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.
Sukumaran Nair Vs. Srecretary Vazhoor Grama Panchayat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT903
M. Ramachandran, J.1. The Vazhoor Grama Panchayat (1st respondent herein) by Ext. P2 resolution unanimously had decided certain arrangements in the matter of stopping place of stage carriages and parking of vehicles, including light motor vehicles. Altogether there were nine such decisions which are proposed to be implemented forthwith. It is indicated that persons including the first petitioner had been invited for discussion in the matter and Ext. R1(a), made available by the Panchayat, indicated that the representatives from the General Public and Organizations, like Department Society, Merchants Association, Citizen Forum, Autorikshaw Union (CITU), Representatives of INTUC, BJP, CPI, CPM, Kerala Congress (J), Kerala Congress (M), Autoriksha Union (BMS), Poura Samithi etc. had participated.2. After about a month it appears that the petitioners had made an objection in the matter on 26.03.2003 by Ext. P4 and thereafter filed this Original Petition on 7.4.2003. In view of the interim ...
Three-n-products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Amrutha Trading Corporation and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(27)PTC213(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Plaintiff is the appellant. This appeal has been preferred against the order in I.A. No. 121 of 2003 in O.S. No. 2 of 2003 of the Court of the District Judge, Ernakulam. 2. Suit was instituted by the plaintiff alleging that the defendant had infringed their trade mark registered under the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1956 and also that the defendants passed off their goods which are deceptively similar to those of the plaintiffs and caused damages. Application for temporary injunction was also filed restraining the defendants and their representatives from infringing the trade mark 'AYUR' of the plaintiff and/or from using the business trade mark 'AYUSH' or any other trade name which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark AYUR and also for other consequential reliefs. The court below refused injunction holding that the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case of infringement of the trade mark. It was a...
David Loocose Vs. University of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT259
A.K. Basheer, J. 1. Petitioners who are stated to be qualified Football coaches, have filed this Original Petition challenging Ext. P14 Notification issued by the University of Kerala to the extent it restricts appointment to the post of Football coach in the University only to a woman candidate. According to the petitioners, the' University Act, Statutes or Ordinances do not provide for a woman football coach and therefore such a reservation given to female football coaches in the University is illegal and unsustainable. Petitioners therefore pray for a declaration that 'the reservation given to the post of football coach (woman) is incorrect, illegal and unenforceable under law' and that as per the University law the post of football coach is a general category post. The petitioners also pray for a direction to the respondents 'to re-advertise the post of football coach and make fresh selection proceedings'.2. It is true that serial No. 3 in Ext. P14 Notification issued by the Univer...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. T. Sarala Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Ker)166
1. The GIT, Thiruvananthapuram has filed this appeal against the order of the Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA No. 695/Coch/1995.2. The respondent-assessee is a cashew exporter. In the assessment under the IT Act (for short 'the Act') for the year 1992-93 the assessee claimed deduction under s. 80HHC of the Act. The AO disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the certificate as contemplated under Sub-section (4A) of Section 80HHC from the export house in Form No. 10CCAE did not accompany the return. In the appeal filed by the assessee the CIT(A) allowed the claim following the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. : [1976]103ITR835(Ker) . Being aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal relying on its earlier decision in the case of Sri Krishnan Nair ITA No. 688/Coch/1995, dismissed the appeal. Against the said order the Revenue has raised three questions of law. The question is as to whether the...
Dy. Cit Vs. V.i.P. Exports
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-2003
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN803(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.This is an appeal filed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward I, Mattancherry, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA. No. 757 (Coch)/90 dated 16-11-1998 in respect of the assessment year 1983-84. In the assessment for the year 1983-84, the respondent-assessee claimed the benefit of deduction under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Admittedly the assessee had exported goods processed by it either through export houses or through sister concerns. The assessing officer took the view that in order to get the benefit of deduction under section 80HHC, the assessee must be the real exporter. Since the export in the instant case was made through export houses, the assessing officer denied the benefit of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act to the assessee. Being aggrieved by the said assessment, the assessee took up the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals I), Cochin, who, by his or...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. V.i.P. Exports
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-2003
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Ker)151
G. Sivarajan, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the ITO, Ward-1, Mattancherry, against the order of the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in ITA. No. 757/(Coch)/1990, dt. 16th Nov., 1998, in respect of the asst. yr. 1983-84. In the assessment for the year 1983-84, the respondent-assessee claimed the benefit of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). Admittedly the assessee had exported goods processed by it either through export houses or through sister-concerns. The AO took the view that in order to get the benefit of deduction under Section 80HHC, the assessee must be the real exporter. Since the export in the instant case was made through export houses, the AO denied the benefit of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act to the assessee. Being aggrieved by the said assessment, the assessee took up the matter in appeal before the CIT(A)-I, Cochin, who, by his order dt. 25th June, 1990, Annex.-B, allowed the appeal relying on a decision of the Tribunal in...
Cit Vs. Smt. T. Sarala Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-2003
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN471(Ker)
The Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram has filed this appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in I.T.A. No. 695/(Coch)/95.2. The respondent assessee is a cashew exporter. In the assessment under the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the year 1992-93 the assessee claimed deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. The assessing officer disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the certificate as contemplated under sub-section (4A) of section 80HHC from the export house in Form No. 10CCAE did not accompany the return. In the appeal filed by the assessee the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim following the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. : [1976]103ITR835(Ker) . Being aggrieved by the said order, the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal relying on its earlier decision in the case of Sri Krishnan Nair I.T.A. No. 688/Coch/95, Kollam dismissed the appeal. Agai...
Excise Inspector Vs. Sasi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT1044
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. State of Kerala has filed these appeals challenging the inadequacy of and illegality in the sentence passed on the accused. The respective accused persons in these cases have been charged with the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. All of them pleaded guilty and have been sentenced under Section 58 of the Act, imposing a fine of Rs. 150/- on each of them.2. The offence has been committed in the year 1995. On the date of commission of offences, in these cases, admittedly, Section 58 read as follows:'Whoever without lawful authority, has in his possession any quantity of liquor or of any intoxicating drug, knowing the same to have been unlawfully imported, transported or manufactured, or knowing not to have been paid therefore shall on conviction before a Magistrate, be punished with fine which may extend to (fifteen thousand rupees) or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with both'.In such circumstances, the impos...
Annie Varghese Vs. Labour Court
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT571
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Can the legal heirs of a deceased employer be impleaded in proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act? As far as the impleadment of the legal heirs of the employee is concerned, the question is no more res integra, In Gwalior Rayons, Mavoor v. Labour Court (1978 (2) LLJ 188) it has been held that on the death of a workman the Labour Court does not cease to exercise jurisdiction as benefits due to the deceased workman can be realised by his legal heirs. It was also held that death of the workman would be a factor in moulding the relief in such a case. In Rameshwar Manjhi v. Management of Sangramgarh Colliery (AIR 1994 SC 1176) the Supreme Court again considered the issue and held that proceedings do not abate by the death of the workman and the Tribunal does not become functus officio.2. Section 10(8) of the Industrial Disputes Act read as follows:-'10(8). No proceedings pending before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal in relation to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›