Kerala Court October 2003 Judgments
Radha Vs. Raju
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT1046
ORDERR. Basant, J. 1. Whether the order of the learned Magistrate discharging the respondents/accused invoking the power under Section 245 Cr.P.C. is correct? This is the short question arising for consideration in this revision.2. The complainant's husband is facing indictment in a prosecution under Section 302 I.P.C. The gist of the allegations against him in the said case is that he, along with others, trespassed into the residential building of a neighbour and caused the death of one Sabu. The complainant is the daughter of the uncle of the deceased. She had married out of her caste. The accused are all relatives of the deceased. The first accused is his brother, the second accused his mother, the third accused his brother-in-law and the 4th accused his sister. The incident in which Sabu met with his death occurred on the night of 11.7.1997. That incident was at about 10 p.m., according to the prosecution. The complainant's husband was taken into custody on the same night.3. More t...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Kutty Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1603; 2004(1)KLT331
G. Sasidharan, J.1. This appeal is filed by the accused in Sessions Case 72/1995 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Wayanad. The allegation against the appellant was that he committed the offences under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is stated that on 9.1.1995 at about 2 p.m. appellant used criminal force by catching hold of the uniform of PW.2 Gopalan, a public servant with intent to prevent or deter him from the execution of his official duty and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. There was also allegation that the appellant intentionally insulted and humiliated PW.2 within public view by calling him 'Kurichian' and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The trial Court convicted the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Vasanthakumari Vs. George Selvaraj
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT243
ORDERP.R. Raman, J.1. In this case the execution court rejected the claim petition under Order XXI, Rule 102. As per Rule 102 the order passed deemed to be a decree for the purpose of appeal. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the appellate court confirmed the order, against which the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.2. Order XXI, Rule 103 is similarly worded as is in Order XXI, Rule 58(3) of the C.P.C Interpreting the said provision the Division Bench of this Court in Anto Mamkoottam v. Peruvanthanam Service Co-operative Bank (1996 (2) KLT 962) held that a further second appeal will lie against the order passed under Order XXI, Rule 58(4), even though there is no specific reference to further appeal incorporated in that section. The same view was taken in Ghasi Sahu and Anr. v. Himachal Sahu and Anr. (AIR 1986 Orissa 170) and Mohammed Jameel Ahmed Ansari v. Ishrath Sajeeda and Ors. (AIR 1983 AP 106). The Apex Court in Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand Kumar and Bros. and Anr. (AIR ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jairam and Sons
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Ker)199; [2004]269ITR285(Ker)
K.S. RADHAKWSHNAN, J. 1. This reference has been made by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the IT Act to consider the following questions :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of Section 43B r/w Section 36(1)(va), the Tribunal is right in law in folding-- (i) second proviso imposes the condition of payment before the due date only in respect of any sum received by an assessee from his employees to which the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) apply. (ii) the assessee is entitled to deduct the sum of Rs. 32,900 being the contribution to Group Gratuity made on 18th Jan., 1991?' 2. The assessee is a partnership firm, carrying on business as shipping agents. One of the grounds raised by the assessee before the Tribunal was regarding disallowance under Section 43B of the IT Act in respect of the expenditure by way of premium payable under the Group Gratuity Scheme to the Life Insurance Corporation. It was contended by the assessee that the CIT(A...
Tag this Judgment!Joji Edattel Vs. the Secretary, R.T.A.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC597; 2004(1)KLT493
Cyriac Joseph, J.1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment in Writ Petition No. 28708/2003. The appellant was not a party to the Writ Petition. He has filed this appeal with the leave of the court. The 2nd respondent was the petitioner in the Writ Petition.2. The 2nd respondent is the holder of regular permits to operate stage carriage services on the route Kumily-Ernakulam and Thopramkudi-ErnakuIam in respect of his Stage Carriages KL-6/7671 and KL-6/9273. He submitted Ext.P1 application dated 28th July, 2003 to the Secretary, R.T.A., Idukki requesting for change of timings in respect of the above-mentioned permits. In Ext.P1 application, he pointed out that the timings had been issued about two years back and during the said period of two years various other services had been introduced on the routes and the operation of the two services was not beneficial to the public to the full extent and hence slight changes were required in the timings of the services. When there was de...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Jairam and Sons
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2003
Reported in: [2004]134TAXMAN503(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.This reference has been made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act to consider the following questions :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) the Tribunal is right in law in holding(i) second proviso imposes the condition of payment before the due date only in respect of any sum received by an assessee from his employees to which the provisions of section 2(24)(x) apply.(ii) the assessee is entitled to deduct the sum of Rs. 32,900 being the contribution to Group Gratuity made on 18-1-1991 ?'2. The assessee is a partnership firm, carrying on business as shipping agents. One of the grounds raised by the assessee before the Tribunal was regarding disallowance under section 43B of the Income Tax Act in respect of the expenditure by way of premium payable under the Group Gratuity Scheme to the Life Insurance Corporation. It was contended b...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.D. Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2003
Reported in: [2004]267ITR761(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan J.1.This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The following question is referred for decision of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that additional tax under Section 143(1A) was not leviable on the assessee ?'2. The assessee filed a return for the assessment year 1991-92 claiming total loss of Rs. 6,04,043. In arriving at the loss the assessee had claimed deduction under sections 80HH and 80J to the extent of Rs. 2,63,130. The Assessing Officer processed the return under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act and determined the loss at Rs. 3,40,930. The assessee's claim for relief under Sections 80HH and 80J was disallowed on the view that the result of the business being loss, deduction was not permissible. In the intimation issued under Section 143(1)(a) on the reduced loss of Rs. 3,40,930, additional tax of Rs. 24,450 was levied under Section 143(1A). T...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. M.D. Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2003
Reported in: [2004]134TAXMAN502(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act. The following question is referred for decision of this court.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that additional tax under section 143(1A) was not leviable on the assessee?'Assessee filed return for the assessment year 1991-92 claiming total loss of Rs. 6,04,043. In arriving at the loss assessee had claimed deduction under sections 80HH and 80J to the extent of Rs. 2,63,130. Assessing Officer processed the return under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act and determined the loss at Rs. 3,40,930. Assessee's claim for relief under sections 80HH and 80U was disallowed on the view that the result of the business being loss, deduction was not permissible. In the intimation issued, under section 143(1)(a) on the reduced loss of Rs. 3,40,930. Assessee's claim for relief under sections 80HH and 80J was disallowed on the view that the r...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ramachandran Nair Vs. Leela Jose, Wife of Jose Varghese and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-23-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker219
A. Lekshmi Kutty, J.1. These two appeals arise from the common judgment in O.S.Nos. 652 & 684 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. O.S.No.652/1989 was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement of sale. The averments in the plaint was that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to late Sri M. Subbiah Pillai, father of the first defendant. Late Subbiah Pillai obtained title and possession over the property as per the decree and delivery list in O.S.No. 59/50 on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Subbiah Pillai passed away on 9-2-1983 and as per the registered Will No.18/1979 executed by him all his right, title and possession over the plaint schedule properties devolved on his three sons viz. S. Gopalakrishna Pillai, the first defendant and S. Bhagavathi Pillai. On 4-5-1988 they jointly executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell the entire 20 cents for a total consideration of R. 2,...
Tag this Judgment!Korah Abraham Vs. Varughis
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-23-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT192
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Tenant is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought for under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. Rent Control Court dismissed the petition holding that there is no bona fides in the plea. However, benefit of the second proviso was denied to the tenant. On appeal by landlord the Appellate Authority found that the plea of the landlord is bonafide and held that the tenant had not established both the ingredients of the second proviso to Section 11(3). The appeal was allowed and the tenant was directed to put the landlord in possession.2. Petition schedule building is an out house with a separate entrance. Landlord along with his wife was residing in the main building situated in the same compound. Original tenant died. Now the present tenant is conducting a money lending business by name 'City Finance'. Monthly rent of the building is Rs. 75/-. Landlord was away in Bombay in connection with the employment. He retired from service in 1982 and he ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »