Ker
A. Lekshmikutty, J.1. The appellants were applicants in E.I.C. No. 17 of 1992 before the respondent, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Thrissur. They are the wife and children of the insured person late P. Purushothaman who had approached the Court for grant of compensation on account of the accident and death of the said Purushothaman in the course of his employment. The nature of the work attended by late Purushothaman was arduous in nature. He was engaged in carrying milk on a bicycle and distributing the same in houses and lodging rooms. On 27th February, 1989 late Purushothaman had an accident fall from his bicycle and sustained some external injuries. He fell down due to chest pain and giddiness. He was taken to the E.S.I. Dispensary, Meenchanda, Kozhikode from where he was referred to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. When he reached the Medical College Hospital, chest pain disappeared and as such he was treated as an out-patient in Medical College Hospital. On 14th Marc...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Panavision Electronics (Kerala) (P.) Lt ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Ker)634; [2003]264ITR710(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The following question of law is referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (for short 'the Act'), by the Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in the light of Section 80 of the Income-tax Act, the assessee is entitled to carry forward the loss computed on the basis of the return of income filed within the time for which extension was sought from the Assessing Officer ?'2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of the case are as follows. The respondent-assessee is a closely held company, carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of certain electronic items. The assessment year concerned is 1986-87, the relevant accounting period ended March 31, 1986. The due date for filing the return under Section 139(1) of the Act was July 31, 1986. The assessee filed an application in the prescribed form on July 30, 1986, seeking for extension of time for filing the return till October 31...
Deputy Commissioner (Law), Commercial Taxes Vs. C.P. Rajarathinam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-2003
Reported in: (2008)11VST53(Ker)
ORDERG. Sivarajan, J.1. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act'). The issue relates to the application of the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act, brought into force with effect from April 1, 1992. The assessment year concerned is 1989-90. The respondent/assessee is a jeweller. The assessment of the respondent was completed under Section 17(3) of the Act as per order dated October 30,1995 (annex-ure A). Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Palakkad, where he had raised a contention that the assessing authority erred in completing the assessment under Section 17(3) of the Act in view of the provisions of the Act in Section 17(4). Though the first appellate authority adverted to that contention, he did not deal with the same. He confirmed the assessment order. Hence, the assessee filed second appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Addition...
Capp International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sidco
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-2003
Reported in: [2003]114CompCas545(Ker); 2003(1)KLT387; [2003]46SCL68(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal arises out of the order in I.A.No.3701 of 1990 in O.S. No. 861 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Thiruvananthapuram.2. The Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (in short 'SIDCO') was arrayed as first defendant in O.S. No. 861 of 1989 which was a suit filed by M/s. Capp. International Private Limited, for a declaration that the contract evidenced by Ext. B4 was duly discharged by performance and no part of the contract subsisted and also for a declaration that the first defendant was not entitled to make any claim against the plaintiff under the said contract by way of damages or loss or otherwise and also for a decree directing the first defendant and or the second defendant to pay the plaintiff bank guarantee of Rs. 3.5 lakhs appropriated by the first defendant with interest.3. Suit was instituted on 3.11.1989 and was posted to 17.1.1990 for the appearance of the defendants. On 17.1.1990 defendants e...
Mathew Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT437
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. Do the provisions embodied in Articles 292 and 293 of the Constitution debar the Central and the State Governments from borrowing any money beyond the amount standing to their credit in the Consolidated Fund? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this petition. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be noticed.2. The petitioner is the President of Nishabdha Bhooripaksham. When translated, the organization means - 'the silent majority.' It was started as an association of public-spirited persons. It is now a political party. The petitioner himself is an assessee. He complains that the Union of India and the State Government of Kerala are arbitrarily borrowing money in violation of the 'letter and spirit of Articles 14, 292, 293 and 39(b) of the Constitution......' The State Government is throwing away 'its precious largessein gross violation of Art. 14 in the form of retention of excess employees ....' As aresult, the t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »