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.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Saidali
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC71; 2003ACJ1122; 2003(1)KLT955
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The insurer has come up with this appeal against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad in O.P. (MV)No. 667 of 1995.2. It is contended that there was an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which was allowed permitting the appellant to take up all the grounds before the Tribunal below. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant ought not to have been mulcted with the liability even in terms of the restriction contained in the policy to the extent of 50% in favour of the claimants as the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in a tractor tied with a trailer carrying goods. It is contended that the owner of the vehicle also had contended that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. But it has come out in evidence that at the material time, he was a headload worker engaged for unloading the article loaded in the vehicle. When it was so found, necessarily he will come withi...
Gopala Pillai Bhaskaran Pillai Vs. Sivarama Panicker
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT96
A. Lekshmikutty, J. 1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. No. 98 of 1986 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kollam are the appellants herein. During the pendency of the appeal, the first appellant died and his legal representatives are additional appellants 6 to 9 and 24th respondent. Respondents 5, 6 and 7 were also dead and their legal representatives were impleaded as additional respondents 18 to 22. R7, is recorded as legal representative of the deceased 6th respondent.2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for setting aside various sale deeds executed by the first defendant and for partition of 1/2 share of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiffs are brothers and sisters. They had one more sister by name Saudamini Amma who died issueless on 30th December, 1981. The first defendant is' the husband of deceased Saudamini Amma. The plaint A schedule properties were allotted to deceased Saudamini Amma under Ext. A1 partition deed, B schedule under Ext.A2 exc...
Unni Vacco Vs. Thankamma Gregory
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT459
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. Petitioner is the tenant. Revision is filed against the judgment in R.C.A.No. 19 of 2002 of the District Court, Ernakulam. The District Court confirmed the order of eviction under Sections 11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11 (4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(4)(vi) was set aside. It is against that the present revision is filed.2. We shall refer to the array of parties as in the Rent Control Petition. The first petitioner is the mother of the second petitioner. The second petitioner is of unsound mind and is represented by guardian, his wife. The Rent Control Petition was filed for evicting the first respondent, who took the building on rent. According to the petitioners, the building has been subleased in favour of respondents 2, 3 and 4. It is further stated that the second petitioner needs the building for his own occupation. The ...
Memex Informations Systems (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT490; [2006]143STC414(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The same assessee is the revision petitioner in both the cases. The assessment years concerned are 1992-93 and 1993-94. The assessee is a dealer in electronic components, computer parts and peripherals, software, communication equipments, etc. at Vazhuthacad, Thiruvananthapuram. They are registered dealers under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act'). For the assessment year 1992-93 the assessee had reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 93.50 and nil respectively. Similarly for the assessment year 1993-94 the assessee reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 2,73,500/-. On a verification of the accounts of the assessee for the above two years the Additional Sales Tax Officer-Ill, First Circle, Thiruvananthapuram found that the assessee did not include in its return the charges received towards the sale of information received from U.S. Computers, etc. The assessments were completed on a taxable turnover of Rs. 2,69,380/- for the year ...
Harrison and Crossfield Ltd. (Now Known as Harrisons Malayalam Limited ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-2003
Reported in: [2004]138STC1(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. All these tax revision cases are filed by M/s. Harrisons Crossfield Ltd., presently known as Harrisons Malayalam Ltd., against two common orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench II, Ernakulam, one in T.A. Nos. 149, 465, 151, 468, 397, 467, 469, 466, 150 and 152 of 1992 and the other in T.A. Nos. 422 of 1992, 6 of 1984 and 423 of 1986. T.R.C. Nos. 165, 168, 171 and 172 of 2002 arising from T.A. Nos. 468, 397, 467 and 469 of 1992 relate to Central Sales Tax assessments and the remaining tax revision cases relate to Kerala general sales tax assessments. C.S.T. assessment relates to the assessment years 1970-71, 1974-75, 1967-68 and 1971-72 respectively and K.G.S.T. assessment relates to the assessment years 1969-70, 1967-68, 1976-77, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1977-78 respectively.2. In all these cases the main issue involved is regarding the agency status claimed by the petitioner in respect of its transactions with M/s. Malaya...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›