Kerala Court March 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.M. Habeeb
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-2004
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Ker)100; [2004]268ITR344(Ker); 2004(2)KLT202
ORDERG. Sivarajan, J.1. An important question as to the retrospective effect of Section 52A of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') inserted by the Kerala Court Fees & Suits Valuation (Amendment) Act, 2003 providing for Court fee payable on memorandum of appeal filed before the High Court against the orders of the Tribunal, both under the IT Act and under the WT Act calls for determination in all these cases.2. The question arises this way. All these appeals are filed by the CIT, Kochi against the orders of the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, after the coming into force of Section 52A of the Act. Only a Court fee of Rs. 10 was paid on all these appeals. The office has raised objection stating that in all appeals filed after the insertion of Section 52A of the Act, Court fee has to be paid as provided under Section 52A r/w sub-item (c) of item (iii) of Article 3 of Schedule II to the Act. The standing counsel for the IT Department filed obje...
Karthiayani Vs. Anandan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT575
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question for determination in this case is whether a legatee under a testamentary disposition could claim the status of a statutory tenant and resist the claim for eviction.2. Original landlord died and his legal heirs got themselves impleaded and prosecuted the proceedings. Eviction was sought for under Section 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of Act 2 of 1965. The schedule shop rooms was taken on lease by one Anandan from the previous landlords on 16.7.1962 for a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. Schedule premises was purchased by the deceased first petitioner before the Rent Control Court and the tenant Anandan attorned him. Rent was enhanced to Rs. 50/-, Rs. 100/- and later to Rs. 150/-. Anandan died on 14.6.1986 and the tenancy right inherited to his wife K.P. Karthiayini, the first respondent before the Rent Control Court. Anandan was conducting a tea shop in the schedule premises. Karthiayini executed a registered Will dated 16.11.1984. Business was conducted by...
Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT983
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The scope of Notification S.R.O.No. 365/1993 giving retrospective effect to Notification S.R.O. No. 1401/1992 issued under Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') arises for consideration in this case. The assessee is the petitioner. The State is the respondent. The assessment year concerned is 1992-93.2. The assessee is, inter alia, engaged in the sale of goods received by branch transfer from outside the State. In the assessment for the year 1992-93 the assessing authority levied turnover tax at 0.5 per cent on the turnover of goods received on branch transfer from outside the State under Section 5(2A)(g) of the Act. This is, inter alia, challenged by the assessee in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed by upholding the order of the assessing authority on this question. The Tribunal, in further appeal filed by the assessee, considered the question whether the assessee is liable to pay turnov...
The Commanding Officer Vs. the Appellate Authority Under the Payment o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT43; (2005)ILLJ256Ker; 2005(2)SLJ53(Kerala)
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. Smt. R.P. Vincent, the 3rd respondent, was working as part-time Civilian Nurse in the Family Clinic, Naval Base, Cochin. She was superannuated on 30th September, 1999. As the gratuity amount due to her was not paid by the naval authorities, she filed an application before the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central), Kochi, the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act (hereafter referred to as the authority) for an order directing the petitioners herein to pay the gratuity. By Ext.P1 order dated 12th December, 2000, the authority allowed an amount of Rs. 36,260 towards gratuity and the naval authorities were directed to pay the amount. The 1st petitioner viz. the Officer-in-charge, Station Health Organisation, Naval Base, Kochi, challenged the above order by filing an Original Petition before this Court as O.P.2000/01. Along with the O.P. the 1st petitioner filed C.M.P.3400/01 for an interim order to stay all further proceedings in pursuance to Ext.P1 order and by ...
Jose Vs. Koothattukulam Panchayat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: III(2004)BC470; 2004(2)KLT548
A. Lekshmikutty, J.1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 151/1992 on the file of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha is the appellant herein. Originally, the defendant was Koothattukulam Panchayat. At the time of filing the Original Suit, the Panchayat was converted as Koothattukulam Municipality. During the pendency of the suit, it was again converted as Koothattukulam Panchayat. The suit is for recovery of Rs.29,450/- with interest from the defendant. On 28.3.1989, the respondent herein issued an auction notice for auctioning the right to occupy the rooms constructed by the Panchayat in the market plot. The 2nd plaintiff was the highest bidder for room No. V in Block No. A conducted on 12.4.1989. As per the terms of contract, the 2nd plaintiff remitted Rs.20,000/- as deposit and obtained receipt for the same. At the time of participating the auction proceedings, the respondent convinced the 2nd plaintiff and other participants that within one month from the date of auction, the construction of the r...
K.L. Laxmikantha Vs. K.L. Vijayalaxmi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Ker293
A. Lekshmikutty, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 92/1992 on the file of the Sub Court, Kasaragod, this appeal is filed by the defendant. The respondent as plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession over the plaint schedule property. Plaint A schedule property originally belonged to late Suganda, mother of plaintiff and defendant who passed away in March, 1992. On her death, A schedule property devolved on the defendant and plaintiff and both or them are entitled to 1/2 right over the property. A schedule consists of the residential building in the occupation of the defendant and 4 other shop rooms in the possession of monthly tenants. The annual income of the property would fetch Rs. 14,200/-. Defendant is collecting the entire income and appropriating the same without paying anything to the plaintiff. Notice was issued on 28-5-1992 and again on 30-5-1992. The second notice sent was received by the defendant to which she sent a false reply. Eve...
Guruvayoor Prathikarana Vedi Vs. Secretary to Government
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT19
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This Writ Petition has been preferred by an Organization by name Guruvayoor Prathikarana Vedi challenging Ext.P11 order of stay and also the final order passed by the Government on 21.1.2004 entertaining a Revision Petition preferred by the fifth respondent under Section 33 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978.2. The Government by the impugned order set aside the resolutions dated 25.2.2002 and 11.8.2003 passed by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Committee and the show cause notice issued by the Administrator to the fifth respondent based on the resolution. Managing Committee by those proceedings found that the order passed by the previous Managing Committee on 10.6.1995 setting aside all the punishments imposed on the fifth respondent by entertaining a Review Petition is illegal and without jurisdiction. The legality of the various orders passed by the Government and of the previous Managing Committee dated 10.6.1995 is the subject matter of these proceedings. These pr...
Wonder House Production Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST860(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The petitioner, it is stated, is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in running a duty free shop at Palakkad where various items of imported goods, cosmetics, electronic items, ready-mades, stationery, etc., are sold. The business was commenced in a building bearing No.l0/304(1), College Road, Palakkad, from April 9, 2003. The petitioner applied for registration under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 on April 7, 2003 evidenced by exhibits P1 and P2 respectively. The registering authority conducted a shop inspection on May 7, 2003 and granted registration on May 8, 2003 with effect from April 7, 2002.2. The second respondent conducted inspection of the business premises of the petitioner on May 13, 2003, i.e., within 7 days from the date of inspection conducted by the registering authority for the grant of registration and prepared a mahazar and a shop inspection report (exhi...
State of Kerala Vs. Kuruvilla
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-03-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Ker233; 2004(1)KLT996
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J. 1. The above I.A. is filed by the State to stay all further proceedings in pursuance to the execution petition filed in O.S. No. 150 of 1997 of the Sub Court, Kottayam. F.A.O. No. 384 of 2003 is filed by the State represented by the District Collector, Kottayam against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 150 of 1997. The suit was filed by the respondents for damages for breach of contract. An amount of Rs. 12,16,667.50 has been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. It is against the above judgment and decree that this appeal is filed.2. When the matter came up for hearing, we heard learned Government Pleader for the appellant and Sri. Bechu Kurian Thomas learned counsel for the respondents. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State is entitled to get an order of stay without providing security in view of Order XXVII, Rule 8A of C.P.C. On the other hand, Sri. Bechu Kurian Thomas submitted that the court has a discretion in this matter and the court can...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›