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.
Cit Vs. Lakshadweep Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-26-2003
Reported in: [2003]133TAXMAN653(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. This is an appeal filed by the Commissioner, Calicut against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA No. 142/Coch/95 in respect of the assessment year 1987-88, raising the following two questions of law:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the amendment to section 80P(2)(a)(iii) with effect from 1-4-1968 (following sub-clause was substituted for sub-clause (iii) with effect from 1-4-1968, 'the marketing of agricultural produce grown by its members, or') the assessee is entitled to the deduction benefit of section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act'2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the amendment with retrospective effect, the Tribunal is right in law in interfering with the revisional order of the Commissioner ?'2. In fact, the Tribunal had disposed of four appeals filed by the respondent herein in respect of the assessment years 1982-83,...
Babu Pilassery, S/O. Subramanian and A. Radhakrishnan, S/O. Ayyappan V ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT500
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The petitioners representing the public, challenge the decision of the Government to acquire only 1.34 acres out of the larger extent of two acres as desired by the Corporation, Kozhikode for establishing a play ground.2. The leaned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in Ext.P5 judgment there was a specific direction that the Corporation should furnish details regarding the source of funds for payment of compensation and all other details that are required by the Government to initiate acquisition proceedings and that on receipt of such details, the Government should issue Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act within one month. As regards the building permit issue to the respondents 7 to 9 in the present Original Petition also it was observed that there would be a stay of such constructions for three months and that if no decision was taken by the Corporation within two months, these respondents would be free of develop their land. Th...
Thanappan Vs. Hassan Kappor
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT39
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 96 and Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree in OS. 81 of 1998 of Sub Court, Manjeri. Suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,57,550/- with future interest from 28.9.1998. Plaintiff had taken all formalities for serving notice on the defendants. Second defendants did not appear and was set ex parte. Suit was posted to 17.8.2001 for payment of balance court fee of Rs. 56,358/- and then adjourned to 25.8.2001. On that day plaintiff was not present and the balance court fee was also not paid. The court therefore rejected the plaint by judgment dated 25.8.2001. Aggrieved by the said order plaintiff has approached this Court and filed the present appeal on 16.1,2003. An amount of Rs. 10/- was paid towards court fee. Registry did not number the appeal since ad valorem court fee was not paid and post the same for curing the defects by paying court fee.2. Counsel for the appella...
G. Viswanatha Shet, Son of R.S. Girivasa Shet Vs. Sree Gopalakrishna D ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT400
ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. This revision petition arises from R.C.P.No. 80 of 1986 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kochi. The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent in the R.C.P. The respondent is the landlord and the petitioner in the R.C.P.2. The landlord filed R.C.P.No. 80 of 1986 for eviction of the tenant under Sections 11(3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). After closing the evidence on both sides the landlord filed I.A.No. 1995 of 1989 for amendment of the petition for incorporating Section 11(7) of the Act also. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. it was stated that at the time when the Rent Control Petition was prepared, in the cause title the petition was shown to be under Sections 11(3) and 11(8) of the Act, instead of showing that the petition was under Section 11(7). It was further stated that wrong sections were written by an inadvertent mistake. It was further stated ...
Narayanan Nair Vs. Vaikom Palliprathusserry Service Co-operative Bank
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT44
Cyriac Joseph, J. 1. This appeal is against the judgment in O.P. No. 2638 of 2003. The challenge inthe Original Petition was against Ext.P7 notice proposing to supersede the Board ofDirectors of the Vaikom Palliprathusserry Service Co-operative Bank Limited No. 923. Ext.P7 being a show cause notice the learned single Judge did not think it properor fair to interfere with the said notice. The learned single Judge observed that it wasfor the petitioners in the Original Petition to show cause and to contest the matterbefore the Joint Registrar. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submittedthat there was every likelihood of an order being passed against the petitioners and anadministrator being appointed so as to take over the administration of the societywithout affording effective opportunity to the petitioners for challenging the order inappropriate proceedings. In view of the said submission of the learned counsel for thepetitioners the learned single Judge thought it just and...
Ramachandran Nair Vs. Gopinathan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT694
ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent in R.C.P. No. 34 of 1985 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thrissur. The respondent herein is the landlord and the petitioner in the said Rent Control Petition.2. The landlord filed R.C.P. No. 34 of 1985 under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. In the Rent Control Petition, the landlord contended as follows. The petition schedule building was rented out to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- on the basis of a rent agreement executed by him whereby he had agreed to pay the rent on the 23rd day of every month. A provision was also made in the rent deed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum in case of default in payment of rent. There was a previous proceeding for realising the arrears of rent covering the period from 23.12.1972 to 23.1.1975 and the decree amount was paid only recently. The respondent is not in the habit of paying the ...
Abdurahiman Haji Vs. Balakrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT690
ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. The revision petitioners are the landlords and the petitioners in R.C.P. No. 117 of 1984 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode. The respondents are the tenants and the counter petitioners in the said Rent Control Petition.2. The landlords filed the R.C.P. seeking eviction of the tenants under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to the averments in the Rent Control Petition, the petition schedule property belongs to the petitioners. The property was originally entrusted to one V.N. Narayana Swamy on 2.3.1969 by the then landlord A.P. Chirukandan and Company. The original entrustment was for a period of six months on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-. In case of default of payment of rent, the tenant was liable to pay 6% interest. On 14.8.1972, the petition schedule building along with other properties devolved on the petitioners as per the registered Assig...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. K.S. Suneethi Ramachandran and ors ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ824; AIR2003Ker237
Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. The insurer has come up with this appeal contending that the pillion rider who died in the motor accident is not entitled to be compensated by the insurer. 2. It is contended that the very intention of the statute, as indiscernible from Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is that no person other than those specifically mentioned in that statutory provision is liable to be covered by an Act policy. This is clear from the decisions reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2002 AIR SCW 5259 : (AIR 2003 SC 607) and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda Reddy, 2003 (1) JT (SC) 372 : (AIR 2003 SC 1009. The Supreme Court has considered the subsequent amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to bring the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods carried in a goods vehicle within the coverage of an Act policy and has held that when the Act did not intend to bring in a class o...
Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs. the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ471; AIR2003Ker255
Cyriac Joseph, J.1. This Writ Appeal is against the judgment dated 6-8-2002 in O.P. No. 18619 of 2002 which was dismissed by the learned single Judge. The appellant is the petitioner in the Original Petition. 2. The appellant was injured in a motor accident and he filed O.P.(MV) No. 540 of 1987 in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. The accident was on 20-12-1986. At that time, the appellant was aged 22 years and was conducting a tutorial college. As a result of the accident, the appellant suffered head injury with fractured skull, depressed fracture of temporal bone, depressed fracture of the parietal bone and minimal compression of cervical spine. Considering the nature of the injuries and the disability suffered by the appellant, the M.A.C.T. awarded a total compensation of Rs. 68,800/-. Dissatisfied with the award the appellant filed M.F.A. No. 815 of 1992 in the High Court. As per the judgment dated 18-11-1999 in M.F.A. No. 815 of 1992, the amount of compensat...
Bharathakshemam Vs. Mangolodayam (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT81
ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises from R.C.P. No. 122 of 1997 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thrissur. The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent in the R.C.P. The respondent in the revision is the landlord and the petitioner in the R.C.P.2. The landlord filed R.C.P. No. 122 of 1997 praying for eviction of the tenant under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). However, before the Rent Control Court, the counsel for the landlord submitted that the landlord was not pressing the relief under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(8) of the Act. The Rent Control Court dismissed the R.C.P. holding that the landlord was not entitled to an order of eviction under Section 11(3) as the need put forward by the landlord was not bona fide.3. Against the order of the Rent Control Court, the landlord filed R.C.A. No. 101 of 1999 in the Court of the Rent Control Appellate...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »