Kerala Court February 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.
Vettikuzhiyil Jaison Alias Jose Vs. the State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2482
ORDERN. Krishnan Nair, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 17th January, 2000 of the Sessions Judge, Thalasserry, in Crl. A. No. 340/99, The revision petitioner was charged with the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, After the trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Thalasserry found the petitioner guilty of the offences and convicted him, He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 452 of the IPC, In default to pay the fine he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year and six months each under respective head. The fine, if remitted, is ordered to be paid to P.W. 1 Valsamma, the victim of the alleged rape, as compensation, Aggrieved by the order of conviction and senten...
General Manager, Telecom., Bsnl Vs. Krishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker152; 2003(3)CTC37; 2003(1)KLT817
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. Does Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum as constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? Is the rule as enunciated in General Manager v. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (2000 (2) KLT 195) in conformity with the provisions of the 1986 Act? These are the two questions that arise for consideration in this appeal. A few facts as relevant for the decision of the case may be briefly noticed.2. The respondent is a resident of Kozhikode. He is a partner of M/s. Auspins. The firm has a telephone connection No. 740008 with the Nellikode Exchange. This telephone is installed at T.K. House, Kottooli, Calicut-16. On March 20, 2001 the respondent was served with a copy of the notice issued to Sri. T.K. Reghunath. By this notice, Sri. Reghunath was called upon to clear the dues of Rs. 17,103/- with respect to telephone numbers 722060 by August 29, 2001. The respondent was threatened that in case the bill for t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd. and Cro ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Ker)182; [2003]261ITR721(Ker)
P. R. Raman, J.1. These two references are at the instance of the Revenue. The following question is referred for the decision of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and when the assessee did not make a claim or a request for allowance of depreciation, whether the Assessing Officer would be justified in allowing the deduction ?'2. In Income-tax Reference No. 21 of 1999, for the year 1989-90, the assessee filed a return showing a loss of Rs. 9,30,59,275. In computing the loss, the Assessing Officer held that whether the assessee had claimed it or not depreciation was to be allowed as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act and accordingly, he computed the depreciation allowance at Rs. 2,02,79,334 and carried forward the same to be set off against the income of the subsequent years/This was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In further appeal, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in allowing deduction by way of deprecia...
Kerala Financial Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Ker)502; [2003]261ITR708(Ker)
P.R. Raman, J. 1. The appellant is the Kerala Financial Corporation. The asst. yr. is 1994-95. 2. The assessee was assessed on a total income of Rs. 1,04,38,220 for the asst. yr. 1994-95. While making the assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, the assessee claimed deduction of an amount of Rs. 70,04,148 under Section 36(1)(viii) which was allowed in respect of the special reserve created by the appellant/assessee as a Financial Corporation engaged in providing long-term finances. The CIT, on a perusal of the records noticed that though reserve was created to the extent of Rs. 71,18,786 by the assessee by debiting the P&L; a/c, the amount was transferred immediately to the 'Provision for bad and doubtful debts account' and that there was no amount available in the special reserve account. In this view of the matter, the CIT was of the opinion that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act since the amount from the special reserve has ...
Kunjan Panicker Gangadhara Panicker Vs. Christudas Alias A.J. Alex and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC160
J.B. Koshy, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nayyattinkara alleging that the first respondent herein executed a cheque for Rs. 26,600/- and when the cheque was presented for payment to the drawee Bank it was dishonoured with the remark 'refer to the drawer.' He came to know about the dishonour of the cheque only on 4.12.1989. On 5.12.1989 itself the complainant sent a registered letter to the first respondent herein through his lawyer intimating the fact of dishonour of the cheque and also demanding payment of the amount of the cheque. The first respondent evaded service of the lawyer notice and the notice was, therefore, returned by the postal department to the lawyer on 1.1.1990. Therefore, the first responden...
Cit Vs. Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN549(Ker)
P.R. Raman, J.These two references are at the instance of the revenue. The following question is referred for the decision of this court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and when the assessee did not make a claim or a request for allowance of depreciation. Whether the assessing officer would be justified in allowing the deduction?'2. In ITR No. 21 of 1999 for the year 1989-90 the assessee filed a return showing a loss of Rs. 9,30,59,275. In computing the loss, the assessing officer held that whether the assessee had claimed it or not depreciation was to be allowed as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act and accordingly, he computed the depreciation allowance at Rs. 2,02,79,334 and carried forward the same to be set off against the income of the subsequent years. This was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In further appeal, the Tribunal held that the assessing officer was not justified in allowing deduction by way of depreciation when the assessee h...
Rajan Nair Vs. Balakrishnan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT751
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff in a suit for settlement of accounts and realisation of share of profits of a partnership firm. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant were partners of a registered firm which was dissolved on 3.1.1984. The 2nd defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant and the first defendant is the brother-in-law of the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that he was away on account of his employment and the 1st defendant was conducting the business on behalf of the firm and that he amassed wealth by using funds of the firm and purchasing property in the name of his wife, the 2nd defendant. The plaint schedule shows 16 items of properties out of which 14 items are immovable properties which according to the plaintiff the defendants purchased out of the funds from the partnership firm. Defendants 1 and 2 filed separate written statements. Both of them contended that the suit is barred by limitation. The allegation that the properties wer...
Kochu Ahmmed Pillai Vs. Pathummal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker217; 2003(1)KLT826
R. Bhaskaran, J. 1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession and for cancellation of documents executed by the 1st defendant. Though the suit was decreed by the trial court, it was reversed in appeal by the 1st appellate court.2. The plaint schedule property belonged to Kochu Bappu Kader Pillay. The plaintiff is the son of Kader Pillay and the 1st defendant is his daughter. Kader Pillay executed Ext. A1 gift deed on 28.7.1967 in respect of the plaint schedule property. The dispute in this litigation is with respect to the scope and content of Ext. A1. While the plaintiff states that the gift is in favour of the plaintiff subject to life interest in favour of the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant contended that the gift was in favour of her and the plaintiff did not get any right under the gift deed. The 1st defendant executed Ext. A2 lease deed in favour of the third defendant, her son-in-law in respect of plaint schedule item 1 and ...
Nafeesa Vs. Koya
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC561; 2004ACJ1137; 2003(2)KLT293
R. Basant, J. 1. The award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in so far as it limits the liability of the insurer only to Rs. 50,000 is challenged, by the claimants in this appeal. The total compensation awarded is Rs. 1,64,000.2. The husband of the first claimant, the father of claimants 2 to 4 and son of claimant No. 5 suffered injuries in a motor accident and succumbed to the same. The deceased was knocked down by a taxi car driven, owned and insured by respondents 1 to 3 respectively. The tribunal found that in all an amount of Rs. 1,64,000 is due by way of compensation. Respondent No. 3, the insurer was directed to pay Rs. 50000 with interest and costs. The owner of the vehicle was directed to pay the balance.3. Before the Tribunal the insurer had taken up a contention that the insurer's liability is limited to an amount of Rs. 50000. No evidence whatsoever is available on this crucial aspect. The Tribunal in paragraph 7 of the award observed as follows:-'........ The third re...
CochIn Malabar Estates and Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. P.V. Abdul Kha ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: [2003]114CompCas777(Ker); [2003]45SCL170(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The Cochin Malabar Estates and Industries Ltd., the appellant in M. F. A. Nos. 1160, 1159 and 1161 of 2002 is a public limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act. The company is having its registered office at Cochin. The nominal capital of the company is Rs. 5 crores divided into 5,000, 12 per cent. cumulative preferential shares of Rs. 100 each, and 49,50,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The amount of paid up capital is Rs. 1,77,19,080 divided into 17,71,908 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The company is having three rubber estates and one tea estate apart from aquaculture units at Goa and an office building at Bombay, of which one estate called the Kinalur Estate is having an extent of 987.27 hectares. The chairman and managing director of the company is a shareholder of about 30 per cent. of the paid up shares. Life Insurance Corporation has got 18 per cent. shares and has a nominee on the board of directors. The Bangur group is holding about...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »