Kerala Court October 2004 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.
Cit Vs. Victory Aqua Farm Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN392(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.This appeal is filed by the CIT, Trivandrum. The assessee is a company doing business in aquaculture. Prawns are grown in specially designed ponds. According to the assessee, prawn ponds are tools to the business of the assessee and hence the same constitute 'plant' eligible for depreciation at the rates applicable to plant and machinery. The assessing officer disallowed the claim of the assessee.2. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT (A). The CIT in view of the Full Bench decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Hotel Luciya : [1998]231ITR492(Ker) held that prawn pond should be treated as 'plant' and depreciation applicable to plant should be allowed. Against that order, the revenue went in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal applying the functional test laid down by the Kerala High Court in Hotel Luciyas case : [1998]231ITR492(Ker) decided the issue in favour of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. The Tribunal...
Cit Vs. Travancore Chemicals and Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN316(Ker)
Sankarasubban, J. The CIT, Cochin has filed this appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in I.T.A. No. 658/Coch/95 dated 30-9-1999.2. The question of law which has been raised by the appellant in this case as follows:-1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and since the machinery had not been put to use even for a day in the entire previous year the assessee is entitled to depreciation2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the decisions in Liquidators of Pursa Ltd. v. CIT : [1954]25ITR265(SC) and CIT v. Oriental Coal Co. Ltd. : [1994]206ITR682(Cal) , the Tribunal is right in law and fact in finding no infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) and in affirming the order3. When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the respondent raised a contention that though the factory was under lock out so long as the Buildings, Plant and Machinery and other fixed assets relating to t...
Sebastian Vs. Mohamed Thamim
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-13-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT599
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Eviction was sought for under Section 11(4)(ii) and Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. Separate notices were sent for eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) as well as under Section 11(3). In the notice issued under Section 11(4)(ii) there was no mention of the bona fide need for own occupation, the question is whether it is fatal to a plea raised under Section 11(3).2. Landlord sent a registered notice A3 dated 18.10.1995 to the tenant stating that he is using the tenanted premises in such a manner so as to destroy or reduce the value or utility of the building materially and permanently. The fact that the landlord bona fide required the premises for the purpose of conducting a provision store was not stated in the said notice. Rent Control Court found that it is not fatal to a plea raised under Section 11 (3) of the Act. Appellate Authority however, took the view that the non-mention of the bona fide need in that notice would be fatal. Appellate Authority conclud...
Abdul Basheer Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT570; (2005)ILLJ499Ker
M. Ramachandran, J.1. Excepting O.P.No. 14673 of 2003 and W.P.C. No. 24105 of 2004, rest of the cases had been jointly heard and taken up for judgment. The learned Government Pleader had submitted that the said two connected cases also may be listed, which could be jointly disposed of in the nature of the contentions that had been raised in them.2. When these cases were listed, learned counsel for the petitioner in O.P.No. 14673 of 2003 and W.P.(C) No. 24105 of 2004 had submitted that they adopt the arguments which had been made in the batch cases. Hence all of them are being disposed of by a common judgment.3. Earliest of the cases filed was O.P.No. 14673 of 2003. The petitioner in the said case had been allotted the work of 'working down timber and firewood' in a Teak Plantation in Nilambur Division under the Forest Department, during August, 2002 as evidenced by Exts.P1 to P4. He claims that strictly in compliance with the ruling directions, he had finished the work Within the stipu...
Ayurveda Medical Association of India Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ker95; 2004(3)KLT1002
N.K. Sodhi, C.J.1. Whether the State Government had the power to nominate the 11 members of the Council of Indigenous Medicine (for short 'the Council') is the short question which arises for consideration in this public interest litigation filed by the Ayurveda Medical Association of India, a registered body under the Societies Registration Act.2. The State Government, by notification dated February 3, 2003 in exercise of its powers under Section 4 of the Travancore Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and in supersession of the earlier notifications, nominated 11 members of the Council of Indigenous Medicine. This notification is sought to be challenged by the petitioner-Association on the plea that the State Government could not nominate the 11 members and that such members had a right to be elected in terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act read with Sections 6 and 8 thereof. Since the question raised in the petition has to be answe...
E.K. Andrew Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR954]
M. Ramachandran, J.1. Two original petitions, filed by one and the same person, are being jointly heard and disposed of, as requested for by the parties. A brief history leading lo filing of these two petitions might be necessary, to understand the nature of the claims.2. While working as Deputy Manager of erstwhile Bank of Cochin, the petitioner had been appointed as Chairman of the Bank for a period of two years, during 1979. He had been reappointed again with the approval of the Reserve Bank of India, for a fresh period of three years, but could not complete the term, since he was removed from the office on 2.4.1983. The appeal filed by the petitioner had been rejected by the Government, but because of directions issued by this Court in O.P. No. 9763 of 1984, it was heard afresh. The Government had stuck to its initial decision. This necessitated filing of O.P. No. 7316 of 1991. The original petition was allowed and the decision, was confirmed by judgment in Writ Appeal No. 906 of 1...
Santhappu Ali Vs. Bhaskaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT819
ORDERP.R. Raman, J.1. Petitioners are defendants in O.S. No. 283/2002, a suit for redemption of the mortgage instituted by mortgagor, the respondents herein. A composite decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff on 11.4.1990. Though the defendants preferred an appeal as A.S. No. 641/1990 before the District Court, Trivandrum, the same was dismissed on 30.8.1995 confirming the decree passed by the Trial Court.The operative portion of the Judgment of the Trial Court is extracted hereunder:'(1) Plaintiffs are entitled to redeem the disputed mortgage and kuzhikkanam liability over plaint A schedule property including plaint B schedule buildings from the defendants on deposit of mortgage price of Rs. 500 + and value of improvements Rs. 4,363 before Court.(2) The plaintiffs are entitled for interest at 12% for the mortgage amount so deposited from the date of receipt of notice concerning the deposit by the defendants for 3 years or till the date of delivery of property whichever event com...
Abdul Azeez K. Vs. Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corpo ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR1135]; (2005)IIILLJ241Ker
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The appellant in I.C. 37/96 on the file of Employees Insurance Court, Palakkad is the appellant in this M.F.A. The appellant is the proprietor of a hotel under the name and style Indian Hotel at Nilambur. According to the appellant, he took the building on lease (in which the hotel is situated) from Kannanari Moideenkutty as per an agreement dated June 30, 1991 and started the business from July 2, 1991, after obtaining necessary licence from Nilambur Panchayat. It was averred that in that building Sr. K. Muhammed Basheer was running a hotel. He closed the establishment on March 15, 1999 after terminating the services of the workers, The workers were given all the benefits admissible to them. It was averred that the business started by the appellant is neither a continuing one nor a transferred one. It was also averred that the appellant had not engaged more than the minimum number of employees so as to bring the same within the meaning of factory or establish...
Ummerkoya Vs. Lazar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT807
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. We may first examine the sustainability or otherwise of judgment in O.S.865 of 1990. The fate of CRP. 1136 & 1158 of 1999 depends upon the final decision in AS.153/97. AS. 153/97 arises out of the judgment and decree in OS. 865 of 1990, which was a suit filed by one Lazar for specific performance of an agreement dated 24.4.89. Lazar, the appellant is the respondent in both the Civil Revision Petitions. Suit was decreed in favour of Lazar and therefore he can defend the orders passed in CRP. 1136/99 and CRP. 1158/99.2. Plaint schedule properties belonged to the defendants in the suit. One room in the building in the property was in the possession of one Vasu and the remaining portion of the building is in the possession of the plaintiffs as tenants. On 24.4.89 defendants 1, 3 and 4 as the first party and the plaintiff as the 2nd party entered into an agreement for sale of the property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- and the plaintiff has paid a sum...
Lilly Vs. Ragesh
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT712
ORDERP.R. Raman, J.1. Petitioner is the defendant in the suit O.S. No. 147/98 which was decreed ex parte. She filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree along with an application to condone the delay in filing the same. Both these applications were dismissed by the Court below. C.R.P. No. 1221/20Q4 is filed challenging the order refusing to condone the delay and C.R.P. No. 1219/2004 is filed challenging the order refusing to set aside the ex parte decree. The order passed in the application to set aside the ex parte decree under Order IX, Rule 13 of the C.P.C. is an appealable order under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the C.P.C.2. As per Section 115 of the C.P.C., the High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court, in which no appeal lies thereto and if such subordinate Court appears (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »