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.
Capital Syndicate Vs. Jameela
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-2003
Reported in: [2003]44SCL220(Ker)
R. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of the complainant in C.C. No. 312/99 before the Judl. First Class Magistrate's Court, Kunnamkulam. The firm Capital Syndicate through its Manager filed the criminal complaint against the accused Jameela allegingcommission of offence Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), The accused obtained hire purchase facility from the complainant firm, doing financial business, in respect of her autorikshaw bearing No. KL-10/7100 and received an amount of Rs. 27,950/- by executing Ext. P3 agreement on 8.10.1983. The entire amount with interest thereon had to be repaid in 36 instalments; It was alleged that after remitting 8 instalments, the accused defaulted and when the complainant demanded repayment of the entire balance amount, in April 1999, the accused issued a cheque drawn on Dhanalakshmi Bank, Kunnamkulam Branch for an amount of Rs. 36,000/-. On presentation of the above c...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.E. Kesavan and Sons
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Ker)498; [2004]269ITR587(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. The Tribunal, Cochin Bench, at the instance of the Department has referred the following question of law for the decision of this Court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) deleting the sum of Rs. 9,11,380 deemed as profit under Section 41(1) of the IT Act for the asst. yr.. 1987-88?' 2. The matter arises under the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The brief facts necessary for the decision of this case are as follows : The respondent-assessee is a partnership-firm carrying on business in the export of marine products. During the course of the assessment for the year 1987-88 the relevant accounting period ended 31st Dec., 1986, the AO noted that hi the balance sheet of the firm as on 31st Dec., 1986, there was a provision of Rs. 27,01,111 towards purchase-tax liability. The AO also found that out of the total provision of Rs. 27,01,111, Rs. 17,89,732 had already...
Mohammed Abdul Kader Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Ker)325
C.N. Ramchandran Nair, J.The OP is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to hear the petitioner and dispose of the appeals within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment which will be produced by the petitioner. There will be stay against all proceedings for recovery of the arrears of tax due and the interest thereon, on the petitioner depositing 30 per cent of the arrears within one month from now....
Cit Vs. K.E. Kesavan and Sons
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-2003
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN514(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench at the instance of the department has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the sum of Rs. 9,11,380 deemed as profit under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1987-88 ?'2. The matter arises under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The brief facts necessary for the decision of this case are as follows : The respondent-assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business in the export of marine products. During the course of the assessment for the year 1987-88 the relevant accounting period ended 31-12-1986 the assessing officer noted that in the balance sheet of the firm as on 31-12-1986 there was a provision of Rs. 27,01,111 towards purchase tax liability. The assessing officer a...
State of Kerala Vs. A.F. John, Pavizham Jewellary
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-2003
Reported in: [2006]146STC330(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. These two revisions are filed by the State against the common order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. Nos. 376 and 377 of 1998 in respect of the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95. The respondent-assessee in both the revisions is one and the same person, who is a jeweller at Thrissur. The assessment years, as already noted, are 1993-94 and 1994-95. For the assessment year 1993-94 the assessee filed a return disclosing a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 4,08,591.98. Similarly for the assessment year 1994-95 the assessee filed a return disclosing a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 8,00,063,31. The assessing authority proposed to reject the returns and the books of accounts for the aforesaid two years and to estimate the turnover to the best of judgment. The reasons stated by the assessing authority for rejecting the books of accounts for the year 1993-94 are as follows:1. The assessee has not maintained a manufacturing account in form 25B as provided in t...
Sajan Ninan Vs. Binu S. George
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-10-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker213; II(2003)DMC257; 2003(1)KLT740
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The respondent wife filed an application under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 alleging desertion and cruelty by the appellant/husband. The appellant/husband filed a counter affidavit dated 24.7.2001. The parties went on trial. The respondent/petitioner closed her evidence. The appellant/husband commenced his evidence. He introduced certain evidence as the nullity of the marriage between them. At that point the respondent wife objected contending that such evidence could not be adduced in a petition under Section 10 filed by her on the ground of desertion and cruelty. This was answered by the appellant contending that in the counter affidavit he had already raised a counter claim for declaring the marriage a nullity in terms of Rule 6A Order 8 CPC read with Section 45 of the Divorce Act, 1869. Thereupon the learned single Judge was called upon to decide whether a counter claim will lie in a proceedings under Section 10 in the light of Section 15 of the Act a...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mary
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-09-2003
Reported in: III(2003)ACC95; 2003ACJ1940; 2003(2)KLT495
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The insurer has filed these appeals impugning the award whereby compensation has been directed to be paid to the injured persons in a motor accident. The injured persons were travelling in a goods vehicle- This is an admitted position. The accident occurred on 31.7.1991 i.e. after the enforcement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and before the amendment effected to Section 147 as per Act 54/94 to be effective from 14.11.1994. Therefore, the provisions in Section 147 as it stood before the said amendment has to be considered in this case.2. The Tribunal below found that the injured persons were covered by the policy, relying on the decision reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Appukuttan (1995 (1) KLT 807) wherein this Court had held that the gratuitous passenger carried in the vehicle will be covered even if the policy was an Act only policy.3. The insurance company has filed these appeals contending that the goods vehicles are not intended to carry pas...
Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. CochIn P ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-09-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR676]; (2003)IILLJ117Ker
A. Lekshmikutty, J. 1. The parties in these two appeals are one and the same. The question involved also is the same. These appeals are filed by the first opposite party in I.C. No. 80 of 1993 and I.C. No. 108 of 1993 respectively of the Employees' Insurance Court, Alappuzha. Challenging the order passed by the appellant demanding payment of contribution with interest for the period from March 11, 1991, to March 10,1992, and from April 1991, to September1992, respectively, the applicant filed theabove said cases. The first respondent hereinwas conducting a canteen for the benefit of theworkers of the Cochin Port Trust, in theharbour premises. The only contention takenby the first respondent was that the factoriesbelonging to the Cochin Port Trust wereexempted from the operation of the provisionsof the Employees' State Insurance Act. So, thefirst respondent who was the contractor underthe Cochin Port Trust is not liable to paycontribution to the appellant. The Employees'Insurance Court ...
Vanchiyoor Madhom Dhanwanthari Sannidhanam Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-08-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker188; 2003(1)KLT520
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. 'Should persons who do not fulfil the prescribed qualifications and are not duly registered under the relevant statute be permitted to practise as Vaidyas?' This is the core of the controversy in this case.2. We have a bunch of 46 petitions. Out of these, O.P. Nos. 27784 and 21923 of 2002 form one part and the remaining 44 petitions constitute the second part. In the first set of petitions, the main prayer is for a declaration that a person who does not possess the recognised qualification and is not registered under the Act is not entitled to practise medicine. In the second set of cases, the petitioners do not possess the prescribed qualifications. They are not even registered. Yet, the prayer is for the issue of a writ of mandamus declaring that they are entitled 'either to get exemption from Section 38 of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 or to get registration under the provisions of the said Act.' The facts as averred in O.P. No. 2778...
Raveendran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-08-2003
Reported in: II(2003)BC606; 2003(1)KLT1006
Cyriac Joseph, J. 1. The appellant is the petitioner in O.P. No. 36894 of 2002 which was dismissed bythe learned single Judge. 2. In the Original Petition the appellant prayed for a direction to the second respondent-Project Officer N.H. (ADB) Circle, Edapilly, Ernakulam not to award the third work notified in Ext. P2 tender notice to the third respondent. C.A. Shaji, by entertaining the tender received in violation of the conditions stipulated in Ext. P2, There was also a prayer for a direction to the second respondent to award the said work to the appellant since he was the lower bidder among all the qualified tenders received as per Ext. P2. There was a further prayer for a direction to respondent No. 2 to consider and dispose of Ext. P3 representation. The learned Single Judge found that there was no merit in the contentions raised by the appellant and accordingly the Original Petition was dismissed. 3. According to the appellant it was specified in Ext.P2 that tenders would be rec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »