Kerala Court September 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.
Prakash Enterprises Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-03-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT747; [2004]137STC144(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 revision petitioner in all these cases. The State is the respondent. The assessment years concerned are 1990-91 to 1995-96 both inclusive.2. The main question involved in all these cases is regarding the liability to tax on the turnover of ingots which have been used in the execution of works contract, namely, the manufacture of empty tins. Hence all these revisions are disposed of by this common judgment.3. The assessee is a dealer in grocery items. It is also engaged in works contract. For all these years the assessee had entered into agreement with third parties for execution of job-works, viz., manufacture of empty tins. The third parties supplied tin sheets for the said purpose. The assessee obtained tin ingots which are required for the manufacture of tins by way of inter-State transactions by issuing 'C' forms. The said tin ingots are used for the ma...
Damodaran Vs. Bharathan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ222; 2003(3)KLT976
K. Thankappan, J. 1. This Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is against the judgment in R.C.A. No. 126 of 2000 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode. R.C.A. No. 126 of 2000 was filed against the order in I.A. No. 917 of 1999 in R.C.P. No. 29 of 1996 of the Rent Control Court, Koyilandy. 2. The petitioner- landlord filed R.C.P. No. 29 of 1996 for eviction of the respondent-tenant under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent-tenant resisted the application for eviction. The petitioner/landlord produced Ext. A1, an unregistered partnership deed dated 22.2.1986 which would show that the business in the tenanted premises was being conducted by the partnership firm of which the respondent-tenant was the Managing Partner. It would also show that the respondent was one of the co-owners of the property and the petitione...
Suresh Vs. Manager, S.N.M. College
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT839
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Does a provision providing for promotion to the post of Principal of a College 'on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness' permit a comparative assessment? This question arises in the context of the interpretation of Section 59(3) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985. Almost identical provisions of different University Acts have been considered by two different Full Benches of this Court in Rev. Mother Provincial v. State of Kerala (1969 KLT 749) and Benedict Mar Gregorious v. State of Kerala (1976 KLT 458). In Mother Provincial's case (supra), it was held that 'a senior person can be overlooked in favour of a junior, who is demonstrably more fit for the appointment'. This view was reiterated in the latter decision in Mar Gregorious's case (supra). However, when the present appeals were placed before the Division Bench, it was urged that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Lt. General Rajendra Singh Kadyan (2000) 6 SCC 698, the ...
Annet D' Cunha Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT161
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. Petitioners in these Original Petitions are working as Headmasters in various Lower Primary and Upper Primary Private Aided Schools. They challenge Rule 1, Chap.XXVI of the Kerala Education Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') as amended by S.R.O. No. 1 108/88, G.O. (P)No. l36/88/G. Edn. dated 8th September 1988, introducing 15 years service as Teacher for being eligible to get the scale of pay of Headmasters.2. Prior to the amendment, Rule 1 read as follows:'(1)Teachers of Aided Lower Primary, Upper Primary, High and Training Schools shall be paid the scale of pay applicable to Teachers of Government Lower Primary, Upper Primary, High and Training Schools. Headmasters of Aided Lower Primary Schools shall be eligible for the scale of pay or the scales of pay plus supervision allowance, as may be, applicable to the Headmasters of Government Upper Primary Schools.' 3. By the impugned amendment in 1988, the rule is as follows:'(1 )Teachers of Aided Lower Primar...
Peter John Uralil Vs. Babu Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT777
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Scope of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1996 Act') and power of the court to issue interim orders especially with reference to appointment of a Receiver as an interim measure of protection pending arbitration proceedings are considered in this case. We may refer to the brief facts of this case.2. Appellant in this case is a partner of a firm called 'Dahlia Tourist Home'. The above partnership firm is carrying on business of running a bar attached hotel at Pampady near Kottayam under the name and style as, 'Dahlia Tourist Home'. After the reconstitution of the partnership on 3.11.1998, petitioner/appellant was holding 20% of the shares. First respondent is the brother-in-law of the petitioner who is holding 20% shares. He is the joint Managing Partner of the firm. Second respondent is holding 40% shares and he is also a joint Managing Partner of the firm. Third respondent, like the petitioner, is holding 20% of t...
Pattanakkad Panchayat Vs. Ponnappan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC286; 2004ACJ1431; AIR2004Ker46; 2003(3)KLT997
R. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. The important question that has come up for consideration is whether a driving licence is necessary for operating a Power Tiller. Tilakan, the 2nd appellant, Tilakan was operating the Power Tiller bearing Reg. No. KL 4382 on 3.5.1991. While so, it hit against Ponnan the first respondent, herein causing some injuries. The Power Tiller belonged to the first appellant Co-operative Society. The injured 1st respondent filed OP (MV) 918/91 before the MACT Alleppey. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 32,000/- with interest at 12% from 27.6.1991 till realisation. The Tribunal exonerated National Insurance Company, the 3rd respondent from the liability for compensation holding that the operator of the Power Tiller did not have a valid driving licence, though there was a valid insurance coverage for the vehicle. The above award is under challenge at the instance of the owner and operator of the Power Tiller. 2. The main argument advanced by the learned couns...
Vijayan Vs. Secretary to Government
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT695; (2004)IILLJ846Ker
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. Ext.P1 Government Order dated 24.9.1998 directing the Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation to comply with Clause 26A of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme and directing the respondents from discontinuing or reducing the rate of employees contribution under the E.P.F. Act from 12% on the amount of salary in excess of Rs. 5,000/- per month was under challenge at the instance of some of the employees and the Ernakulam Regional Co-operative Producers Union Officers Association.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation was contributing an equal amount of contribution as employers share to the Employees Provident Fund Scheme. The Audit Department raised objection noting that the share of contribution made by the employer was in excess of the limits under Clause 26A(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme. The above matter was brought to the notice of the Government....
O.P. Ali Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ208Ker
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The common question involved in all the original petitions was whether the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and the Rules framed thereunder are applicable to the employment of peeling of Prawns in the Peeling sheds. Hence all these OPs are considered together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. O.P. 33325/2000 and O.P. 1863/2001 were filed by Sri. O.P. All who was running a peeling shed in Eramallur for the last three years. The 4th respondent, the Assistant Labour Officer, Cherthala inspected the above peeling, shed on July 4, 2000 and detected the violation of Rule 29(1), (2) and (3) (sic) of the Rules framed under the Minimum Wages Act. Further he found violation of the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Rules, 1958 also. Accordingly, the Assistant Labour Officer issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, the employer. Dissatisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioners, the Assistant Labour Officer file...
Vijaya Trades Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: [2004]138STC653(Ker)
1. The learned Government pleader took notice on behalf of the respondent.2. The assessee is the revision-petitioner. It is a partnership concern engaged in the business of hill produce, such as pepper, dried ginger, arecanut, turmeric, etc., in Jew Town, Mattancherry. It is a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessee is dealing in its own goods as well as the goods belonging to their principals on commission basis. In the assessment for the year 1991-92, the assessee took a contention before the assessing authority that it is not liable to pay the turnover tax Under Section 5(2A) of the Act on the turnover of commission sales. This was not accepted by the assessing authority. The assessment was confirmed both by the first Appellate Authority and by the Tribunal.3. We find that the Tribunal has considered the question as to whether the petitioner is liable to turnover tax on the total turnover including the turnover...
Surya Agencies Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: (2008)11VST419(Ker)
1. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 for short 'the Act'. The assessee is the revision-petitioner. State is the respondent. The assessment year is 1994-95. For the said assessment year the assessee filed return disclosing a taxable turnover of Rs. 2,99,031.63. There was no inspection of the business premises. However, the assessing authority got certain check-post declarations. It is on the basis of the said check-post declarations, the assessing authority proposed to reject the books of account and to estimate the turnover on best judgment basis. In reply to the pre-assessment notice, the assessee gave explanation with regard to the purchase bills obtained from the check-post. The assessing authority had accepted the explanation with regard to three bills. He, however, did not accept the explanation with regard to two bills, the total of which came to Rs. 9,610.21. This is with regard to bills 633 dated July 20, 1994 and 53 dated July 13, 1994. The assessi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »