Kerala Court August 2003 Judgments
Thomas Job Vs. Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker47; 2003(3)KLT936
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The judgment debtor in E.P.215 of 2001 in O.S.174 of 1979 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Alappuzha is the revision petitioner. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order passed by the executing court directing the decree holder to deposit Rs. 9,50,000/- within three days and to get the sale deed executed through court.2. The revision petitioner and respondent are brothers. The respondent filed O.S.174 of 1979 for a decree of mandatory injunction to remove a building in the plaint schedule property and for surrender of vacant possession of the site occupied by the building to the plaintiff and in case the defendant refuses to vacate, for a decree allowing recovery of suit property. Originally on 31.10.1981 the suit was decreed. The revision petitioner challenged the decree and judgment in A.S.140 of 1983 before the District Court, Alappuzha. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree and judgment passed by th...
Tag this Judgment!Jameela Vs. Tahsildar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT979
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. The appellant has constructed a building after the enforcement of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The building has a plinth area of 259.08 M.Sq. This is not in dispute. According to the appellant, a part of the building is used for residential purpose and the remaining is used for commercial purpose. The assessing authority in Ext. P1 assessed the building for building tax as per the rate applicable to other buildings and not as a residential building. The appeal was dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Officer as per Ext. P2 stating that, going by Government Circular No. 23474/93/TD dated 3.1.96, a building, a portion of which is used for residential purpose and the other portion for commercial purpose, it shall be treated as 'other building' for the purpose of assessment of building tax. Accordingly the entire building was assessed at the rate applicable to other building. 2. The main contention urged in this Writ Appeal is that, going by the definition of ...
Tag this Judgment!Silical Metallurgic Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT120
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The issue raised in this appeal is in a narrow campus. The appellant/writ petitioner is a registered dealer and manufacturer of Fero Silicon. He has to import raw-materials like iron and steel from outside State. The schedule to the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994 provides that every tax shall be payable on iron and steel imported to the State. This shall have effect from 1.4.1997. Therefore the appellant importing iron and steel from outside State is liable to pay entry tax based on Item No. 9 of the Schedule to the Act introduced with effect from 1.4.1997. The Government later issued Ext. P1 notification exercising the power vested in Government under Section 12 of the Act. The said provision enabled the Government to exempt any specified class of imports from payment of whole or part of the tax payable under the said Act. That notification was published in gazette on 23.3.1998. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that Gove...
Tag this Judgment!Kunjappan Vs. Rajan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT536
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J. 1. These three Civil Revision Petitions arise from a common order passed by the District Judge disposing of C.M.A. Nos. 24, 32 and 36 of 2002, which in turn arose from three different Election Petitions numbered as O.P. (Election) Nos. 12 of 2000, 8 of 2000 and 15 of 2000. Since the challenge in all the three Election Petitions is one and the same, that is to say, the validity of the election of the first respondent in all the three Civil Revision Petitions, who is the returned candidate, the learned District Judge heard and disposed of these three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals together. So, the Civil Revision Petitions are also heard together and disposed by a common order.2. The first respondent was the returned candidate of the Constituency No. VII of Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat for the election to the local bodies held on 27th September, 2000, He was declared elected. The revision petitioner in C.R.P.1613 of 2002 who is an elector of that Ward filed O....
Tag this Judgment!Sakthi Finance Ltd. Vs. Velayudhan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC172
ORDERSasidharan, J.1. O.S. 492/2003 was filed in the Munsif's Court-II, Kozhikode by the respondent for a declaration that he is not liable to pay any amount to the revision petitioners to discharge the loan availed on the security of vehicle KL/13/B-8487 and for a mandatory injunction to direct the revision petitioners to return the vehicle. I.A. 2229/2003 was filed by the respondent for a temporary mandatory injunction to direct the revision petitions to return the above vehicle. The above application for temporary mandatory injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsif. Respondent filed C.M.A. 8312003 in the Court of the District Judge, Kozhikode and the learned I Additional District Judge disposed of the above appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Munsif and granting interim mandatory injunction directing the petitioners to return the vehicle to the respondent. The petitioners, who are the defendants in the above suit, have filed this revision challenging the judgment i...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Kunjumon Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: (2008)11VST108(Ker)
1. The assessee is the revision petitioner. He is a dealer in timber. For the assessment year 1989-90 the accounts and return submitted by the assessee were rejected and the turnover was estimated. Based on the stock variation and other discrepancies found out in the inspection conducted on January 1, 1989 the assessing authority estimated the taxable turnover at Rs. 26,03,515. This amount is arrived at inter alia by making an addition of a turnover of Rs. 12,10,446. The first appellate authority noted that this addition of Rs. 12,10,446 is made up of the turnover of unaccounted purchases and the turnover of unaccounted sales. He felt that there was no justification in including the turnover of unaccounted purchase as well as the turnover of unaccounted sales since according to him the unaccounted sales turnover must be from the unaccounted purchases. In that view of the matter the first appellate authority took the unaccounted purchases from two sources amounting to Rs. 2,49,534.42, a...
Tag this Judgment!Thomas P. Abraham Vs. Aleyamma Abraham
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT864
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Appellants and petitioners are the same. They are petitioners in I.A. Nos. 831, 832, 833 and 834 of 1998 in O.S. No. 107 of 1994 on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvalla, They claim to be legal representatives of deceased original defendant in the suit. Suit was instituted by the respondent daughter for specific performance of an oral agreement for sale against her father.2. Plaintiff's case is that while she was in U.S.A. she used to send money and with that amount plaint schedule property was purchased and building was constructed in the plaint schedule property. She came to the native place on 20.5.1994 and stayed with the father and at that time father had orally agreed that the plaint schedule property would be sold to her for an amount of Rs. 1 lakh and she had paid Rs. 1 lakh, but no sale deed was executed in spite of repeated requests. Consequently Suit for specific performance was instituted. Defendant could not file written statement and was set ex pa...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Jose
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT507; [2004]137STC82(Ker)
Kurian Joseph, J.1. What is yeast? A living organism or a chemical? The Revenue, for the purpose of taxation under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short the Act), wants to classify it as a chemical whereas to the assessee it is not a chemical, but a living organism and hence an unclassified item. This is the only dispute to be resolved in these cases. Therefore, it is not necessary to extensively refer to the factual position and yet for the purpose of understanding the background we may state the short facts.2. The State is the revision petitioner in all these cases. The assessment years are 1989-90 to 1995-96. Till 31.3.1992 chemicals including caustic soda, caustic potash, soda ash, sodium sulphate and other chemicals not elsewhere classified were classified under Entry 42 to the First Schedule to the Act. From 1.4.1992 they are under Entry 29. Entry 156 for unclassified items was also introduced with effect from 1.4.1992. Till 31.3.1992 those items were treated under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Saseendran Vs. Sadanandan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT680
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order in I.A. No. 1858 of 2002 in O.S.No. 180 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Thalassery.2. I.A. No. 1858 of 2002 was a petition filed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and I.A. No.395 of 2003 was a petition filed under Section 151 of the Code to receive additional affidavit in support of I.A. No. 1858 of 2002. Both the applications were preferred by the plaintiff who instituted the suit for realisation of an amount of Rs. 5,90,000/- alleged to the due from the defendant. Plaintiff-petitioner apprehended that the defendant would deal with his properties unless an order of attachment is made before judgment. The Court below found no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner and dismissed the applications. Before dismissing the applications opportunity was given to the defendant to file his counter affidavit. It is after considering the objectio...
Tag this Judgment!Jayakumar Vs. Ravindran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT542
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order in I.A. 312/03 in I.P. No. 2/99 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tellicherry. Registry expressed doubt as to whether the appeal is maintainable. Consequently returned the appeal memorandum. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that since the impugned order comes under Order 43, Rule 1(c) FAO is maintainable before this Court. Registry again returned the appeal noting the following defects:'FAO filed against the order passed in petition filed for restoration of the insolvency petition dismissed for default'.On a request made by the counsel matter has been placed before us to decide the question as to whether this appeal would fall under Order 41, Rule 1(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Appellant herein preferred a petition under Section 7 of the Provincial Insolvency Act before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tellicherry to declare him as ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »