Kerala Court April 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.
C.P. Jose and ors. and Sanjo Poultry Farm Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-2004
Reported in: [2005]139STC15(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. These two writ petitions raise the question regarding the liability to entry tax on the import of 'day-old-chicks' from the nearby States under section 3 of the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioners in both these cases are stated to be the owners of poultry farms in the State for rearing chicks. They are also registered dealers both under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KGST Act' and 'the CST Act') respectively. According to the petitioners, they are not liable to pay entry tax on the import of 'day-old chicks' from the nearby States for the purpose of rearing them in their farms since their sales of chicken so reared and its meat are exempted from sales tax by virtue of the Notification S.R.O. No. 1090 of 1999 as amended by S.R.O. No. 7 of 2002. Their grievance is that in spite of the above legal position the check-post authoriti...
Mammen Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-2004
Reported in: [2004]269ITR167(Ker); 2004(2)KLT914
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench has referred the following question of law for decision by this Court under S.26(l) of the Gift Tax Act (for short 'the Act') at the instance of the assessee:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the valuation of the gift of the shares for the assessment year 1991-92 was to be made under Section 6 of the Gift-tax Act in accordance with Schedule III of the Wealth Tax Act?'2. The brief facts are as follows: The assessee, an individual, held shares in Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1991-92, the valuation date 31.3.1991, the assessee sold 9640 shares of the said Company to his close relatives at a value of Rs. 37/- per share. The Assessing Officer noticed that during the previous year relevant to the assessment years 1991-92 the assessee had gifted away 280 shares in the same company to his minor d...
Dr. K.C. Mammen Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Ker)153
1. The Tribunal, Cochin Bench has referred the following question of law for decision by this Court under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act (for short 'the Act') at the instance of the assessee :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the valuation of the gift of the shares for the asst. yr. 1991-92 was to be made under Section 6 of the GT Act in accordance with Schedule III of the WT Act?'2. The brief facts are as follows : The assessee, an individual, held shares in Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. During the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1991-92, the valuation date 31st March, 1991, the assessee sold 9,640 shares of the said company to his close relatives at a value of Rs. 37 per share. The AO noticed that during the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1991-92 the assessee had gifted away 280 shares in the same company to his minor daughter and for the purpose of gift tax he valued the shares at Rs. 77.85 per sh...
Mahadeva Iyer Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3957; 2004(2)KLT562
N. Krishnan Nair, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 5.5.2001 of the Special Judge for E.C. Act Cases, Thrissur in S.T. No.6/1999. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.T. No.6/1999 are the appellants in Crl.A. No.426/2001 while the 3rd accused is the appellant in Crl. A. No.440/2001. The appellants were charged with the offences punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act for the alleged violation of the provisions of Rule 5A, 43 and 58 of the Kerala Rationing Order and Rules 3 and 8 of the Kerala Foodgrains Dealers Licencing Order, After the trial, the learned Special Judge found the appellants guilty of the offences and convicted them. They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants is seriously challenged in these appeals.2....
Fr. Abraham Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Ker317; 2004(2)KLT431
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be successfully maintained against an order which has already been upheld by another Division Bench in exercise of its appellate powers under Section 10 of the Kerala Dramatic Performances Act, 1961, is the question that has come up for consideration in this case?2. Petitioner, Rev. Fr. Abraham Vellamthadathil has approached this court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts. P1, P3 and P6 orders. Ext. P1 is the order passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Kottayam on 15.10.1990 under Section 4(2) of the aforesaid Act prohibiting staging of the drama 'Jesus Christ Super Star' for a period of two months in any part of Kottayam district when he was convinced that staging of the drama would cause communal disharmony and lead to serious breach of peace. Drama was about to be staged in the Corpus Christi School, Kottayam. The order was challenged by Mary Roy before ...
SaiffuddIn Vs. Prakasan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT551
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Is failure to issue statutory notice under the proviso to Section 11(2)(b) and the proviso to Section 11(4)(i) of Act 2 of 1965 to one of the joint tenants fatal to an application for eviction is the question that emerges for consideration in this case.2. Tenanted premises was let out to respondents 1 and 2 as per Ext. A1 agreement dated 21.3.1987. Respondents 1 and 2 kept the rent in arrears from 21.12.90 onwards. Petitioners sent lawyer notice A3 dated 11.10.91 to the first respondent demanding arrears of rent. Respondents inter alia contended that the petitioner had failed to issue a statutory notice under the proviso to Section 11(2)(b) to both the respondents. The notice was served on the first respondent alone. Hence there is no proper notice and therefore application filed under Section 11(2)(b) is not maintainable. Landlord's complaint is that since respondents 1 and 2 contrary to the terms of the lease deed sublet the premises to third respondent ...
Jameela Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC213; 2004CriLJ3389; 2004(2)KLT638
ORDERA.K. Basheer, J. 1. Can a Criminal Court remit any portion of the penalty or enforce only its part payment under Section 446(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 pursuant to forfeiture of the surety bond and after steps for recovery of penalty have been initiated? The above short but interesting question has arisen in the following circumstances. 2. Petitioners executed surety bonds to bail out an accused who was facing trial in the Court for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Subsequently the accused failed to appear before the Court. Coercive steps were initiated against him. Though notices were issued to the petitioners/sureties, they failed to procure attendance of the accused before the Court. Therefore the surety bonds were forfeited and the petitioners were directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- each as penalty. The order imposing the penalty was passed by the learned Magistrate after issuing show cause notice to the sureties and after hear...
Prathapan Vs. Rama Warrier
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT559
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Can there be a degree of comparison between mother and brother while claiming dependency of a member of the family under Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965, is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. Landlord's elder brother contended that his younger brother is dependent on him so far as the tenanted premises is concerned to start a business in electrical equipments, while the tenant took up the stand that even if younger brother is a dependent he could be dependent only on the mother and not with the elder brother since mother is also having a building of her own. Rent Control Court took the view that since younger brother and the landlord are residing with the mother, it should be taken that younger brother is dependent on the mother and not on the brother. Further it was held that brother of the petitioner cannot be considered as dependent on the landlord who is elder brother and that husband, wife and children can only be considere...
Gopinathan Vs. Raman
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT511
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether the suit filed under Section 62(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, Act 19 of 1951 (for short 'the Act') would tantamount to an appeal filed against the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 61 of the Act is inter alia the question that has come up for consideration in this case2. Appellants herein were defendants 1 to 5 in O.S. No.107 of 1999. They filed O.S, No. 1 of 1990 before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, filed application for a declaration that Sree Kannenkavu Bhagavathy temple is a public religious institution within the meaning of Section 57(a) of the Act and also for framing scheme for administration of the temple. The Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 5.1.1993 allowed the application on the following reasoning.'Sree Kannenkavu Bhagavathy temple is an ancient temple and its trusteeship vest with Azhuvancherry Mana. It is true that p...
Santha Kumar Vs. Karthiyani
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT619
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether the interse dispute between the legal heirs of the original tenant is a reasonable cause for non-user of the tenanted premises continuously for six months as on the date of the filing of the petition under Section 11(4)(v) of Act 2 of 1965.2. Rent Control Petition was filed under Section 11(2), 11(3), 11(4)(v) and 11(8) of Act 2 of 1965. Rent Control Court allowed petition under Section 11(4)(v) and rejected the claim under Section 11 (2), 11 (3) and 11 (8) of the Act. Respondents 6 to 8 before the Rent Control Court filed RCA 116/93 and the 2nd respondent before the Rent Control Court filed RCA 164/93. Appeals were allowed and the eviction ordered under Section 11(4)(v) was set aside, against which landlord has come up in revision. The only question to be considered is whether the Appellate Court is justified in setting aside the order of eviction passed under Section 11(4)(v) of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »