Kerala Court February 2003 Judgments
Valsalam Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT858
R. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. Petitioner is an elected member and the Vice President of the Kanjiramkulam Grama Panehayat, the 4th respondent. Smt. Sarasi Kuttappan, the 6th respondent herein, was the President of the above Panchayat. A no confidence motion was moved against the President of the Panchayat viz. the 6th respondent on 13.11.2001 and the majority of the members voted in favour of the motion and the motion was carried with the support of the majority members. Accordingly the 2nd respondent, the representative authorised by the Election Commission, who convened and presided over the above meeting, had sent the copy of the minutes of the meeting together with copy of the motion and the result of voting to the Government and also to the Election Commission as provided by law. On 15.11.2001 the 6th respondent filed a petition before the 1st respondent under Section 191 of the Panchayat Raj Act (for short, the Act) for rescinding the result of the no confidence motion describing it as...
Tag this Judgment!T.P. Amina, D/O. Sydali and Dr. K. Abdulla, S/O. Kunhumuhammed Vs. Dr. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2945
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The petitioner - a couple - are the accused in C.C.No. 660/96 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Sultan Battery. The prayer is to quash the further proceedings in the aforesaid case involving the offences under Sections 415 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The 1st respondent herein, in Annex.A private complaint filed on 20.9.96, alleged that as against the assurances given on 15/7/1988 when the present 1st petitioner's building bearing No. 802 was let out to him by her husband, who is the 2nd petitioner herein, the electric connection and water supply to the building were cut off and that there was fraud and breach of trust involved in the matter. It was also alleged that this was a premeditated act on the part of the accused and that deception was practised in the matter of cutting off electrical supply.3. In his sworn statement the complainant stated that while practising as a Doctor he was offered two rooms in the said building; that it...
Tag this Judgment!Sulaiman Sahib Vs. Mohemmed Moosa
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT1058
ORDERJ.M. James, J.1. Petitioner in I.A. No. 1832/1993, who is the respondent/landlord in R.C.A. 2/1993 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (1st Addl. District Judge), Palakkad, is the revision petitioner. The tenant filed the appeal, R.C.A. 2/1993, challenging the dismissal of the petition, I.A. 2600/1992, filed by him praying to set aside the ex parte order passed against him. As the tenant had not deposited the admitted arrears of rent, amounting to Rs. 32,450/-, the landlord prayed to stop the appeal proceedings and to make an order of eviction against the tenant, under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, (in short 'the Act'). The dismissal of the same is challenged in this revision.2. The brief facts of the case, required for the disposal of this revision, are that the landlord filed R.C.P. 8/1986 before the Rent Control Court, Palakkad for evicting the tenant under Section 11(2) and 11(4)(v) of the Act. The Rent Controller passed an o...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Moosakutty Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Ker)313; [2003]263ITR670(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. The following question of law is referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, for short 'the Tribunal', as directed by this Court in the judgment dt. 10th Nov., 1998, in O.P. No. 12962 of 1998, at the instance of the assessee : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in not allowing the corresponding adjustment in the closing stock valuation while admittedly the opening stock valuation stands reduced and the non-reduced valuation of the opening stock was reckoned in valuing the closing stock ?' 2. The first appellate authority in Annexure-B order has clearly noted that the Dy. CIT vide his order dt. 24th Oct., 1988, directed the AO to make an addition of Rs. 2 lakhs on account of inflated opening stock made in the accounts for the accounting year relevant to the asst. yr. 1986-87, and that the assessing authority has made the addition accordingly. The first appellate authority after referring to the relevant p...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Moosakutty Vs. Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN241(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. The following question of law is referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') as directed by this court in the judgment dated 10-11-1998, in O.P. No. 12962/98, at the instance of the assessee :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in not allowing the corresponding adjustments in the closing stock valuation while admittedly the opening stock valuation stands reduced and the non-reduced valuation of the opening stock was reckoned in valuing the closing stock ?'2. The first appellate authority in Annexure B order has clearly noted that the Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 24-10-1988 directed the assessing officer to make an addition of Rs. 2 lakhs on account of inflated opening stock made in the accounts for the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1986-87, and that the assessing authority has made the addition accordingly. The first appellate...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Sreedharan, Son of Ramakrishnan Vs. G. Gopi, S/O. Govinda Mannadi ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker167
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The only question to be considered in this case is whether document dated 24.6.1998 is a bond or an agreement. The court below held it is a bond and impounded the document under Section 33 of the Stamps Act and ordered chat the plaintiff is at liberty to seek admission of the document after paying deficit stamp duty as provided under proviso (a) to Section 34 of the Stamp Act. 2, Petitioner herein was the plaintiff in a suit for realisation of money. According to the plaintiff on 24.6.1998 defendant had executed a document undertaking to pay plaintiff on or before 31.1.1999 an amount of Rs. 20,000/- borrowed by him earlier. This was in the form of an agreement which was signed by the plaintiff and defendant and was signed by two witnesses. Same was executed on stamp paper of Rs. 50/-. Though several notices were sent by the plaintiff, there was no response and hence he filed the suit on 11.6.2001, When the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 he wanted to mark ...
Tag this Judgment!Santhosh Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT795
N. Krishnan Nair, J. 1. Is it open to an accused to withdraw his claim to be tried and plead guilty in the course of the trial? That is the question involved in this case. 2. The petitioner is the accused in S.T. 2722/1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor. He is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 289 IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. When the charge was read over and explained to the petitioner, he pleaded not guilty. Thereupon the learned Magistrate posted the case for trial. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application before the lower court requesting the court to read over the charge once again in order to enable him to plead guilty. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order dismissed the petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contended that an accused is entitled to withdraw his claim to be tried and plead guilty at any stage of the trial. She further contended that there is nothing...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Damodaran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: [2004]138STC442(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The assessee is the revision-petitioner. The State is the respondent. The assessment year concerned is 1998-99. The only question that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether penal interest Under Section 23(3)/23(3A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 for short 'the Act', can be levied in a case where the assessee did not disclose the correct rate of tax in the return and had paid tax showing a lesser rate in the return.2. The assessee is a dealer in cattle feeds. For the assessment year 1998-99, the assessee filed returns disclosing the rate of tax on cattle feeds only at the rate of 3 percent, whereas, the rate of tax for cattle feeds was fixed at 4 per cent, with effect from April 1, 1998, as per the Finance Act, 1998. The assessing authority did not object to the same until the final assessment for the year 1998-99 is completed as per order dated April 3, 2001. In the assessment order, the assessing authority has levied interest of Rs. 9,926...
Tag this Judgment!Kamath Vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: [2004]122CompCas825(Ker); (2003)185CTR(Ker)90; 2003(1)KLT769
Kurian Joseph, J. 1. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to freely practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business subject to any law providing for reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India issued a notification specifying that a Chartered Accountant shall not accept more than the specified number of tax audit assignments referred to under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Does it amount to an unreasonable restriction? 2. Ext. P1 notification issued by the first respondent is under challenge. By the said notification the first respondent introduced certain restrictions restricting the number of tax audit assignments under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to 30 in a financial year in the case of an individual Chartered Accountant irrespective of the fact that he is having a proprietory concern or a firm. Under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act every...
Tag this Judgment!Marico Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT956; [2004]134STC179(Ker)
R. Basant, J.1. Is the decision contemplated under Section 59A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Actan institutional decision or a personal one? Can the hearing under Section 59A be held bysomeone other than the Commissioner of Commercial taxes and the decision berendered by the Commissioner? These questions of importance arise for considerationin this appeal. 2. The fact scenario is simple. S.R.O. No. 1729/93 deals with reduction in rate of tax to industrial units. Small, medium and large scale industries are eligible for certain concessions. This notification was later modified as per S.R.O. 170/95. Clause 6A was added to the notification. We extract below the said Clause 6A.'6A. In the case of large scale industrial units started production after 23rd September 1991and which purchase coconut or copra for producing coconut oil and coconut oil cake within theState, there shall be a reduction in respect of the tax payable by such units under the KeralaGeneral Sales Tax Act, 1963 on the t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »