Kerala Court December 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.
Jaleel Associates Vs. Hotel Sagar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT757
V. Ramkumar, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 2/2004 on the file of the Addl. District Court, Kozhikode are the appellants in this appeal filed under 0rder 43 Rule 1(r) of C.P.C.2. The aforementioned suit filed by the respondent herein is one for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men from using the words 'Sagar Inn' and particularly using the name 'Sagar' denoting the name of the concern shown as the second defendant and also from using the word ' Sagar' written in the same mode and style as has been done by the plaintiff from 1978 onwards in its sign boards, hoardings, bills, visiting cards and advertisement etc. or using such other name or service as is deceptively similar to 'Hotel Sagar' of the plaintiff for denoting the 2nd defendant or any hotel or restaurant or any other concern of the first defendant.3. As per I.A. No. 1178/2004 the respondent/plaintiff also prayed for a temporary injunction in terms of the aforesaid prayer in the plaint. The Court belo...
Rejeena Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1882
M. Ramachandran, J. 1. Order passed by the Government of Kerala, dated 19-4-2001, whereby Shri. S.S. Nassar (Husband of the petitioner herein) had been directed to be detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, is under challenge. Such an order had been issued by the Government entering a satisfaction that the said person was to be prevented from smuggling goods, abetting the smuggling of goods, and engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods. Such powers were exercised purportedly under Section 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short COFEPOSA Act).2. It is submitted that the order suffers from want of jurisdiction, improper application of mind and procedural delay. Though passed on 19-4-2001, its enforcement had been delayed for years and Sri Nassar had been apprehended only on 14-7-2004. The delayed implementation was not attributable to any of ...
N.U. Joseph Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2004
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Ker)552
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Assessment years relate to 1990-91 and 1991-92 respectively. When the matter came up for admission, this Court framed the following questions of law :'(1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the gross profit addition for the asst. yr. 1991-92 amounting to Rs. 87,277 by enhancing the gross profit from 3.98 per cent to 4.5 per cent when there was no reason stated by the AO for treating the declared profit as low ?(2) Whether the Tribunal is justified in its view that the Revenue authorities cannot be found fault in regard to the estimate of gross profit at 4.5 per cent for 1991-92, when there is absolutely no material or basis given either for rejecting the declared gross profit and for estimating the gross profit at 4.5 per cent ?'Counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that no question of law arises for consideration in these cases.2. Order of the assessing authority would indicate that survey under Section 133A was conducted in the business pr...
K. Venugopalan Nambiar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Ker)387
P.R. Raman, J.1. Challenge made in this original petition is, against levy of interest under Sections 139(8), 217 and 234A of the IT Act. Interest was levied for various assessment years in question. The main ground of attack is that Sections 139(8), 217 and 234A of the IT Act are confiscatory in nature and that the said levy is not compensatory interest for delayed payment of tax. Section 217 of the IT Act was replaced by corresponding provisions of the Amended Act in 1989 by Sections 234A, 234B and 234C. This question was considered by this Court in A.M. Sainalabdeen Musaliar v. Union of India and Ors. : [2000]242ITR400(Ker) , and it was held that Sections 234A, 234B and 234C are compensatory in character and are not unconstitutional. In view of the above facts, I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the petitioner. Accordingly, the same is dismissed....
R. Ranganatha Reddiar Vs. Income Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(Ker)479
K.M. Joseph, J.1. The writ petition is filed with the following prayers :'(1) Call for the records of the case leading to Ext. P2 letter and Ext. P3 certificate and declare that the payment offered by the petitioner towards the third instalment under the scheme is regular and proper by interpreting the effect, nature and scope of the provisions of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme and the Finance Act, 1997, and that the petitioner is entitled for a certificate covering the entire disclosure as per Ext. P1 declaration.(2) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to accept the 3rd instalment of Rs. 40,000 plus interest and issue an immunity certificate under Section 8(1) proportionately for such instalment or to issue a fresh certificate covering the entire disclosed income of Rs. 4,00,000.(3) Issue a writ of prohibition restraining the first and second respondents from proceeding with regular or reassessment proceeding or penalty proceedings under the IT Act for the...
R. Bharathan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Ker)464
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order in ITA 782/Coch/1995, dt. 5th April, 2000. Assessee is an abkari contractor. A search was conducted in his residential and business premises on 15th March, 1985 by IT Department. Materials recovered would indicate that the assessee was carrying on abkari business in Thiruvananthapuram and Kazhakuttam ranges which was not disclosed. Assessee gave a statement to the effect that one Krishna Naidu and Sukumaran were the licencees of the business at Kazhakuttam range. Further it was also stated that the assessee got the business changed in the name of one Prakash after paying an amount of Rs. 6,50,000. The business at Thiruvananthapuram range was bid by Prakash. Assessee was conducting that business on the basis of a power of attorney executed by Prakash. For the asst. yr. 1985-86 assessee had filed return of income admitting a loss of Rs. 20,91,546. He did not file a return showing the income from the business conducted at...
R. Bharathan, Abkari Contractor Vs. Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: (2006)199CTR(Ker)464
Radhakrishnan, J. This appeal is preferred against the order in ITA 782/ Coch./95, dated 5-4-2000. Assessee is an abkari contractor. A search was conducted in his residential and business premises on 15-3-1985 by Income-tax department. Materials recovered would indicate that the assessee was carrying on abkari business in Thiruvananthapuram and Kazhakuttam Ranges which was not disclosed. Assessee gave a statement to the effect that one Krishna Naidu and Sukumaran were the licensees of the business at Kazhakuttam Range. Further it was also stated that the assessee got the business changed in the name of one Prakash after paying an amount of Rs. 6,50,000. The business at Thiruvananthapuram Range was bid by Prakash. Assessee was conducting that business on the basis of a power of attorney executed by Prakash. For the assessment year 1985-86 assessee had filed return of income admitting a loss of Rs. 20,91,546. He did not file a return showing the income from the business conducted at Kazh...
K. Venugopalan Nambiar Vs. Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: [2005]148TAXMAN616(Ker)
Challenge made in this Original petition is against levy of interest under sections 139(8), 217 and 234A of the Income Tax Act. Interest was levied for various assessment years in question. The main ground of unit was that sections 139(8), 271 and 234A of the Income Tax Act are confiscatory in nature and that the said levy is not compensatory interest for delayed payment of tax. Section 271 of the Income Tax Act was replaced by corresponding provisions of the Amended Act in 1989 by 234A, 234B and 234C. This question was considered by this court in A.M. Sainalabdeen Musaliar v. Union of India and Ors : [2000]242ITR400(Ker) and it was held that sections 234A, 234B and 234C are compensatory in character and are not unconstitutional. In view of the above facts, I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the petitioner. Accordingly, the same is dismissed....
issac Vs. Elamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT269
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.1. This Second Appeal Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed against the concurrent decisions of the Courts below passing a preliminary decree for partition of the separate estates of a husband and wife to whom 'The Christian Succession Regulation', Regulation II of 1092 Malayalam Era, enacted by His Highness the Maha Raja of Travancore, on the 21st December 1916 corresponding to 7th Dhanu 1092 M.E. had applied so long as the said law was in force. The said Regulation is often called the Travancore Succession Act, 1092 and is hereinafter referred to as the 'Travancore Act' for short.2. The first appellant is the son and respondents 1 and 2 are the daughters of the said couple. Appellants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first appellant. The third respondent is stated to be an assignee under the appellants.3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit seeking partition, their father having died in the year 1975 and the mother in the year 1978. A preli...
Satheesh Vs. Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ker57; 2005(1)KLT9
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in the matter arising under the Notaries Act, 1952. The first respondent has been appointed as notary for Kochi Municipal Corporation area. Appellant is an Advocate and is also a notary appointed for Ambalappuzha Taluk. It is his case that since the first respondent had been appointed as notary for Kochi Municipal Corporation area, he can only notarise the documents for residents of Kochi Municipal Corporation and not others. For that purpose, he relies upon a Government letter dated 4.7.2001 (Ext. R 1 (a) in Writ Appeal No. 2110/2003) which reads as follows :-'FromThe Law SecretaryToThe Passport Officer,Passport Office, SNSM Building,Karalkada Junction, Kaithamukku,Thiruvananthapuram.Sir,Sub: The Notaries Rules, 1956 - Jurisdiction of notaries clarification sought-reg.Ref: Lr. No. 1/PO/TVM/2001 dated 22.6.2001.I am directed to invite your attention to the reference cited and to inform...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »