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.
Neelathupura Shaikoya, Vs. Monthrappallipadiopura Attakoya (Died),
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker344
A. Lekshmikutty, J.1. Defendants 5 to 8 in O.S.No. 6 of 1982 on the file of the Sub Court, Lakshadweep are the appellants herein. The suit is filed by the plaintiff to declare that the gift deed executed by the first defendant in favour of defendants 5 to 8 is invalid and not binding on the plaintiff's thavazhi and for perpetual injunction against the defendants not to do anything on the basis of the gift deed and also for permanent injunction against defendants 1 to 4 from transferring the plaint schedule properties or other tharwad properties by way of executing gift deeds, assignments, lease, etc.2. As per the plaint averments, the plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of Biyyammada tharwad of which the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 4 and 9th defendant are members. There are four sakhas to the Biyyammada tharwad and as per the agreement each sakhas are enjoying the income from the coconut trees in the Belliyazcha properties of the common tharwad as per a maintenance a...
Thomas Kuriakose Vs. Abraham Mary
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker73; 2003(2)KLT41
ORDERR. Rajendra Babu, J.1. Thomas Kuriakose, filed O.P. No. 1695/1999 against his wife Abraham Mary for a decree of judicial separation. Both the spouses were employed at Italy. There was already a decree for judicial separation from a court of Italy. On the basis of the above order of the Court of Italy, this court also passed a decree for judicial separation on 31.7.2000. After two years of passing of the decree for judicial separation, thehusband filed the present C.M.P. for declaring that the above decree for judicial separation has the effect of divorce of the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent filed a counter affidavit contending that the decree for judicial separation does not have the effect of divorce and that the petitioner is not entitled to any such declaration.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner - husband submitted that in view of Section 22 of the Indian Divorce Act, an order passed for judicial separation will have the effect of div...
Smt. B. Indira Rani Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Ker)399; [2003]263ITR525(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. IT Ref. 160/1999 and 161/1999 arise out of ITA Nos. 879 and 880/Coch/1991 on the file of Tribunal, Cochin Bench. Assessment years concerned are 1979-80 and 1980-81. The following questions of law arise for consideration :'1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act ?2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was concealment ?3. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the offer of additional income being made to purchase peace with the Department, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was concealment ?4. The additions made in the assessment being only income from other sources by way of investments, whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was concealment without considering the ingredients of Expln. 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act?5. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that there is concealment of such income without ...
Cit Vs. Wandoor Jupitor Chittry (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN479(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.These cases are posted for defect, since the applicant has not remitted the printing charge, nor produced paper books.2. Learned counsel for the revenue appearing for the applicant submits that the question referred for decision of this court is covered by our judgment in ITA Nos. 90, 91 and 93 of 2000, wherein we followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijaya Laxmi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT : [1991]191ITR641(SC) .3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee also.4. The following question of law is referred for the decision of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the deduction under section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'5. The assessee is a company in liquidation. For the assessment year 1987-88 the assessee returned Rs. 1,78,470 as interest earned on the funds of the company invested in fixed deposits and claimed Rs. 1,65,080 as expenses. The assessing officer, how...
Sulochana Vs. Chandran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: III(2003)ACC116; 2004ACJ2118; 2003(2)KLT551
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Claimant and the insurer have come up with these appeals challenging the award in O.P. (MV) No. 1732/92 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery. The appellants in M.F.A. No. 288/97 seek enhancement of compensation. The appellant in M.F. A. No. 1518/96, insurer, attempts to avoid the liability contending that the driver did not have an effective driving licence on the date of the accident namely, 26.5.1992. Therefore, this is violation of policy condition as contained in Section 149(2)(a)(iii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. First of all we will consider the appeal by the Claimants.2. The accident resulted in death of the husband of the 1st appellant in M.F.A. No. 288/97. He was a carpenter. According to PW. 1, wife of the deceased, he had a daily wage of Rs. 70/- and was getting altogether a monthly remuneration of Rs. 1,800/-. He had worked on all days except on Sundays. There was no centra-evidence refuting this, Inspite of that the Tri...
T.B. Mohammed and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker243
ORDERM.R. hariharan Nair, J. 1. The question raised in the Original Petition by the various petitioners who are Public Telephone Franchisees is that of entitlement for collecting service charge of Rs. 2/- for intra-circle calls involving radial distance of 100 to 200 Kms. for which 30 seconds is prescribed as duration of one unit, 2. Some Franchisees' Association had approached this Court earlier with a similar request, besides other contentions. In Ext. P1 judgment in O.P. No. 2069/03, a Division Bench of this Court took note of the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners viz. that just like BSNL which is a licensee within the meaning of Section 4(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with 'Section 2(e) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (for short 'the TRAI Act'), the franchisees (Booth Operators) of the BSNL would also be licensees. Based thereon the Bench found that the petitioners could approach the Tribunal under the TRAI Act for redressal of ...
Rajalakshmi Associates Vs. Sree Meenakshi Papers
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT225
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. These appeals have been preferred under Section 5(2) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 against the judgment of learned single Judge of this court. Maintainability of the appeals has been questioned in view of Section 100-A introduced by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment} Act 2002 with effect from 1.7.2002. Section 100-Aof the Code of Civil Procedure is extracted below for easy reference.'100-A. No further appeal in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any instrument having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in force, where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by aSingle Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree of such Single Judge.Contention was raised that in view of the provisions of Section 100-A of the C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2002 appeals filed after 1.7.2002 under Section 5(2) of the Kerala ...
Urban Stanislaus Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Ker)176
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Has the Tribunal erred in taking the view that the amount of Rs. 5,34,572 earned by way of interest by the assessee was income from other sources and thus could not be included under Section 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal under Section 260A of the Act. A few facts may be noticed.2. The assessee is engaged in the business of exporting cashewnuts. During the asst. yr. 1993-94, the assessee had earned an interest of Rs. 5,34,572 on the fixed deposits. The assessee claimed that the amount of interest was to be considered as income from business and not under other sources. The assessing authority rejected it. On appeal, the order of the assessing authority was reversed. However, the Revenue's claim was accepted by the Tribunal. Hence, this appeal.3. Mr. Kochunni Nair contends that the appellant had taken loan from the bank. 20 per cent of the sale proceeds had to be deposited by way of security fo...
Food Inspector Vs. Narayanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT1035
J.B. Koshy, J.1. This appeal when came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge (R. Basant, J.), his Lordship referred the matter to the Division Bench for answering the following questions:'(i) Whether Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is mandatory.(ii) Whether the fact that one of the witnesses called by the Food Inspector to witness the sampling is an employee of the vendor would vitiate the proceedings against the vendor or the warrantor on the ground that the person called to witness the sampling is not an independent witness as insisted by Section 10(7).'2. The first accused sold peas dhal to the Food Inspector on 28.11.1987. At the time of sampling, PW2 an employee of A1 was called as witness and he signed the mahazar and other documents. The sample, on analysis by the Local (Health) Authority, was found to be adulterated (Ext. P12). The sample contained 14.6% of inedible grain (Kesari dhal), consumption of which is injurious to health. Sale of a mix...
R. Gopikuttan Pillai Vs. Sankara Narayanan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC34
R. Basant, J.1. The complainant is the appellant. The prosecution initiated by him against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ended in acquittal. He assails the said judgment.2. The complainant alleged that Ext. PI cheque for Rs. 72.750/- was issued by the accused to him for the due discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. The said cheque when presented was dishonoured by the Bank on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Notice of demand was issued. Payment was not effected as demanded. It was in these circumstances that the complainant came to Court with this prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. The accused denied the offence alleged against him and thereupon the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 4 and proved Exts.P1 to P4. PW 1 is the complainant. PW 2 is the Manager of the drawee Bank. PWs 3 and 4 are examined to prove the transaction and to explain the entries in Exts. D1 and D2.4. The accused did not dispute the fact...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »