Kerala Court July 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.
Mathew Varghese Vs. Rosamma Varghese
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker312; 2003(4)CTC193; (2004)186CTR(Ker)172; I(2004)DMC148; 2003(3)KLT6
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Is a Christian father under an obligation to maintain his minor child? More than three decades back, a Full Bench of this Court had considered this question in 'The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala v. P.M. Paily Pillai' 1972 KLT 24. Following an earlier decision of a Division Bench in Chacko Daniel v. Daniel Joshua 1952 KLT 595, it was held that the duty of the father was an imperfect obligation. It was not an actionable wrong. Thus, it was concluded that 'there is no legal obligation on the part of the Christian father to maintain his minor child'. Accordingly, the question was answered in the negative. The correctness of this view was questioned in these two cases. It was pointed out that discordant notes had been struck after the decision in Paily Pillai's case. The issue was referred to a Full Bench. Initially, the matter was listed before a Bench of three Judges. However, in view of the fact that a Full Bench had already considered the matter, the case ...
Indian Spices Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Ker)303; [2004]267ITR445(Ker)
1. The Tribunal, Cochin Bench has referred the following two questions of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') for decision by this Court at the instance of the assessee.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the lower authorities restricting the claim under Section 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961, to a sum of Rs. 13,54,636 ? 2. Whether there were materials for the Tribunal to hold that the computation under Section 80HHC(3)(b) was relevant and not Section 80HHC(3)(a) in the applicant's case ?' 2. The brief facts necessary for consideration of this case are as follows :The applicant-assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business in the purchase and sale of raw rubber, coconut, oil and pepper. Pepper trade consists of both export sales and local sales. The assessee had maintained separate accounts for raw rubber which consists of local sales only.3. In the assessment for the year 1...
E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Excel Glasses Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT42
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Does the proviso to Section 77(1A)(b) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 debar the Corporation from making any claim after five years from the date on which it had arisen? This question was answered in the negative by a Division Bench of this Court in Vijayan Pillai v. E.S.I. Corporation (1998 (1J KLT 373). It was held that 'by a legal fiction contained in Clause(b) the cause of action in respect of a claim by the Corporation from the principal employer arises on the date on which the Corporation makes the claim for the first time. The words 'five years of the period to which the claim relates' contained in the said proviso shall not be interpreted to mean that five years of the period in relation to which the amount of contribution is due.' The correctness of this view was doubted by a Division Bench. It was observed that 'the proviso to Clause(b) shows that no claim shall be made by the Corporation after five years of the period to which that claim ...
Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Kerala Electrical and Allied ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ768Ker
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C. J.1. Does the proviso to Section 77(1-A)(b) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, debar the Corporation from making any claim after five years from the date on which it had arisen? This question was answered in the negative by a Division Bench of this Court in Vijayan Pilial N. v. ESI Corporation 1998-I-LLJ-1190 (Ker-DB). It was held that at p. 1192:'4.... By a legal fiction contained in Clause (b) the cause of action in respect of a claim by the Corporation from the principal employer arises on the date on which the Corporation makes the claim for the first time. The words 'five years of the period to which the claim relates' contained in the said proviso shall not be interpreted to mean that five years of the period in relation to which the amount of contribution is due.'The correctness of this view was doubted by a Division Bench. It was observed that:'the proviso to Clause (b) shows that no claim shall be made by the Corporation after five years of the ...
Indian Spices Co. Vs. Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN291(Ker)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench has referred the following two questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for decision by this court at the instance of the assessee :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the lower authorities restricting the claim under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act 1961 to a sum of Rs. 13.54,6362. Whether there were materials for the Tribunal to hold that the computation under section 80HHC(3)(b) was relevant and not section 80HHC(3)(a) in the applicant's case?'2. The brief facts necessary for consideration of this case are as follows: The applicant-assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business in the purchase and sale of raw rubber, coconut oil and pepper. Pepper trade consists of both export sales and local sales. The assessee had maintained separate accounts for raw rubber which-consists of local sal...
Sankaran Nair Vs. Balan Nair and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker54
A. Lekshmikutty, J.1. The appellant is the defendant in O.S. No. 281 of 1984 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Ottapalam. The suit was filed by the respondent herein for a declaration that he has a right of way through plaint 'C' schedule to enter into the plaint A & B schedules and for a consequential injunction. There is also a prayer for mandatory injunction to restore the 'C' schedule pathway to its original condition after removing the fence put up at the entrance of the pathway.2. The plaintiff/respondent contended that the plaint 'A' schedule property belongs to him and that the plaint 'B' schedule property is his kudiyiruppa. There is a pathway on the southern side of the plaint 'A' schedule and on the eastern side of the plaint 'B' schedule. The plaintiff and the members of his family used to go out of their house through the pathway on the eastern side of the 'B' schedule and thereafter through the pathway on the southern side of the 'A' schedule. The portion of the pa...
Corporation of CochIn Vs. New India Maritime Agencies (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT209
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in Order S. No. 83 of 1990 of the Sub Court, Cochin. The suit was filed for a declaration that the recovery of property tax is illegal, since it is barred by limitation. The Court below held that Section 417 of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') applies and so, according to the Court below, the tax for the period from 1.10.1978 to 1.10.1986 is barred. It is challenging the above that the present appeal is filed. 2. The only contention that is urged is that the tax for the property in question is not barred by limitation. While the appellant would argue that there is a charge created under Section 105 of the Act and the period of limitation is under Article 62 of the Limitation Act and hence, the Corporation has got 12 years to recover the amount. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is Section 417 of the Act that applies and on the bas...
Rosily Vs. Annam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT282
Pius C. Kuriakose, J. 1. The defendants in a suit for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act are aggrieved by the positive decree which is passed against them in respect of the suit schedule property-land having an extent of 3.540 cents in Survey Nos. 228/3 and 228/5 of Kaduppassery Village.2. I will refer to the parties as they were before the trial court. According to the plaintiffs, 'B' schedule property is part of 'A' schedule property having a total extent of 2 acres and 12.540 cents. 'A' schedule is described as comprised of 2.09 acres in Survey Nos. 214 and 3.280 cents in Survey No. 228/5 and 0.260 cents in Survey No. 228/3. 'A' schedule property is also described as property covered by Will No. 71/89 executed by Vareed and described in the commission report in O.S. 71-5/97, a previous suit between the parties. According to the plaintiffs, 'A' schedule property stood separated from the defendants' property on its south by well-defined boundaries and th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. N.S. Babu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Ker)231; [2004]266ITR616(Ker)
1. This is an appeal filed by the CIT Thiruvananthapuram against the order of the Tribunal, Cochin Bench in C.O. No.41/Coch/1999 in ITA No. 682/Coch/1995 cancelling the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for short the Act'. While admitting the appeal notice was ordered on the following questions of law :(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Addl. CIT v. Jeevanlal-Sah : [1994]205ITR244(SC) and other Supreme Court decisions the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that 'for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) there should be a conscious concealment of income on the part of the assessee' and is not the approach of the Tribunal based on the above principle and the consequential conclusion wrong, vitiated and against law (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that 'There is no material brought on r...
Jully Reynold Vs. Manual
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT(Cri)459; I(2004)BC339; [2004]122CompCas758(Ker); 2003(3)KLT439; [2004]53SCL115(Ker)
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. This revision petition has come up before us based on a reference order dated 18.6.2003 by a learned Single Judge of this Court.2. The revision petitioner was the accused in C.C. No. 510/99 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kochi. That case arose on a private complaint by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant was represented by a private counsel, like the accused. The State did not have any role at all in the prosecution of that case. The case ended in conviction. The revision petitioner/accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, and to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. A further direction was issued by the learned Magistrate under the same provision 'to pay compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the Government, as the Government had also already incurred expenses in this complaint'. This was ch...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »