Kerala Court September 2003 Judgments
Brothers Chitty Fund Vs. Jacob Mathew
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-25-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC8; 2004(1)KLT64
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment in A.S. No. 80 of 1992 of the District Court, Pathanamthitta. O.S. No. 29 of 1991 is a suit against which A.S. No. 80 of 1992 was filed. The suit was filed for settlement of accounts.2. There are three plaintiffs in the suit. Defendants are two chitty funds. According to the plaintiffs, they had money transactions with defendants 1 and 2. Foreman of the first defendant by name George had given the amounts and got executed documents including mortgage, pronote, etc. The main plank of attack in the plaint is that the documents were executed not voluntarily but also on coercion and undue influence exerted by foreman. It is also stated that some of the debts were discharged. Further, it is stated that the defendants have filed suits against the plaintiffs. But according to the plaintiffs, since many of the documents are forged, amounts are not due under those documents by the plaintiffs. Therefore they pray that accounts be t...
Tag this Judgment!Haji P. Mohammed Timber Merchant and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-25-2003
Reported in: [2004]136STC335(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. A common question as to whether forest development tax collected by the forest department on the auction sale of timber to the petitioners forms part of the turnover for the purpose of levy of tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act'), arises for consideration in all these cases.2. The petitioners in all these cases are engaged in the business of buying and selling of timber. They are all registered dealers both under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. All of them used to purchase timber from forest depots belonging to the State, In all these writ petitions except Writ Petition No. 22610 of 2003, the petitioners seek a declaration that the respondents have no right or authority to collect sales tax on the element of forest development tax in the light of the Government communication dated August 21, 1996 (exhibit P1) and in the light of the judgment dated January 8, 1997, in O.P. No. 378 of 1997 (...
Tag this Judgment!Meat Products of India Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-25-2003
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT145; [2004]137STC570(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act'). The same assessee is the petitioner in all these cases. The assessment years concerned are 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80, 1983-84, 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 respectively. The Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam had disposed of a batch of appeals filed by the petitioner and by the State by a common order dated January 29, 2001. The present revisions arise from T.A. Nos. 627 of 1995, 911 of 1996, 547 of 1990, 321 of 2001, 601 of 1995, 79 of 1996, 260 of 1996 and 548 of 1990 respectively of which T.A. No. 321 of 2001 which is the subject-matter of T.R.C. No. 292 of 2002 was disposed of by a separate order dated September 13, 20.01 following the common order of the Tribunal in the other cases.2. The question that arises for consideration in all these cases is as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay purchase tax under section 5A of the Act on t...
Tag this Judgment!Wg. Cmdr. A.G. Mathews Vs. Cgt
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-25-2003
Reported in: [2004]134TAXMAN236(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench has referred the following questions of law for decision by (this court under section 26(3) of the Gift Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) at the instance of the assessee pursuant to the direction issued by this court in the judgment dated 17-11-1998 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 abovesaid questions of law are as follows : The applicant-assessee was holding 14,040 equity shares in Malayala Manorama Co. L...
Tag this Judgment!Charulatha Vs. Manju
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-24-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT290
C. Kuriakose, J.1. The respondent in a Rent Control Petition against whom orders of eviction are passed under Section 11 (2)(b) and Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Control Act') is the revision petitioner.2. Going by the allegations in the R.C.P., the petition schedule building belongs to the respondent in this revision and the same is only a portion of a larger building. The building was let out to the revision petitioner on 12.4.1970 on a monthly rent of Rs.20/- which was enhanced to Rs.75 in 1979 and again enhanced to Rs.100 in 1981. The allegation in the context of Section 11(2)(b) is that rent has not been paid since March, 1985 notwithstanding the issuance of statutory notice. In the context of Section 11(3) the allegations are that the landlady who is an employee of the Governor's Secretariat in Raj Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram and who is presently staying at Chathannoor in Kollam District is finding i...
Tag this Judgment!Sooryanathan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-24-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT383
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. O.P. No. 30031 of 2002 1. The petitioner in this Original Petition is the President of the Imury (East) Ksheerolpadaka Co-operative Society Ltd. No. E.68(D). The election to the Managing Committee of the said Society was held on 7.9.2002 and the new Committee under the Presidentship of the petitioner assumed charge on 12.9.2002. This Original Petition is filed by him challenging Ext.P3 order of the Government allowing the appeal filed by the members of the previous Managing Committee against the order of supersession of that Committee under Section 32 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act. The brief facts of the case are the following:2. The previous Managing Committee assumed charge on 19.10.2000. That Committee was superseded by order dated 28.9.2001 by the 2nd respondent, Deputy Director of Dairy Development. The then Managing Committee members challenged the said order by filing O.P. No. 29809/2001. The said Original Petition was disposed of by judgment d...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudevan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-22-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker43; 2003(3)KLT993
P.R. Raman, J. 1. The main question arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for refund of the full court fee paid in the suit which was ultimately referred to the Lok Adalat and settled between the parties. 2. Suit O.S. 293/1999 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thalassery was filed by the petitioner as plaintiff for specific performance of the contract. The only contesting defendant was the 8th defendant in the suit; the right of the other defendants having been purchased by the 7th defendant during the pendency of the suit. Petitioner preferred two applications before the Court as 1577/2002 and I.A.1578/2002. I.A. 1577/2002 was an application seeking reference of the suit to the Lok Adalat organised by the Thalassery Taluk Legal Services Committee constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act. That was allowed and the matter was referred. I.A.1578/2002 was an application filed under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act 1870 as amende...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmughan Vs. Vishnu Bharatheeyan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-22-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker143; 2003(3)KLT901
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. These appeals arise out of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 3 of 1996 on the file of the District Court, Thrissur. First defendant is the appellant in A.S. No. 415 of 2000 and the second defendant is the appellant in A.S. No. 419 of 2000.2. Suit was instituted by respondents 1 to 3 in these appeals under Section 26 and Order VII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 49 of the Indian Trust Act seeking modification of some of the stipulations in Ext. A1 trust deed giving exclusive rights to the first defendant and to place fetters with regard to the rights of the first defendant to manage the affairs of the properties of the 'Sakshal Chathan Seva Madom' and also for a direction to the effect that the first defendant shall function as trustee only along with the first plaintiff and also for other consequential reliefs.3. We may deal with the facts in detail in the latter part of the judgment, after dealing with some of the legal questions raised fo...
Tag this Judgment!Kesava Pillai Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-18-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker111; 2004(1)KLT55
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. Is an appeal from a judgment, decree or order passed by a Judge of this Court on an appeal against the Order or Decree of a Court or Tribunal maintainable despite Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act 22 of 2002? This is the core of the controversy before this Bench in these two appeals from first Appeals filed under Section 5(ii) of the Kerala High Court Act read with Order XLII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. A.F.A. 83 of 2002 arises from the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Land Acquisition Appeal No. 467 of 1999 of this Court. This appeal was filed against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Kottarakkara in L.A.R. 24 of 1989 under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. The trial court found that all claimants are entitled to a share in the amount of compensation. One of the claimants, who claimed exclusive right over the entire compensation, filed the Land Acquisition Appeal. Since the value of the subject matter of the...
Tag this Judgment!Key Foods Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-17-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT140
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The appellant challenged Ext.P9, an order passed by the Intelligence Officer, Commercial Taxes, Mattancherry, imposing penalty Rs. 1,40,000/-, exercising his power under Section 15 of the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act'). He had two fold contentions. One, the Intelligence Officer did not have jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 15 imposing penalty and two, his vehicle did not come within the purview of the charging section, Section 3. Both these contentions were repelled by the learned Single Judge.2. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that, Section 15 enabled only the Assessing Authority under the Act to pass an order imposing penalty. Assessing Authority had been defined under Section 2(c) as one appointed under Section 5 of the Act. Section 5 enables Government by notification to appoint officers of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Department, not below the rank of Sales Tax...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »