Kerala Court June 2003 Judgments
Muhammed Vs. Kunhayisha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-2003
Reported in: II(2003)DMC756; 2003(3)KLT106
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Is a Muslim daughter, notwithstanding the fact that she has attained majority and notwithstanding the fact that she suffers from no physical or mental abnormality or injury, entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.? Does the decision of the. Supreme Court reported in Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim (1997 SCC (CRL) 924), confer on her any such right? These are the questions that fall for determination in this revision petition.2. Fundamental facts are all admitted. The parties are referred to in this order in the manner in which they are ranked before the Family Court. The second petitioner is aged 20 years. She is the daughter of the counter petitioner (revision petitioner herein). She along with her mother claimed maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The mother's claim for maintenance was turned down. That rejection has now become final without challenge. I need not hence advert to her claim at all.3. There is no contention that the second petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Seethal Vs. R.T.A.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT357
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Petitioner, a grantee of a regular stage carriage permit, is challenging Ext.P5 whereunder the R.T. A. declined an application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner for production of current records of the vehicle beyond four months for issue of permit. R.T.A. granted a regular stage carriage permit to the petitioner vide Ext.P1 proceedings dated 28.8.2002. It is seen from the photocopy of Ext.P1 produced that the proceeding was signed for communication on 20.9.2002 and on that day the petitioner concedes to have received it. According to the petitioner, petitioner made an application vide Ext.P2 on 19.10.2002 for grant of maximum time for production of current records in terms of Rule 159(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. According to the petitioner there was no response and the R.T.A. has not revoked Ext.P1 permit granted to the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner produced current records Ext.P3 on 25.2.2003 for issue of permit further t...
Tag this Judgment!Parukutty Amma Vs. Reghunadhan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT672
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 766 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Irinjalakuda is the petitioner in this Original Petition. The petitioner filed the suit for recovery of money. The respondent-defendant though appeared in the court below did not file a written statement. So he was set exparte under Order IX Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Subsequently the suit was also decreed exparte. The respondent filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 for setting aside the exparte decree. The trial court found that the respondent had failed to show any sufficient cause for his non-appearance on the date on which the suit was posted for filing the written statement. So the petition was dismissed. The respondent filed C.M.A.No. 106 of 1999 before this Court challenging that order. The C.M.A. was also dismissed. The defendant filed A.S. No. 572 of 1999 before this Court challenging the exparte decree passed in the suit. A Division Bench of this Court consi...
Tag this Judgment!Seethal Vs. R.T.A., R.T.A.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-2003
Reported in: III(2003)ACC697
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner, a grantee of a regular stage carriage permit, is challenging Ext.P5 where under the R.T.A. declined an application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner for production of current records of the vehicle beyond four months for issue of permit. R.T. A. granted a regular stage carriage permit to the petitioner vide Ext. P1 proceedings dated 28.8.2002. It is seen from the photocopy of Ext. P. 1 produced that the proceeding was signed for communication on 20.9.2002 and on that day the petitioner concedes to have received it. According to the petitioner, petitioner made an application vide Ext. P. 2 on 19.10.2002 for gant of maximum time for production of current records in terms of Rule 159(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. According to the petitioner there was no response and the R.T.A. has not revoked Ext. P. 1 permit granted to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner produced current records Ext. P. 3 on 25.2.2003 for issue of per...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Bank Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-2003
Reported in: [2005]142STC281(Ker)
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. The appellant approached this Court to challenge the notice, exhibit P3, by which it was informed that the State had to recover an amount of Rs. 9,62,835 along with interest on account of sales tax from M/s. Maxwell Exim Foods Limited. This amount was due on account of the levy of sales tax for the assessment year 1991-92. The bank claimed that the property was mortgaged with it and that on the security of the property, it had given loan to the said unit. Thus, it had a right to recover the money by the sale of the mortgaged property.2. The matter was considered by the learned single Judge. In view of the provision contained in Section 26-B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 the learned single Judge held that the State had the prior right to recover the arrears to tax. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence, this appeal by the bank.3. Mr. E. Subramani, learned Counsel for the appellant, contends that the bank is a secured creditor. Thus, it is ent...
Tag this Judgment!Shibu Vs. S.i. of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT104
ORDERG. Sasidharan, J. 1. Petitioner is the accused in Crime 215/2003 of North Parur Police Station the investigation of which is being proceeded alleging that the petitioner committed the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Annexure-A1 is the first information report in which even though Section 306 is shown as the section under which the offence which the petitioner is alleged to have committed is punishable what is said is that the defacto complainant made an attempt to commit suicide and it was the petitioner who abetted the commission of that act by the defacto complainant. The proceedings in the above crime are sought to be quashed by saying that even if the allegations in the first information report are taken to be true, it will not constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted when the person, who...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner (Law), Commercial Taxes Vs. Orbit Agencies
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-2003
Reported in: [2004]136STC575(Ker)
1. Revenue is the revision-petitioner. Assessee is the respondent. Assessment year concerned is 1992-1993. The respondent/assessee is a dealer in various items including electronic buzzar. The assessee claimed concessional rate of tax on electronic buzzar under the Notification S.R.O. No. 371 of 1992. The rate of tax on electronic goods under the First Schedule to the KGST Act was 20 per cent whereas under the said notification it was only 5 per cent. This claim was rejected by the assessing authority stating that the electronic buzzars are not the item specifically mentioned in the said S.R.O. It is also stated that electronic buzzar does not announce alarm. The first appellate authority after inspection of the item observed that the item sold by the appellant is a device of signal by sound and light while the vehicle is turning to side and will come under item 2.10 under item 2--'control and instrumentation products'. The Tribunal had endorsed the said view and held that the item wil...
Tag this Judgment!B. Indira Devi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Ker)441; [2004]270ITR44(Ker)
G. Swarajan, J.1. The Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the judgment dt. 14th July, 1994 in OP No. 58 of 1985 :'Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the ITO was justified in referring the question of cost of construction of a building belonging to the appellant to the Departmental Valuation Officer ?'2. The applicant is an individual, who is an assessee under the Act. The assessment year concerned is 1977-78. The AO referred the question of cost of construction of a building constructed by the assessee during the relevant accounting period ended on 31st March, 1977, to the Executive Engineer, Valuation Cell, Thiruvananthapuram. The said officer had valued the cost of construction of the building at Rs. 3,53,000, as against the cost of construction of Rs. 2,09,094 furnished by the assessee in her re...
Tag this Judgment!Kadathur Thamee Mul Ansari Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-2003
Reported in: [2006]146STC547(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, for short, 'the Act'. The assessee is the revision-petitioner. The State is the respondent. The assessment year concerned is 1993-94. The assessee is engaged in the retail business in ready-made garments in the name and style of 'Designs' at Attukkal Shopping Complex, East Fort, Thiruvananthapuram. For the assessment year 1993-94, the assessee filed a return disclosing a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 14,57,409 and Rs. 13,74,500, respectively claiming exemption on a turnover of Rs. 82,908. There was an inspection of the business premises of the assessee on May 28, 1993 and a shop inspection report was prepared. Subsequent verification of the books of account with the shop inspection report showed that there was stock variation to the tune of Rs. 73,488. The assessee had admitted the offence before the Intelligence Officer and remitted a sum of Rs. 4,500 as compounding fee. Based on these materials, th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Trichur Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Ker)400; [2004]266ITR574(Ker)
1. All these appeals are filed by the CIT, Kochi against two separate orders of the Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA Nos. 312, 313 & 314/Coch/1995 in respect of the asst. yrs. 1986-87, 1987-88 & 1988-89 in connection with orders passed by the AO under Section 201(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') and in ITA Nos. 233, 234 & 235/Coch/1995 in respect of asst. yrs. 1986-87, 1987-88 & 1988-89 in connection with the orders passed by the AO levying interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act. ITA Nos. 27, 42 & 50 of 2000 are the appeals filed against the order of the Tribunal on the question arising under Section 201(1) of the Act and ITA Nos. 38, 41 & 43 of 2000 are filed against the order of the Tribunal on the question of imposition of interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act.2. The brief facts necessary for consideration of these appeals are as follows : The respondent-assessee is a co-operative bank at Trichur. During the previous year relevant to the asst. yrs. 1986-87 to 1988-89...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »