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.
Fibre Foam (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-2003
Reported in: [2004]138STC410(Ker)
1. The matter arises both under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, 'the KGST Act) and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'the CST Act'). The same assessee under the said two enactments is the petitioner in both these cases. The assessment year concerned is 1991-92. The only question involved in both these revisions is as to whether the assessee is entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax under S.R.O. No. 432 of 1991 on the turnover of the goods manufactured and sold by the petitioner. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of rubberised coir mattresses, pillows, cushions, bath mats, packing material, etc., in the name and style of Fibre Foam (P) Limited at Baliapattam, Cannanore. In the assessment for the year 1991-92 both under the KGST Act and under the CST Act assessee claimed exemption in respect of the sales turnover of rubberised coir products manufactured by it for the period from January 1, 1992 to March 31, 2002 under the Notification,...
Andrews Vs. Jos
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker348; 2003(2)KLT1074
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 104 read with Order III, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the common order dated 19.12.2002 in I.As. 4679/02 and 3714/01 in O.S.333/01 on the files of the Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam. Suit was instituted for cancellation of trust deed No. 1174/01 dated 20.4.01 of SRO Tripunithura executed by the first defendant. Plaintiff filed I.A.37144/01 for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from invoking or implementing or claiming any benefit on the strength of trust deed No.11744/01. Defendants 2 & 3 had also filed an application for injunction restraining the plaintiff from continuing as manager of H.S. Irimpanam and from taking any policy decision and implementing the same touching the administration and management of the school and from making any appointment in the school. Both the applications were heard by the Court below and were dismissed against which this appeal has been preferre...
Binoy Peter Vs. Secretary, Keerampara Grama Panchayat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT163
M. Ramachandran, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved about Ext. P4, whereunder the Secretary of the Keerampara Grama Panchayat (1st respondent herein) had advised him that as the appeal is not in consonance with law, it cannot be considered. The petitioner submits that the appeal had been submitted before the Panchayat Committee and not to the Secretary. He also refers to the circumstance that the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Taxation, Levy & Appeal) Rules, 1996 provides that assessment of tax has to be carried out by the Standing Committee and in this case there was irregularity in that tax has been assessed by the Secretary of the Panchayat. Of course an appeal had been filed to the Committee and a marginal reduction was granted, but the petitioner submits that his right of an appeal to the Panchayat Committee cannot be curtailed in any manner and Ext. P4, to the above extent, is bad in law. 2. Notice has been taken to a Panchayat, but there is no response forthcoming. There appears to be some...
Bindu Thomas Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT217
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner challenges the retrospectivity given to an amendment introduced in the Kerala Education Rules by Ext.P9 dated 3.4.2003. By the said amendment, a rival claimant became eligible for appointment as High School Assistant. The petitioner apprehends that the said eligibility acquired by the 3rd respondent may affect her claim for approval of her appointment. The brief facts of the case are the following: 2. The petitioner is presently working as High School Assistant (Malayalam) in St. Mary's High School, Vynthala managed by the 4th respondent. She was appointed as HSA (Malayalam) in this School in a leave vacancy by Ext.P3 order dated 12.8.1999. The appointment was for a period extending from 12.8.1999 to 15.10.1999. That was approved by the D.E.O. She was reappointed in a leave vacancy of HSA (Malayalam) from 11.1.2000 to 15.3.2000 by Ext.P4. The said appointment was also approved. The petitioner was again appointed in a leave vacancy from 19.9.200...
Charangat Coir Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT312; (2004)IILLJ448Ker
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. In all these Original Petitions constitutional validity of some of the provisions in the Kerala Coir Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1987, hereinafter referred to as the Act, are challenged by the petitioners. The above Act was amended by the Kerala Coir Workers' Welfare Fund (Amendment) Act, 1998, hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act, which came into force with effect from 30th day of September, 1997. When the above amendment came, Original Petitions were amended and the provisions under the Amended Act are also under challenge. The Preamble of the Kerala Coir Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1987 states that it was enacted 'to provide for constitution of a fund to grant relief to, to promote the welfare of, and to pay pension to coir workers and self employed persons in coir industry in the State of Kerala and for certain other matters incidental thereto'. One of the contentions raised by the petitioners is that the petitioners are paying contributions under the Employ...
Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Vs. George
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-02-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT579
ORDERG. Sasidharan, J. 1. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.30/1999 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara. There was a posting of the case on 30.1.2002 for payment of balance court fee. Plaintiff who is the respondent in the petition did not pay the balance court fee on that day. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff filed I.A. 1254/2002 to accept balance court fee and Court allowed the above application. The present petitioner filed an application for review of that order and by impugned order, the application for review was dismissed.2. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court has no power to extend the period for payment of court fee beyond 30 days. In the revision, petitioner says that the learned Munsiff would not have extended the period for payment of balance court fee in the light of the decision reported in Mable v. Dolores (2001 (2) KLT 612). The question whether, the Court had power to extend the period for payment of the ba...
Jyothis Kuries and Loans Vs. George Jose
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-02-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC36; 2003(3)KLT1157
K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. 171/92 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Chavakkad is the appellant in this C.M.A. The Judgment passed by the District Court, Thrissur in A.S.215/93 is under challenge.2. The appellant filed the above suit for realisation of Rs. 6,000 with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the defendants-respondents herein alleging to be due as per the promissory note alleged to have executed by them in favour of the appellant.3. The 1st defendant-1st respondent herein contended that the appellant is not a registered partnership firm and the person who verified and signed the plaint is not competent to do so. He also denied the execution of the promissory note and receipt of any amount from the appellant.4. The trial court decreed the suit as prayed for with costs. The defendants-respondents took up the matter in appeal before the District Court, Thrissur in A.S.215/93. The lower appellate court found that the contention of the respondents that the ...
Vijayakumar Vs. Food Inspector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-01-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ354; 2003(3)KLT824
ORDERG. Sasidharan, J.1. Proceedings in a criminal case in which the allegation is regarding the commission of the offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are sought to be quashed by one of the accused mainly on two grounds; one, non-compliance of the provision in Section 13(2) of the Act and two, not obtaining proper sanction for prosecution as envisaged in Section 20 of the Act before filing complaint in Court. Petitioner is the third accused in the case and the allegation against him and the other two accused is that they committed the offences under Section 2(1a)(m) read with Section 7(i)(v) and Appendix B.A. 25.02.01 punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. On 19.11.1996 at 11.15 a.m. the Food Inspector, Vellinizhy Grama Panchayat (Mannarkkad Circle), after observing necessary prescribed formalities, inspected the grocery shop in 7/491 where the first accused was doing business. Accordi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chemmeens and G. Gangadharan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-01-2003
Reported in: [2007]290ITR337(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. These two appeals are filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, against two separate orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in I.T.A. Nos. 610 (Coch)/94 and 484 (Coch) of 1996 in the case of two different assessees in respect of the assessment year 1992-93. Since a common question of law arises for consideration in these cases, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. While admitting I.T.A. No. 166 of 2002 notices were ordered on the following three questions of law:(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee is entitled to any benefit on the export house premia ?(2) Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in the light of Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC(4A) is not the exclusion of 90 per cent. of export premia in accordance with law ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the 'profits of the business' under Section 80HHC(4A) being the pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›