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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kajah Company
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Ker)35; [2004]266ITR122(Ker)
G. SIVARAJAN J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for short 'the Act', for the decision of this court, at the instance of the Revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that for the purpose of Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, the remuneration payable to the partners in terms of Clause 13 of the partnership deed is to be worked out on the basis of the net profit without deducting the income-tax liability ?' 2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this question are as follows. The respondent-assessee, M/s. Kajah Company, is a partnership firm carrying on the business in the manufacture and sale of beedies. In the assessment of firm for the year 1993-94, the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 2,23,216 out of the remuneration payable to the partners under Section 40(b) of the Act. The assessee h...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.M. Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Ker)78; [2004]265ITR327(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Calicut:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the income below the taxable limit of any previous year is not to be included as the undisclosed income of the block period for the purpose of Section 158BC, even though such income has not been declared by the assessee by filing the return of the income ?'2. Though notice was served on the respondent-assessee, there is no appearance.3. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Central Government standing counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the question referred is covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. M.M. George [2002] 245 ITR 45, in favour of the Revenue. Standing counsel, however, submitted that ...
Chacko Vs. Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC1; 2003(2)KLT1
R. Basant, J. 1. These appeals are taken up for disposal together as agreed by the rival contestants as the appellant and respondent in these appeals are common and the challenge raised is against a common judgment. The complainant is the appellant. He had alleged that the accused had committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of three cheques for a total amount of Rs. 6,00,000. By the impugned judgment the accused was found not guilty and acquitted.2. The complainant alleged that the accused had issued three cheques for a total amount of Rs. 6,00,000 to him for the due discharge of a legally enforceable debt/ liability. The complainant had advanced the said amount and for return of the same three post dated cheques dt. 1.6.1990, 15.6.1990 and 1.7.1990 were issued to the accused by the complainant. The said cheques when presented for encashment were dishonoured by the bank on the ground of insufficiency of funds. The information of d...
Althaf Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT342
M. Ramachandran, J.1. Both these Original Petitions had been filed by the very same person, who is an officer in the Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Department of the State. There is certain amount of overlapping, in that in O.P. No. 5009 of 1996 the relief prayed for was for assignment of seniority to him with effect from 25.8.1976, the date of his appointment and for grant of consequential reliefs. The original seniority assigned to him had been changed on a subsequent development taking note of the objections of his colleagues in the department. O.P. No. 11183 of 1999 had been filed for quashing the seniority list that had come in the meanwhile and here also the basic relief prayed for was for assignment of seniority from the date of his appointment by the Government. We have to examine the actual date from which the petitioner can count his service.2. I will refer to the facts stated in O.P. No. 5009 of 1996 for the purpose of dealing with the contentions.3. Ext.P1 shows that...
Glenny, C.J. Vs. the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker373; III(2003)BC454; [2003]117CompCas227(Ker); 2003(3)CTC111; 2003(2)KLT973; [2003]47SCL344(Ker)
ORDERJawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Do the provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, debar the Civil Court from setting aside an ex parte decree passed by it?. This is the short question that arises in this appeal. In view of the conflict in judicial opinion, the Division Bench has referred this case to a Full Bench. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.2. On May 11, 1994 the appellant took a loan of an amount for Rs. 3,34,000 from the respondent bank. He failed to repay. On October 27, 1998 the bank filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 8,61,530 with interest. The suit was filed in the Court of the Sub Judge at Thrissur. On June 16, 2000 the Court passed an ex parte decree. The bank's claim was allowed with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from October 27, 1988 till realization. The bank was also held entitled to its costs. The decree was for an amount of more than Rs. 11 lakhs, On August 28, 2000 ...
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. South India Produce Company
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Ker)403; [2003]262ITR20(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I. T. A. Nos. 798 and 799 (Coch) of 1994 filed by them in respect of the assessment years 1989-90 and 1991-92. The appeals filed by the respondent-assessee (I. T. A. Nos. 652 and 653 (Coch) of 1994) for the very same assessment years were also disposed by the said common order. The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed in part and the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed. There are no appeals by the assessee. Common questions of law arise for consideration in both these appeals. The only difference is in the amount in the two cases. Hence, these two cases are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The respondent-assessee is a leading exporter of spices in South India. In the assessment under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), for the years 1989-90 and 1991-92, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80HHC of t...
Meenachil Panchayat Vs. Sivasankara Marar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT914
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. Both these Civil Revision Petitions are referred to this Full Bench by a Division Bench of this Court. In both these cases, Petitioners were defendants in their respective suits. The suits were decreed. They filed appeals before the Appellate Court and sought stay of further proceedings in execution. The Appellate Court granted stay on condition that the petitioners give sufficient security to the satisfaction of the lower court. The petitioners thereafter executed bonds as per Appendix G in Form No. 2. The bonds were produced before the Court alongwith affidavits. But the Court below refused to accept the security bonds on the ground that the bonds were not registered. It is against the above orders that these Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.2. The contention of the petitioners is that the execution of the bonds is part of the judicial proceedings and that they are not liable to be registered. According to them, the bonds were executed in favour of the ...
E.P. Ahammed Koya Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker349
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of Exts. P1 and P2 bills demanding a sum of Rs. 32,721/- and Rs. 20,956/- respectively. The motive behind the bill is an inspection held by the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) of the K.S.E.B. on 10-3-2003 in the petitioner's premises. The APTS found in the ice plant of the petitioner that in one of the two motors installed in the plaint, the capacitor was not working. That is the provocation for issuing Ext. P2 bill by adding 20% more to make good for the alleged loss of electricity inconsequence of the non-functioning of the capacitor and Ext. P1 bill claiming fixed charges and the current charges estimated on the above basis for the previous five months as well.2. The learned standing counsel for the KSEB submitted on instructions, that there is violation of the terms of contract in the matter of non-functioning of the capacitor. The petitioner, on the other hand, maintains that it was never noticed by the petit...
Vindya Gas (P.) Ltd. Vs. K.S.E.B.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-26-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT263
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. 1.The petitioner is aggrieved that though power allocation was granted vide Ext. P4 order of the K.S.E.B. dt. 31.7.2002 the petitioner is being denied the benefit of power connection.2. The learned standing counsel, on instruction, submitted that an inspection was conducted in the premises of the 4th respondent on 25.4.2002 when it was discovered that an unauthorised extension was drawn from the installations in the premises of the 4th respondent to the premises of the present petitioner. According to the learned standing counsel, the petitioner, being the beneficiary of an unauthorised connection, is not entitled to get fresh connection in view of Regulation 15(3) of Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. The said Regulation provides as follows:'15(e): Reconnection or new connection shall not be given into any premises where there are arrears on any account due to the Board pending payment, unless the arrears including penalty, if any, are cleared in advanc...
Ahammedkutty Vs. Ali
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-26-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT739
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The petitioner in an Election Petition filed under Section 87 of the Kerala Panchay at Raj, Act ('Act' for short) is the revision petitioner. He filed the Original Petition to declare that the election held to Constituency No. 4 of Urngattiri Grama Panchayat on 25th September, 2000 is void on the ground that his nomination was improperly rejected. The trial court allowed the Election Petition and declared that the election of the first respondent was void. The first respondent, the returned candidate, appealed to the District Court. The learned District Judge allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, set aside the order passed by the trial court and dismissed the Original Petition, That order is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition are as follows: On 1st September, 2000 at 1.25 p.m. the revision petitioner filed his nomination before the third respondent for contesting ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »