Kerala Court April 2003 Judgments
Steel and Industrial Forgings Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income T ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Ker)394; [2003]264ITR100(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. The matter arises under the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').2. M/s Steel and Industrial Forgings Ltd., Athani, a Government of Kerala undertaking carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of forgings is the appellant. It is aggrieved by the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (for short 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 75/Coch/1993. The assessment year is 1991-92, the relevant accounting period ended 31st March 1991.3. For the asst. yr, 1991-92 the assessee filed a return on 27th Dec., 1991, disclosing a total income/loss of Rs. 2,74,33,870. The AO processed the same under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act and sent an intimation dt. 17th Jan., 1992 (Annexure A). In the said intimation the AO had made a prima facie adjustment and brought down the loss to Rs. 2,48,40,672. The AO also levied additional tax of Rs. 2,38,574 under Section 143(1A) of the Act. The details of the adjustment are given in the explanatory sheet. The enclosed statement shows ...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Malathi C. Salian
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-2003
Reported in: 2003ACJ2033; 2003(3)KLT460
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that has come up for consideration before us is whether a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') for compensation for death or permanent disablement be met by the Insurance Company on establishing that the death or permanent disablement was caused due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement claim has been made. 2. These cases have been placed before us on a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court after having felt that an authoritative pronouncement on the scope and ambit of Section 163A is necessary. In all these cases applications were made by the legal heirs of the deceased claiming compensation under Section 163A of the Act. Tribunal awarded compensation relying upon the structured formula prescribed in Schedule II. Contention raised by the Insurance Company that Section 163A of the Act did not create any new right or liability and t...
Tag this Judgment!Sainaba Umma Vs. Moideenkutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT590
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 5(ii) of the Kerala High Court Act against the judgment and decree in A.S. 355 of 1992. Appeal was filed on 17.9.2002. Judgment was delivered by the learned Single Judge on 26.11.2001. Application was preferred for copy of the judgment on 28.11.2001. Copy was ready on 3.12.2001 and date notified for appearance was 10.12.2001. However, copy was received by the appellant only on 3.9.2002. By the time Section 100A was introduced by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 2002 with effect from 1.7.2002 by which no further appeal was provided to the Division Bench after 1.7.2002. We have already held in our judgment in AFA 91 and 88 of 2002 that no second appeal is maintainable after 1.7.2002, in view of Section 100A of the CPC. Therefore this appeal is not liable to be admitted and hence dismissed as not maintainable.2. Senior counsel appearing for the appellant Sri. P.N.K. Achan however, submitted that though he had...
Tag this Judgment!Saseendran Vs. the Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT908
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The Electoral Officer of the Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission issued notification dated 19th August, 2002 (Ext.Pl in O.P. 27295/02) for holding election to the Managing Committee to the Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Limited (MATSYAFED). As per the notification, 15 members were to be elected, viz., 13 members from the general seat, one member from SC/ST and one lady member. Election was scheduled to be held on 18th September, 2002. Nominations had to be filed on 5th September, 2002 and its scrutiny was scheduled on 6th September, 2002. The Returning Officer, MATSYAFED, accepted the nomination papers and rejected some of the nomination papers on the ground that the societies represented by those persons who filed the nominations were defaulters or in default to the apex society-the MATSYAFED. The President of the Pulluvila Fisherman Development Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd. No. F(T) 28 Sri. Lordan filed nomination a...
Tag this Judgment!Steel and Industrial Forgings Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-2003
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN192(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.The matter arises under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Act').2. M/S. Steel and Industrial Forgings Ltd., Athani a Government of Kerala undertaking carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of forgings is the appellant. It is aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Tribunal') in I.T.A. No. 75/Cochd 1993. The assessment year is 1991-92, the relevant accounting period ended 31-3-1991.3. For the assessment year 1991-92 the assessee filed a return on 27-12-1991 disclosing a total income/loss of Rs. 2,74,33,870. The assessing officer processed the same under section 143(1)(a) of the Act and sent an intimation dated 17-1-1992 (Annexure A). In the said intimation the assessing officer had made a prima facie adjustment and brought down the loss to Rs. 2,48,40,672. The assessing officer also levied additional tax of Rs. 2,38,574 under section 143(1A) of the Act. The detail...
Tag this Judgment!Leo Engineering (India) Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-2003
Reported in: [2006]146STC393(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The short question arising in this case is whether excess tax collected by a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, hereinafter called 'the CST Act', can be forfeited in exercise of powers conferred Under Section 46A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. In this case, the excess tax collected by the dealer and forfeited to Government is only Rs. 1,400 for the year 1991-92. However, the issue is important because in the first place, the issue arises in many cases, and secondly, there is no binding decision of this Court directly on the subject. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the forfeiture of excess sales tax collected under the CST Act by the petitioner and dismissed the appeal.2. The sole question arising from the Tribunal's decision raised by the petitioner is given below:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, has not the Appellate Tribunal gone wrong in holding that forfeiture of the excess tax collected by the revision pe...
Tag this Judgment!Divya Automobiles Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-2003
Reported in: [2004]136STC426(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (for short 'the Act'). The assessee is the revision petitioner. The assessment year is 1992-93. The petitioner was a dealer in automobiles and light commercial vehicles, etc. The assessing authority while completing the assessment for the year 1992-93 treated the sales effected by the petitioner as per Invoice Nos. 513, 517 and 518 as sales of chassis of motor vehicles only and levied tax at five per cent as per S.R.O. No. 369 of 1992. According to the petitioner the commodity covered by the aforesaid three invoices was light commercial vehicles taxable at four per cent only under the notification mentioned above. In appeal by the petitioner the first appellate authority accepted the contention of the petitioner and allowed the appeal. However, in appeal by the State before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam, the order of the first appellate authority was set aside and the order of th...
Tag this Judgment!Sivadas Vs. Geologist, Mining and Geology Department
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT312
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioners are challenging Exts. P9 and P10 orders issued by the Geologist revoking Exts. P6 and P7 licences issued by him earlier to the petitioners for quarrying ordinary sand from two plots of land taken by the petitioners on lease in Malampuzha village. Besides challenge against cancellation of licences, the petitioners are also questioning the onerous conditions attached to the possession certificates issued by the Tahsildar. The two plots of land with sand deposits do not belong to the petitioners, but taken on lease by the petitioners from two ladies by name, Smt. Jaseena Mol and Smt. V. Jisha. Though there is a statement in the counter affidavit that these lands are located near the puzha puramboke, there is no dispute with regard to the title or possession of these two items of land. In fact, prior to making of applications before the Geologist for the grant of mining permit, petitioners had along with their applications to the Geologist produced ...
Tag this Judgment!Annie George Vs. Jamal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT530
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment in R.C.A. No. 86 of 2002 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam. The first respondent in the Civil Revision Petition, T.A. Jamal filed the petition for eviction. The petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition Annie George is the first respondent in the Rent Control Petition and Vasudevan is the second respondent in the Rent Control Petition.2. The husband of the petitioner late Dr. O.A. George was conducting a Medical Clinic under the name and style 'A.G. Hospital'. The petitioner is the tenant of the building No. XI/100. The said building is situated in the first floor in a large building complex. The second respondent Vasudevan is the tenant in occupation of a separate building bearing No. XI/101 of Kalamassery Municipality. The Rent Control Petition was filed for evicting the petitioner for the purpose of residence of the landlord. So far as the second respondent is concerned, the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Castrol India Ltd. Vs. Malayalam Agencies
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT544
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal arises out of the order dated 13.02,2003 in O.S. No. 267 of 2001 of the Sub Court, Ernakulam holding that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of Clause 18 of Ext.A1 agreement dated 16.09.1998 entered into between the parties.2. For disposal of this appeal, we may refer to the parties according to their status before the court below. Plaintiff, M/s. Castrol India Limited, is engaged in the manufacture of marketing of various lubricants and greases for automobiles. First defendant is the partnership firm of which second defendant is the Managing Partner and other defendants are its partners. First defendant was appointed as the distributor of the plaintiff company as per agreement dated 16.09.1998. Agreement was executed at Chennai. Office of the first defendant situates at Vyttila at Cochin and defendants 2 to 5 are natives of Kottayam. Suit was instituted for realisation of money on account of value of castrol products suppli...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »