Kerala Court June 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.
Balakrishnan, Unity Drugs Centre and anr. Vs. Jaison P.V. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-2003
Reported in: [2004]122CompCas820(Ker)
G. Sasidharan, J.1. Crl. M. C. No. 3499 of 2003 is filed by the second accused and Crl. M. C. No. 3809 of 2003 is filed by accused Nos. 7 and 8 in C. C. No. 189 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class I, Ernakulam. Crl. M. C. No. 3500 of 2003 is filed by the second accused and Crl. M. C. No. 3810 of 2003 is filed by accused Nos. 7 and 8 in C. C. No. 190 of 2003 on the file of the above court. These petitions are filed for quashing the proceedings in the above two cases. Since the question which arises for consideration is the same and allegations are the same, these petitions are being disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners were made accused in the above cases on the basis of complaint filed alleging commission of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There is also mention in the complaint that the offences punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was also committed. On going through the complaint it ...
T.M. Prabhakaran Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-2003
Reported in: [2006]143STC381(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. Assessee is the revision petitioner. State is the respondent. Assessment year concerned in 1993-94. For the said assessment year the assessee filed a return disclosing a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 8,64,756.25 and nil respectively. The assessee claimed exemption in respect of the entire turnover on the ground it represented receipt of works contract and the materials used in the works contract had already suffered tax inside the State. The assessing officer, however, did not accept the said contention in full, and had determined the taxable turnover at Rs. 3,24,920, after granting deduction in respect of the materials already suffered tax. The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Alappuzha, however, initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') and set aside the assessment on the ground that a scrutiny of the assessment records revealed that the assessee was manufacturing mosaic tiles in his f...
Human Rights Protection Forum Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker23; 2003(3)KLT436
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. The Human Rights Protection Forum has filed this petition with the prayer that the notifications dated October 26, 2002 and March 6, 2003 embodying the Ordinances and the Act regarding imposition of court fee in the State of Kerala be quashed.2. We have heard Mr. Joshi N. Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner. He has contended that the action of the State Government in enhancing the court fee is arbitrary. The provision that the State need not pay the court fee suffers from the vice of discrimination. Lastly, it has been contended that the imposition of a court fee of Rs. 100/- for every contempt petition is also unfair. On this basis, it is contended that the two notifications deserve to be quashed.3. Admittedly, the two notifications embody legislative enactments. It has not even been suggested that there was lack of legislative competence. The whole complaint is based on Article 14 of the Constitution of India.4. It is recognized that Legislature is t...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. South India Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Ker)583
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. The Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), for decision of this Court at the instance of the Revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in the light of the clear provisions of Explanation to Clause (v) of Section 36(1) and Section 43B r/w the decision in Hitech (India) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. : [1997]227ITR446(AP) the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of the belated payment to Provident Fund ?'2. We have heard the learned standing counsel (Government of India) Taxes, appearing for the applicant and Shri K. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assesses. The standing counsel submitted that this question is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of the very same assessee in CIT v. South India Corpn. Ltd. : [2000]242ITR114(Ker) . In that case it was held that in order to get the deduction, the payment...
C.S. Company Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-2003
Reported in: [2005]126CompCas32(Ker); 2003(3)KLT808
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Defendants 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 are the appellants. Suit was instituted by the first respondent Bank for realisation of money on the strength of two bank guarantees alleged to have been executed on 11.5.1983 and 24.6.1983 in favour of Kerala State Electricity Board. Suit was decreed. It was also ordered that if the Bank could not realise full amount due to it by sale of hypothecated properties, Bank could proceed against defendants 2 to 4 personally against the assets of defendants 1 to 4 to realise the balance amount due to it. 2. First defendant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of engineering and other defendants are its partners. They undertook execution of certain civil engineering works awarded by the Kerala State Electricity Board. Defendants had approached the plaintiff Bank to furnish bank guarantee for Rs. 20 lakhs in favour of the Electricity Board. Bank had agreed to offer the bank guarantee subject to certain terms and conditions. Defendan...
K.C. Chacko Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-2003
Reported in: [2004]138STC608(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The assessee is the revision petitioner in both these cases. The assessment years concerned are 1992-93 and 1993-94 respectively. The assessee is running a bar attached hotel under the name and style of M/s. Mukkadan's Restaurant, at Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram. The assessing authority rejected the books of accounts and returns filed for the aforesaid two years on the ground that there were inspections of the business premises of the assessee during the assessment years concerned, that on verification of the materials gathered in the said inspection with reference to the books of accounts maintained by the assessee, stock variations were found in so many items of foreign liquor and that the assessee had admitted the offence of non-maintaining true and correct accounts by remitting compounding fee. In the assessment order for the assessment year 1992-93, so far as foreign liquor is concerned, the assessing officer had stated that the total suppression worked out to Rs...
Cit Vs. South India Corporation Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN879(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act), for decision of this court at the instance of the revenue :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the clear provisions of Explanation to clause (v) of section 36(1) and section 43B read with the decision reported in Hitech (India) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India : [1997]227ITR446(AP) the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of the belated payment to Provident Fund2. We have heard the learned standing counsel, (Government of India) Taxes, appearing for the applicant and Shri K. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent assessee. The standing counsel submitted that this question is covered by the decision of this court in the case of the very same assessee in CIT v. South India Corpn. Ltd. : [2000]242ITR114(Ker) . In that case it was held that...
Soman Vs. Kottarakara Grama Panchayat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT1007
M. Ramachandran, J.1. The petitioners occupy shop rooms in the shopping complex owned by the third respondent-Panchayat in various business pursuits. After the shopping complex was put up, during November, 1992 allotment of rooms went in favour of the highest bidders. This was for a period of three years, as could be seen from Ext. R3(a) proposal.2. Occupation continued even after the expiry of the lease period on revised and altered rentals. Early during 2002, the Panchayat had decided to terminate the lease arrangement. They re-notified the shop rooms for lease by way of auction. A notice in this regard is produced as Ext. R3(e) by the respondent. In furtherance to the above, the petitioners had been advised that they were obliged to surrender possession. The petitioners thereupon filed Original Petition No. 13022 of 2002. This Court directed the Government to examine the representations that had been pending with them in the matter and this resulted in Ext. P5. The Government held t...
Clappana Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT1032
M. Ramachandran, J.1. By Ext. P1 notification dated 24.09.2001, the petitioner, a Service Co-operative Bank, had invited applications for appointment to an existing vacancy of salesman. It had been indicated that selection would be on the basis of a written test and interview. The post has been reserved to be filled up by member of a Scheduled Caste. The averments in the Original Petition indicate that a test had been held, but before the appointment could be made a stay had been issued by the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kollam.2. The petitioner had challenged the orders by filing O.P. No. 827 of 2002. It had been disposed of on 8.1.2002 directing the Joint Registrar to consider the matter appropriately and orders passed thereon. By Ext. P3 dated 22.3.2002, the Joint Registrar had cancelled the entire proceedings taken up for recruitment. An appeal thereupon had been preferred before the Government. However, the Government had upheld the orders passed by the departmental ...
Padmakumar Vs. Sasikala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT886
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. Has the learned single Judge erred in accepting the request of the respondents for reversion from the posts of Information Assistants to those of Upper Division Clerks in the Tourism Department? This is the short question that arises for consideration in these three appeals.2. Counsel for the parties have referred to the facts as averred in O.P. No. 20331/1998. These may be briefly noticed.3. Respondents 1 to 3 had joined service as Lower Division Clerks in the year 1986-87. They were promoted as Upper Division Clerks in the year 1989. In June 1993 they were promoted to the posts of Information. Assistants. While they were working as such, the Department had issued an order dated August 19, 1999 certifying that they had successfully completed their period of probation. Vide order dated December 30, 1999 it was ordered that the order of 'provisional promotion' as Information Assistant shall be treated as one of appointment by transfer.4. The respondents appreh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »