Kerala Court August 2003 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jibie K. John
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-2003
Reported in: [2004]265ITR73(Ker)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following three questions of law for decision by this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and after having found that 'there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the cash balance of Rs. 80,000 as agricultural income even for rate purposes' the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that there is nothing wrong in accepting the cash balance shown by the assessee ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and considering the human conduct and human nature being what it is, if the amount added according to the assessee is agricultural income will not the assessee be over enthusiastic in showing the same in the return for rate purposes and should not the Tribunal have taken such a human conduct into consideration before accepting the cash balance as agricultural income and is not the finding and acceptance of the submission illogical and against com...
Tag this Judgment!Ratna Bai Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT632
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Constitutional validity of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1999 is questioned in these petitions. It is the contention of the petitioners that the above Act is unconstitutional and unenforceable. The Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 was exhaustively amended by Act No. 35 of 1969 with effect from 1st January, 1970. Next major amendment was the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1989 dated 30th May, 1989 (Act No. 16 of 1989). The Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Amendment Act') deals with the rights of karaima holders only. In the original Act, karaima was not separately defined. By Act 35 of 1969, Section 2 (23A) was introduced defining 'karaima' as follows:'(23A) 'Karaima' means a transfer of lands situate in the Kozhikode District or in the Ponnani Taluk of the Malappuram District, in consideration of ground rent, principally for the purpose of erecting a homestead, and described as karairna in the document, i...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. Thiruvananthap ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-2003
Reported in: [2006]143STC474(Ker)
1. State is the revision petitioner. Assessee is the respondent. The assessment year is 1991-92. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, for short, 'the Act'.2. The respondent/assessee is a milk marketing co-operative society at Kollam. For the assessment year 1991-92, the assessee filed a return disclosing a total turnover of Rs. 7,63,47,185.39 and claimed exemption on a turnover of Rs. 7,07,51,515.89. The assessee admitted only a taxable turnover of Rs. 62,13,269.22. The assessing authority after verification of the books of accounts of the assessee completed the assessment on a taxable turnover of Rs. 62,13,270 as per order dated November 28, 1992 (annexure A). The question is whether 'skimmed milk powder' when sold as milk after adding water is 'fresh milk'.3. The Deputy Commissioner, AIT & ST, Kollam initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 35 of the Act stating that on a scrutiny of the assessment records for the year 1991-92, it is seen that the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Appukuttan Nair Vs. Hydrose
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT350
G. Sasidharan, J. 1. Petitioners filed O.S. No. 192 of 2002 on the file of the Munsiff, Varkala for permanent injuction to restrain respondent from demolishing the compound wall on the side of their property. I.A. No. 1231 of 2002 was filed in the above suit by the petitioners for temporary injunction. The respondent filed O.S. No. 198 of 2002 against the petitioners for declaration of easement right of way over a portion of the property of the petitioners and also for mandatory injuction to remove a portion of the compound wall. In the above suit I.A. 1269 of 2002 was filed by the respondent for interim mandatory injunction directing the revision petitioners to remove the obstruction caused to the way by putting up a compound wall across the way. Both the petitions were disposed of by the learned Munsiff by a common order. I.A. No. 1231 of 2002 in O.S. 192 of 2002 was dismissed and I.A. 1269 of 2002 in O.S. 198 of 2002 was allowed by directing the petitioners to remove the obstruction...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT296
M. Ramachandran, J.1. Puthuppally Grama Panchayat - 4th respondent in this Writ Petition had issued Ext.P5 on 9.5.2003 in favour of the Associate Banks Officers Association Education Trust, Kottayam (herein after referred to as the Trust) a building permit, whereunder the Trust was authorised to put up buildings in Sy. No. 37/4 of Puthupally Village. According to the petitioner, who is the Proprietor of M/s. Vazhathara Metals and Granite Products, this was illegal and irregular and he submits that such proceedings are liable to be quashed. The petitioner has also prayed for further reliefs of setting aside Ext.P6, proceedings of the Chief Town Planner dated 4.3.2003, as also Ext.P7 dated 22.3.2003 issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, which are documents referred to in Ext.P5 permit.2. The Chief Town Planner, by Ext.P6, had approved the lay out for construction of the school building in the above said premises, on condition that No Objection Certificate from the Pollution...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanan Vs. Nalinakshan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT532
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order passed in I.A. No. 2352 of 2000 in O.S. No. 116 of 1999 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thalassery which was confirmed in C.M.A. No. 572 of 2001 on the file of the District Court, Thalassery.2. I am sorry to note that both the Munsiff and the District Judge of Thalassery have decided the issue placed before them placing reliance on a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Varghese v. Devi Academy (1991 (1) KLT 440) which stood overruled by a Division Bench of this Court in Mable v. Dolores (2001 (2) KLT 612). The Division Bench rendered the judgment on 3.11.2000. Learned Munsiff passed the order on 10.4.2001 and the District Judge delivered the judgment on 22.6.2001. Judicial officers failed to take note of the fact that the decision they applied stood overruled by the Division Bench nor the counsel appearing before them pointed out that vital fact before the judicial officers. Litigants are put...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Cyriac Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker34; 2003(3)KLT565
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Is a person who purchases a car for his own use from a place outside Kerala entitled to the reduction in the amount of 'Entry Tax' to the extent of the Sales Tax already paid in that State? This question arises in the context of Section 4(2) of the 'Kerala Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1994'. A Division Bench of this Court had answered this question in favour of the purchaser. However, another Bench of this Court had some reservation and considered it appropriate that a Full Bench should hear the matter. Thus, these two appeals have been placed before this Bench.2. It may be noticed at the outset that Section 4(2) was repealed in the year 1997. However, it was on the statute book at the relevant time. Thus, we are examining the issue. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to the facts in W.A. No. 113 of the 1999. These may be briefly noticed.3. On October 1, 1994 the appellant purchased a Maruti-1000 from M/s. Solar Automobiles, ...
Tag this Judgment!Satheesan Vs. Abdul Rahiman
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT1119
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Tenants are the revision petitioners. R.C.P. No. 176 of 1998 was filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein for eviction of the tenants under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Rent Control Court allowed eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. Referring to the first limb of the second proviso to Section 11(3), it was held that tenant is eking his livelihood from the income derived from the business conducted in the tenanted premises. Tenant was however found not entitled to the benefit of the second limb of the second proviso to Section 11 (3). Matter was taken up in appeal by the tenant by filing R.C.A. No. 104 of 2001. Appellate Authority confirmed the finding of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal. Tenant took up the matter before this court in C.R.P. No. 920 of 2002. A Division Bench of this court while disposing of the revision petition, held as follows:'We see no ground to interfere with the f...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan Kutty Vs. the Special Tahsildar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker1; 2003(3)KLT705
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether a claimant in a land acquisition case who has received the compensation without protest pursuant to the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and has not filed an application seeking reference under Section 18 is 'a person aggrieved' within the meaning of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as amended by Act 29 of 1984, hereinafter referred to, as 'the Act'. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Kumaran Nair (2001 (1) KLT 539), held that a claimant who has not objected to the award passed by the Collector and who failed to file a reference application under Section 18 of the Act is not a person 'aggrieved by the award of the Collector'. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration before the Single Bench, the learned Judge doubted the correctness of the Division Bench judgment in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari (AIR 1995 SC 2259) and...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalan Vs. Chief Secretary
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker225; 2003(3)KLT544
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. On February 4, 2003, a Bench of this Court heard and decided O.P.No. 29473/2000. It was inter alia held that the Municipal Councillors were not qualified to hold their respective offices, as they had not subscribed to the oath as prescribed in the statute at the time of filing the nomination papers. Resultantly, they were directed to 'vacate their respective offices'. The validity of this order was challenged in a petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 6261-6262 of 2003. On April 21, 2003, the petition was dismissed. Even a Legislative measure was adopted. On March 29, 2003, Ordinance No. 2 of 2003 was promulgated. Ultimately, the Legislature passed the Kerala Municipality (Amendment) Act, 2003 (Act 10 of 2003). The validity of this Act has been questioned. The short question is - Does the Act merely over-rule the judgment or does it obliterate the basis of the earlier decision? The relevant facts may be briefly noticed.2. The elections to the Munici...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »