Kerala Court April 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.
State of Kerala Vs. Annamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT763
ORDERG. Sasidharan, J.1. The question which arises for consideration is whether a case pending on the file of the Magistrate in which there is no allegation regarding commission of any offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session can be sent to the Court of Session for being tried there for the reason that a counter case in respect of the same occurrence in which the allegation is regarding the commission of offence exclusively triable by Court of Session is pending in the Court of Session for trial. Section 193 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that except as otherwise expressly provided by the Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under the Code. The above provision provides that Court of Session can take cognizance of an offence as a Court of original jurisdiction only if the case is committed to it by the ...
immanuel Vs. Rajappan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC604; 2003(3)KLT113
G. Sasidharan, J. 1. Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act says that the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque has to make a demand for payment of the amount of money covered by the cheque by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and the question which arises for consideration is whether the expression 'receipt of information' used in the above proviso means receipt of information in writing. A learned Judge of this Court Mohamed Shafi, J. held in John v. George Jacob (1999 (2) KLT 699) that the expression 'receipt of information' used in proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act means receipt of information in writing and not a mere oral information. In the above proviso it is stated that the payee or the holder in due course of the Cheque has to make a demand for payment of the amount by giving a noti...
Varghese Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT593
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioners in all these Original Petitions are dealers under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, hereinafter called the 'Act' challenging constitutional validity of Section 17(5A) of the Act under which penalty is levied on them for evasion of tax. Section 17(5A) provides for penalty on a 'dealer' who is originally assessed under Section 17(4) of the Act, accepting final tax-return and statutory declaration filed by him in support thereof and later when escaped tax is assessed by revising the assessment originally completed under Section 17(4) of the Act'. The penalty provided under Section 17(5A) is mandatory in nature and is at three times the differential tax, that is the difference between the tax originally assessed under Section 17(4) and the tax reassessed under other provisions of the Act mainly Section 19(1) which provides for assessment of escaped tax by the assessing officer. In fact, a reassessment is contemplated under the Act when the asses...
M.K. Pushparanjini, Chikku's Wood Crafts Vs. Sales Tax Officer and Ors ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: [2004]138STC302(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioners in all these Original Petitions are dealers under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, hereinafter called the 'Act' challenging the constitutional validity of Section 17(5A) of the Act under which penalty is levied on them for evasion of tax. Section 17(5A) provides for penalty on a 'dealer' who is originally assessed Under Section 17(4) of the Act, accepting final tax-return and statutory declaration filed by him in support thereof and later when escaped tax is assessed by revising the assessment originally completed Under Section 17(4) of the Act. The penalty provided Under Section 17(5A) is mandatory in nature and is at three times the differential tax, that is the difference between the tax originally assessed Under Section 17(4) and the tax reassessed under other provisions of the Act mainly Section 19(1) which provides for assessment of escaped tax by the assessing officer. In fact, a reassessment is contemplated under the Act when ...
T.V. Rajan, S/O. Kunhiraman (Died) and K. Sujitha, W/O. Late T.V. Raja ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC263; 2003(2)KLT377
R. Basant, J.1. The complainant is the appellant. The complaint filed by him alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act against the accused ended in acquittal. 2. The complainant alleged that the accused had issued cheques for Rs. 90,000/- to him for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. The said cheques when presented for encashment were dishonoured by the bank of the ground of insufficiency of funds. Notice of demand was issued as insisted by Section 138 of the N.I.Act. It was duly received and acknowledged. But no payment was made as demanded. It is in these circumstances that the complainant came to court with this complaint. 3. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. The accused entered appearance and denied the offence alleged against him. Thereupon the complainant examined himself as PW1. An official of the drawee bank was examined as PW2. Exts.P1 to P13 were marked. 4. The accused denied all circumstances which appear...
Karimtharth Tea Estates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Ker)307
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. The following questions of law are referred to at the instance of the Revenue to this Court under Section 256(1) of the IT Act (for short 'the Act') : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the carried forward loss determined for the earlier assessment years and allowed to be set off against the profit of subsequent years cannot be set off against the income computed under Section 115J of the IT Act for the asst. yr. 1990-91 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the imposition of interest under Section 234B for the asst. yr. 1990-91 ?' 2. The assessee is a closely-held company running a tea estate and the main income of the company is from tea. The assessment year concerned is 1990-91, the relevant accounting period ended 31st March, 1990. The assessee filed a return on 20th Dec., 1990, showing a total loss of Rs. 30,80,490. The AO compute...
Chandran Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT567
ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. In all these Original Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is against the common order passed by the Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos. 1107 of 2000, 67 of 2001 and 491 of 2001, The petitioners herein were not parties to the said Original Applications. O. A. No. 1107 of 2000 was filed by respondents 7 to 10 in O.P. No. 28995 of 2001 (respondents 1 to 4 in O.P. No. 29227/2001). O.A. No. 67 of 2001 was filed by the 7th respondent in O.P. No. 29969 of 2001 (first respondent in O.P. No. 29327/2001). O.A. No. 491 of 2001 was filed by respondents 7 to 9 in O.P. No. 29937/01 (respondents 1 to 3 in O.P. No. 30215/2001). The dispute relates to appointment to the Indian Police Service by promotion of substantive members of the State Police Service.2. According to Rule 4 of the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Recruitment Rules'), the method of...
State of Kerala Vs. Babu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker278; 2003(2)KLT526
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The State/first respondent in the O.P. seeks review of my judgment dated 13th February, 2003 since clarified by me by order dated 5.3.2003 in C.M.P. 13097/03. Under judgment dated 13th February, 2003, I had afforded an opportunity to the revision petitioner, who is claimant in a land acquisition reference case to examine a witness competent to speak about a particular document which was sought to be relied on by the second respondent - Kerala Water Authority, the requisitioning authority on certain conditions. The opportunity given under judgment dated 13.2.2003 was to examine one of the parties to the particular document. Later, under the order of clarification, the expression one of the parties to the particular document was corrected as either the son of the executant of the document who is the attestor of the document or any other person who is closely acquainted with the execution of the document.2. Review is sought essentially in respect of the correc...
Mohanan Vs. Bibhukumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC421; 2003(2)KLT825
R. Basant, J.1. The complainant is the appellant. He is aggrieved by the verdict of not guilty and the consequent judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Magistrate in favour of the accused-respondent.2. The complainant alleged that the respondent-accused owed an amount of Rs. 40,000/- to him. When repayment was demanded, two cheques for Rs. 20,000 dated 21.9.1993 and 8.2.1994 were issued. This prosecution relates to one of those two cheques. When the said cheque was presented for encashment it was dishonoured by the bank on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Notice of demand was issued. There was no useful response. Payment was not effected. It is in these circumstances that the complainant came to court with this complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In respect of the other cheque also there was a prosecution. The same has been compromised after making some payment, it is concerned by both sides.3. The learned Magistrate took cognizance. The accused ...
Chandra Babu Vs. Remani
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC152; 2003(2)KLT750
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. Can the legal representatives of the payee file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is the question to be considered in this case. It is alleged that petitioner in this case borrowed an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from the husband of the respondent and issued a cheque No. 556736 drawn on Syndicate Bank. Sreekaryam Branch dated 4.4.1995 for the discharge of that debt. Respondent's husband (payee) died on 15.4.1995 after 11 days of issuance of the cheque. Respondent wile and the legal heirs of the late Sudevan presented the cheque before the said bank on 29.9.1995. On 4.10.1995 the cheque was returned unpaid to the respondent/complainant on account of insufficiency of funds in the account of the petitioner/accused. On the same day, respondent issued a legal notice calling upon the petitioner/accused to repay the amount covered by the cheque. The notice was acknowledged by the petitioner/accused on 9.10.19...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »