Kerala Court November 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.
Subramanian Vs. Radhakrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT1104
ORDERM. Ramachandran, J.1. R.C.P. No. 6 of 1996 had been filed before the Rent Control Court, Palakkad and an order has been passed therein on 31.1.1997, whereunder it had been held that the claim put in by the landlord for eviction under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(7) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was not sustainable. The Court had found that there were no arrears of rent payable and there was no bona fide need substantiated by the landlord as coming under Section 1 1(3) of the Act. It was also held that the invocation of Section 11 (7) was not warranted. On appeal, the Additional District Judge, Palakkad (the Appellate Authority) in R.C.A. No. 36 of 1997, held that the findings entered by the Rent Control Court were not sustainable and had found that on all the three grounds the landlord was entitled to get the eviction, as prayed for. The revision had come to be filed in the aforesaid context. We may briefly refer to the essential facts.2. The landlord had...
A.M. Zainalabdeen Musaliar Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-12-2004
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Ker)367
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner is challenging Ext. P3 order whereunder the Chief CIT has granted only partial waiver of interest demanded under Section 220(2) of the IT Act for belated payment of tax. It is seen that petitioner dragged the payment of tax for the asst. yr. 1978-79 for several years by contesting the assessment. The liability remained uncleared for nearly 20 years and when there was an outstanding demand of Rs. 5,70,000 and odd towards interest dues after adjusting payments made, the petitioner approached this Court and this Court vide Ext. P2 judgment dt. 25th March, 1999, granted stay against recovery on payment of further sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs with direction to the respondents to reconsider the balance liability. Petitioner thereafter filed waiver application under Section 220(2A) of the Act and on that application the Chief CIT issued Ext. P3 order. The interest demanded under Section 220(2) is only interest for delayed payment and there was no provision to w...
Deputy Commissioner Vs. K.N.S. Mohammed Iyoob Labbai Sahib and Sons
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-12-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT693; [2006]144STC189(Ker)
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. Interpretation of Notification S.R.O. No. 287/64 as well as correctness of the decision of this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. M.K. Subbayya Pillai (1993) 91 STC 406 are the issues to be considered in this case. The Notification S.R.O. No. 287/64 reads as follows:'S.R.O. No. 287/64...........hereby make an exemption in respect of the tax payable under the said Act on the sale of ready made Khadi garments (woollen, silk or cotton) and the products of village industries where such goods are manufactured and/or sold by the institutions or persons recognised by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission constituted under the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act, 1956 (Central Act LXI of 1956), and/or the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board constituted under the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Act, 1957 (Kerala Act 9 of 1957)'.The respondent assessee is a dealer under the Kerala General Sales Ta...
A.M. Zainalabdeen Musaliar, Zainal Cashew Packers Vs. Chief Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-12-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN415(Ker)
1. Petitioner is challenging Ext. P3 order whereunder the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax has granted only partial waiver of interest demanded under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act for belated payment of tax. It is seen that petitioner dragged the payment of tax for the assessment year 1978-79 for several years by contesting the assessment. The liability remained uncleared for nearly 20 years and when there was an outstanding demand of Rs. 5,70,000 and odd towards interest dues after adjusting payments made, the petitioner approached this court and this court vide Ext. P2 judgment dated 25-3-1999 granted stay against recovery on payment of further sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs with direction to the respondents to reconsider the balance liability. Petitioner thereafter filed waiver Application under section 220(2A) of the Act and on that application the Chief Commissioner issued Ext. P3 order. The interest demanded under section 220(2) is only interest for delayed payment and there was no ...
Sherry Jacob Vs. Canara Bank
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-10-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ker50; 2004(3)KLT1089
A.K. Basheer, J.1. This bunch of 5 cases - 2 Writ Appeals and 3 Original Petitions - has thrown up an important question for our consideration. Since the parties and issues involved are the same, we are disposing of these cases by this common judgment.2. Can the State claim precedence or primacy for its debts over the claims of a secured creditor? To be a little more specific -- Can the State enforce a statutory first charge on the property of a debtor, in preference to an existing mortgage in favour of a secured creditor3. A brief reference to some of the essential facts is necessary to answer the above question.4. M/s. Thomas Stephen & Company, Kollam (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') which was engaged in a manufacture and sale of roofing titles, bricks etc. had availed of various loans from Canara Bank at Thamarakkulam (for short, 'the Bank'). The company had furnished sufficient security for repayment of the debt, in addition to creating mortgage by deposit of title deeds ...
Thirumbadi Rubber Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Asse ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-10-2004
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Ker)364; [2005]274ITR549(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the asses-see under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the Order of the Appellate Tribunal confirming disallowance of capital loss in respect of an amount advanced by the assessee to M/s. Fort William Company Limited, Calcutta, and written off in the accounts relevant to the assessment year 1989-90 on account of the borrower-company being declared a sick industry. Even though three questions are raised by the assessee, the only issue to be decided is whether there is a capital loss in respect of debt written off by the assessee that was due from a sick industry under rehabilitation by the orders of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. The appellant-assessee had advanced an amount of Rs. 3.5 lakhs to Fort William Company Ltd., Calcutta, and interest received on the deposit was being returned and tax assessed as income from other sources. However, the borrower-company had become sick and it was refer...
Sunil Kumar Vs. Prakash
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-10-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ker181; 2005(1)KLT800
ORDERR. Bhaskaran , J.1. In all these Civil Revision Petitions, the common question for consideration is whether a decree passed by a Court of Small Causes can be transferred to a Civil Court for execution by attachment and sale of immovable property of the judgment-debtor.2. These Revisions are placed before us on reference by a Single Judge of this Court who thought that the decision of another Single Judge (K.T. Thomas, J. as His Lordship then was) reported in Raman Namboodiri v. Kunhayamath (1989 (1) KLT 74) requires reconsideration in the light of a Division Bench decision of Travancore-Cochin High Court in Mohammed Mastan Kunju Mohammed Abdul Khadar v. Mytheen Kunju Pakiru Mohammed (1956 KLT 343 = AIR 1956 TC 213). In these C.R.Ps., the original decrees granted were those of the Additional Small Cause Court, Bangalore. The Execution Court dismissed the execution petition relying on the decision in Raman Namboodiri's case. It is stated in Raman Namboodiri v. Kunhayamath that under...
Purushan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-10-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT687
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The important question raised for determination in this appeal is the question as to whether the claimant applicant in a reference under Section 28A(3) is entitled to have more land value than what was awarded to the claimant in the Court judgment that was relied on by the applicant in his application under Section 8A. The appellant filed an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act relying on the judgment in L.A.R.30/94. Under that judgment, the claimant in that case was awarded land value @ Rs. 12,000/- per Are. The prayer of the appellant applicant in his application under Section 28A was that he also be awarded land value at the rate of 12,000/- per Are as was awarded to the claimant in L.A.R 30/94. But before the claim under 28A was enquired into by the Land Acquisition Officer, the local reference Court awarded a higher rate of land value to another party, whose land was also acquired under the very same Section 4(1) notification i.e. the c...
Thirumbadi Rubber Co. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-10-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN351(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. This is an appeal filed by the assessee under section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Appellate Tribunal confirming disallowance of capital loss in respect of an amount advanced by the assessee to M/s. Fort William Company Limited, Calcutta and written off in the accounts relevant for the assessment year 1989-90 on account of the borrower-company declared a sick industry. Even though three questions are raised by the assessee, the only issue to be decided is whether there is a capital loss in respect of debt written off by the assessee that was due from a sick industry under rehabilitation by orders of BIFR. The appellant-assessee had advanced an amount of Rs. 3.5 lakhs to Fort William Company Ltd., Calcutta and interest received on the deposit was being returned and tax assessed as income from other sources. However, the borrower-company had become sick and it was referred to BIFR for rehabilitation. Even though BIFR is stated to have iss...
Venkitaramanan Vs. Rajamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT930
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Landlord is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought for Under Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. Need urged by the landlord is as follows:'The petitioner is the partner of a hotel business carried in the name and style 'HOTEL KRISHNA BHAVAN' lacks in accommodation. The petitioner bonafide believe that he can run the business more profitably than now if some additional facilities are attached thereto. The room that lies immediately to the south of the petition schedule building remains vacant and he intends to make an addition of air-conditioned restaurant attached to the present hotel. He can conveniently and profitably do the same if he gets the vacant possession of the petition schedule building. In fact the respondent is not practically doing any work in the petition schedule building.'Landlord has also stated that tenant is not doing any business in the tenanted premises. Further it is staled that tenant has got other sources of income and buildings ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »