Kerala Court September 2003 Judgments
Bhaskaran Vs. Jose Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT91
Cyriac Jopseh, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 27207 of 2003. The appellant was not a party to the said Writ Petition. He has filed this Writ appeal with the leave of the Court.2. The Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent herein, Sri. Jose Joseph, President, Vazhithala Service Co-operative Bank Limited. The main prayer in the Writ Petition was for a direction to the third respondent in the Writ Petition (i.e. the Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission, Tri vandrum) to appoint an Electoral Officer and a Returning Officer to conduct the election to the Managing Committee of the Bank on 19.10.2003 as requested for in Exts.Pl and P2. Ext.Pl is Resolution No. 10/196 dated 28.7.2003 of the Board of Directors of the Bank resolving to conduct election to the Board of Directors of the Bank on 19.10.2003 and to request the Kerala State Cooperative Election Commission to appoint an Electoral Officer and a Returning Officer for conducting the election. Ext....
Tag this Judgment!Vijaya Kumar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT299
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Is the Forest Ranger who has passed the 'Account Test (Lower)' not eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this case. The petitioner, who is working as Assistant Conservator of Forests, had approached this Court for a declaration that 'the prescribed test qualification for the post of Assistant Conservator in the Kerala Forest Service is the Account Test for Executive Officers for the Kerala State alone as per the Special Rules for the Kerala Forest Service.' The prayer having been declined, he has filed the present appeal. The relevant facts may be briefly noticed.2. The appellant was recruited as a Forest Ranger in the year 1976. He completed the training in the year 1978-79. He was promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forests with effect from April 1, 1996. The appellant states that this promotion was provisional.3. There are a number of respondents. It is not necess...
Tag this Judgment!Sajan P.S. Vs. the Range Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-29-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Ker)309
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Petitioner is an auction purchaser of teak poles, teak billets, jungle wood, firewood, etc. as referred to in Exts. P1 and P3 during the year 1994. Though several prayers are there in the original petition, in view of the Bench decision in O.P. No. 15101 of 1993, dt. 21st Jan., 2003, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that what survives for consideration in this original petition is only prayers 2 and 5. The issue to be decided for redressing the grievance of the petitioner in that regard is as to whether the first respondent is justified in deducting income-tax at source at the rate of 15 per cent on the ground that the auctioned wood is not timber. It is the case of the petitioner that the auctioned wood is nothing but timber and hence under Section 206C, the first respondent should have demanded only 5 per cent tax. There is no counter-affidavit on behalf of the first respondent. Whether the goods sold is timber or not, there is no dispute among the couns...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanan B. Vs. Controlling Authority for Gratuity and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-29-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ83Ker
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. Ext.P1 order passed by the 1st respondent, the Controlling Authority for Gratuity, is under challenge at the instance of the employer.2. The petitioner's father was the licensee for running a ration shop at Kavalam, Kuttanad. Later the petitioner became the licensee. The 2nd respondent, according to him, was an employee working as a salesman in the rationshop. It was alleged by him that his service was terminated and he preferred a claim for Rs. 33,500/- towards gratuity before the 1st respondent under Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The 1st respondent, by Ext. P1 order awarded an amount of Rs. 38,077/- with 10% simple interest from the date on which it fell due to the applicant. The above order is under challenge.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Payment of Gratuity Act is applicable to establishments if there were 10 or more employees under Section 1(3) of the Act. It was further contended that the 2nd respondent wa...
Tag this Judgment!Soman Achari Vs. Sabu Jacob
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-2003
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT604
ORDERV.K. Bali, C.J.1. The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002 came into being to amend the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 and the Information Technology Act, 2000 for a purpose. One of the objects to bong about the new legislation mentioned in the Objects and Reasons of the Act of 2002 was to provide for summary trial of the cases under the Act with a view to speeding up disposal of cases. The speedy and summary remedy provided was for a purpose to expeditiously deal with matters under the Negotiable Instruments Act in a time bound manner. It is unfortunate that in some cases, as one in hand, the entire purpose of the legislation has been defeated on procedural wrangles. Before introduction of the case, as a prelude in a drama and preface in a novel would be written, a period of fifteen years have already gone by. The parties to the litigation are at initial stage, as the case has not made any progress from the...
Tag this Judgment!Shema Oommen Vs. Agricultural Income Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Ker)296; [2004]270ITR540(Ker); 2004(1)KLT267
J.M. James, J.1. The petitioner in O.P. No. 3224 of 1996 is the appellant. She has sought for a declaration that Sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 (for short 'the Act') inserted by the Kerala Finance Act, 1994 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. She has further sought to quash Ext. P4 proceedings of the first respondent and also for direction to the said respondent to consider the appellant's eligibility for compounding without reference to other co-tenant's eligibility or otherwise for payment of tax on compounded rate.2. Mrs. Thara Peter, Mr. Dilip Oommen, and the appellant are jointly holding 51.25 hectares of agricultural land planted with rubber. All the three had obtained the said property under Ext.Pl transfer deed dated 1.3.1982. The appellant has got 30% of rights in the property. The income from the property has been assessed under the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950, as tenants-in-common under...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Shema Oommen Vs. Agricultural Income Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: [2004]138TAXMAN64(Ker)
ORDERJ. M. James, J.The petitioner in O. P. No. 3224 of 1996 is the appellant. She has sought for a declaration that clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (9B) of section 13 of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') inserted by the Kerala Finance Act, 1994 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. She has further sought to quash Ext. P4 proceedings of the first respondent and also for direction to the said respondent to consider the appellant's eligibility for compounding without reference to other co-tenants' eligibility or otherwise for payment of tax on compounded rate.2. Mrs. Thara Peter, Mr. Dilip Oommen, and the appellant are jointly holding 51.25 hectares of agricultural land planted with rubber. All the three had obtained the said property under Ext. P1 transfer deed dated 1-3-1982. The appellant has got 30 per cent of rights in the property. The income from the property has been assessed under the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950, ...
Tag this Judgment!General Manager, Canara Bank Vs. Central Government Labour Court and o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ211Ker
Kurian Joseph, J.1. The petitioner challenges Exhibit P4 award. In the award, the Labour Court found that the punishment of stoppage of one increment on certain employees is unjustified. According to the petitioner, the award is vitiated on many grounds.Short facts:Respondents. 3 to 6 were charge sheeted of having acted prejudicially to the interests of the Bank. The charge levelled against the third respondent reads as follows: 'You are working as Peon at our Panampilly Nagar, Ernakulam branch since February 5, 1981.A public meeting was organised by the Bank on October 4, 1986 at about 4.30 P.M. in the Town Hall, Ernakulam in connection with the Silver Jubilee Celebrations of our Broadway, Ernakulam branch. The function was attended by several dignitaries, customers and well- wishers of the Bank. When Sri B.A. Prabhu, Deputy General Manager rose to deliver his scheduled speech and took the mike, you along with some others, stood up and shouted slogans like 'Go back B.A. Prabhu, we wan...
Tag this Judgment!Jindal Photofilms Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: [2006]146STC499(Ker)
J.M. James, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether for default in compliance of the provisions of rule 21(7) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 (for short, 'the Rules'), in so far as it provides for payment of not less than 90 per cent of the tax payable on the taxable turnover for the month of March on or before the end of the month, in proceedings for imposition of penalty Under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act'), the quantum of penalty can go beyond Rs. 10,000.2. The appellant is a private limited company engaged in the sale of photographic processing equipments. It is an assessee to sales tax under the Act. Under rule 21(7) of the Rules, the appellant is liable to file monthly return in form No. 9 in respect of the taxable turnover of every month, on or before 10th of the succeeding month accompanied by proof of payment of tax due as per the return. However, so far as the tax payable for the...
Tag this Judgment!Wg. Cmdr. A.G. Mathews (Retd.) Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-25-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Ker)331; [2004]269ITR149(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. The Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following questions of law for decision by this Court under Section 26(3) of the GT Act (for short 'the Act') at the instance of the assessee pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the judgment dt. 17th Nov., 1998 in O.P. No. 13793 of 1997 :'1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal should have upheld that deemed gift-theory was not applicable to the sale of the unquoted shares made on compelling circumstances, which are amply established by the petitioner ? 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was wrong in upholding the application of wealth-tax valuation in the place of valuation as per the yield method, with regard to the sale of unquoted shares ?' 2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the above said questions of law are as follows : The applicant-assessee was holding 14,040 equity shares in Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd., Kottayam. The said s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »