Kerala Court March 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.
Kottayam Nature Society Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT1105
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. A joint venture between the Kerala State Tourism Development Corporation and the Oberoi Hotels is the bone of contention in these three petitions. The location is the Pathiramanal Island. A piece of land measuring 48.2 acres has been given on lease for a period of 30 years. The Island is in the Vembanad Lake. It has abundance of acquatic life. But it is ecologically fragile. It has a wealth of flora and fauna. Flocks of migratory birds visit it. It is a 'sanctuary'. It is recreationally resourceful. On April 13,2000, the Government had decided to give the land on lease without any environmental audit or impact assessment. Its pristine beauty is endangered. It provides a profound charm to the innocent. It is sublimely satisfying for the curious Ornithologist. In a nutshell, the petitioners allege that the beginning of any kind of construction on the Island would be the end of its beauty. Still more, the land was taken over by the State under the provisions of t...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. V. Sundaram Achari
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Ker)203; [2004]266ITR681(Ker)
G. Sivarajan J.1. This is a reference under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue. The following questions are referred for decision of this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that there is no taxable gift in this case?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in the light of the decision of the Kerala High Court in Indira Devi [1998] KLJ (Taxman) 352, the Tribunal is right in law in arriving at the findings and the conclusion reached in paragraphs 5 and 6 of its order ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is not the gift exigible to gift-tax and the assessee entitled only to an exemption under Section 5(1)(vii) of the Gift-tax Act ?'2. The brief facts necessary for decision of this case are as follows. The respondent-assessee is a goldsmith. He gave 51 sovereigns to his daughter, Jayalakshmi, at the ti...
Saidalavi Vs. Assistant Executive Engineer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT170
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The four petitioners are agriculturists. Their case is that under the Government Orders in force, electricity charges in respect of their agricultural connections were being paid by the Agricultural Department through Krishi Bhavan and that without any notice and alleging arrears, the connections provided to these petitioners were disconnected on 16.1.2003, 20.1.2003, 30.1.2003 and 27.1.2003 respectively. It is stated that all these petitioners hold less than 2 Hectares of land each and as such are covered by the Government Orders in force for the eligibility of free electric supply for the agricultural connections. 2. On behalf of the State, it is pointed out that exemption would be given only in case their names are recommended for the benefit by the Krishi Bhavan and in the instant case that was not there. 3. That the 1st petitioner got the benefit of exemption is sought to be established based on the endorsement in Ext.Pl bill for the period August, 1995. ...
Gangadharan Vs. Registering Transport Office
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-2003
Reported in: III(2003)ACC100; 2003(2)KLT651
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The petitioner has applied for assignment of vehicle registration mark in terms of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which was declined for the reason that the petitioner has not fitted emergency door in terms of SRO 482/2002, by which the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules were amended. According to the petitioner, the vehicle purchased by the petitioner and brought to Kerala was registered in Karnataka State under Section 46 of the Act, which has validity all over India. After the petitioner purchased and brought the vehicle to Kerala, he wants to have new registration by the Registering Authority in Kerala and an application under Section 47 of the Act is filed. The Government has vide SRO 482 of 2002 amended the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules which provides for fitting of emergency door for stage carriage registered in the State after 1.8.2002 or on reconstruction of the body after the said date. R.280(4) and (5) which are relevant in this regard are extract...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Cosmopolitan Hospitals (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Ker)111; [2004]265ITR312(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. The matter arises under the WT Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act').2. The scope and ambit of Section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983, regarding the computation of net wealth of a closely-held company which was made liable to wealth-tax assessment as per the said Act arises for consideration in these appeals. The CWT, Trivandrum is the appellant in all these appeals.3. The respondent-assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested. It carries on the business of running a hospital at Thiruvananthapuram. The assessment years concerned are 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91. For the aforesaid 4 assessment years the assessee did not file any return under the Act. The AO, therefore, issued a notice under Section 17 of the Act asking the assessee to file its wealth-tax return for the aforesaid 4 years. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed nil returns. It was claimed before the AO that the assessee is conducting the business of runnin...
M.K. Saidalavi Vs. Assistant Executive Engineer, K.S.E.B. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker124
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The four petitioners are agriculturists. Their case is that under the Government Orders in force, electricity charges in respect of their agricultural connections were being paid by the Agriculture Department through Krishi Bhavan and that without any notice and alleging arrears, the connections provided to these petitioners were disconnected on 16-1-2003, 20-1-2003, 30-1-2003 and 27-1-2003 respectively. It is stated that all these petitioners hold less than 2 Hectares of land each and as such are covered by the Government Orders In force for the eligibility of free electric supply for the agricultural connections.2. On behalf of the State, it is pointed out that exemption would be given only in case their names are recommended for the benefit by the Krishi Bhavan and in the instant case that was not there.3. That the 1st petitioner got the benefit of exemption is sought to be established based on the endorsement in Ext. P1 bill for the period August, 199...
Babu Vs. Food Inspector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3812; 2003(2)KLT90
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J. 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is referred to the Division Bench by learned single Judge of this Court (Mr. M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.) with the following observations: 'It is evident therefore that there is conflict of views on the aspect whether want of definite evidence to the effect that the intermediary vessel used by the Food Inspector was dry and clean, by itself, would entitle the accused to get acquittal irrespective of the nature of the substance and the vessel used. I am of the view that this matter requires examination by a Bench.' The petitioner in this case was convicted for the offences under Sections 2(1a)(m) and 7(i) read with Section 16(i)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to 'The Act'). In the decision reported in Food Inspector v. Harikumar, (1990 (1) KLT 36), a learned Single Judge of this Court held that Food Inspector is taking sample as part of the official Act and therefore presumption can be drawn that ...
Jo Joseph Vs. Sebastian Mathew and the Director of State, Insurance De ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ155Ker
Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. The injured workman has come up with this appeal raising two substantial questions of law to maintain this appeal under Section 30 of the workmen's Compensation Act (for short 'the Act'). First among the questions of law raised is whether, when there was delay in payment of compensation, the commissioner is obliged to award interest in terms of Section 4A of the Act. Second among the questions is when the qualified medical practitioner had assessed the disability at a particular percentage, is not the Commissioner obliged to, if proved that disability resulted in total deprival of the work, to award compensation as if there was permanent total disability. 2. The accident occurred on 16.3.1989. In terms of Section 4A (2) and (3), the employer was liable to pay the admitted compensation within one month ending by 16.4.1989. In terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 4-A, when there was delay in paying the compensation due under the Act beyond one month from the date it fe...
Haridasan Palayil Vs. the Speaker, Kerala Legislative Assembly
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker328; 2003(3)KLT119
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. Does the oath taken by the third respondent as a Member of the Legislative Assembly conform to the provisions of the Constitution? If it does not, is the third respondent liable to pay a penalty of Rs. 500 for each day on which he had sat or voted in the Legislative Assembly from June 5, 2001 These are the primary issues that arise for consideration in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The facts may be briefly noticed.2. The petitioner is working as a Journalist. He claims that he has an implicit faith in the Constitution and has always tried to uphold its true letter and spirit. He complains that the third respondent, who was elected to the 11th Kerala Legislative Assembly from the Kodungaloor Constituency, 'had not complied with the constitutional provisions under Article 188 according to the form set out for the purpose in (the) third Schedule at the time of taking oath/affirmation'.3. The elections to the 11th Kerala Legislative Assembl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›