Kerala Court June 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.
Govindan Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Ker)516; [2005]272ITR220(Ker); 2004(2)KLT834
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. The above case has been referred to us by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench on a reference by the assessee. The assessee is a partner in the Firm of M/s. Hindustan Engg. Co., Calicut. A reconstruction deed of the partnership was executed on 25th May, 1982. That deed shows that there are three partners, K. Govindan, K.P. Prabhakaran & K.G. Krishnakumar. It is further seen that K.G. Manojkumar was a minor and he was admitted to the benefit of the partnership. Capital of the Firm was Rs. 25,000/- provided by the three partners and the minor in proportion of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 5000/- respectively. Clause 7 of the deed says that the first partner will be entitled to a profit of 50% and a liability to the extent of 62.5%, second partner is entitled to a profit of 25% and a liability of 25%, third partner is entitled to a profit of 32.5% and a liability of 12.5% and the minor K.G. Manojkumar is entitled to a profit of 12.5%.2. By agreement da...
Bobby Cyriac Vs. Mohamood
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-11-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT930
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Is the tenant obliged to part with possession of the tenanted premises for carrying out the renovation of the building under Section 11(5) of Act 2 of 1965 is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. Tenant is occupying the upstair portion of a two storied building. Tenant is conducting a dental clinic. In the ground floor of the building landlord is running a bakery. According to the landlord since the building is very old, it requires immediate repairs and renovation. Further it is also stated that the rafters of the ceiling has already become weak and upstair is now being supported with the help of iron pillars and planks. Rafters of the building is also in a damaged condition. Therefore the building requires renovation.3. Tenant resisted the petition. According to the tenant no renovation is required. If at all any renovation is necessary the tenant need not surrender possession of the premises to the petitioner. Further it is a...
Dy. General Manager, S.B.i. Vs. Roy Samuel
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-11-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT923; (2004)IIILLJ1053Ker
M. Ramachandran, J.1. An order passed by the second respondent Industrial Tribunal, Kollam in I.D. No. 15/01, dated 29.9.03, a copy of which is marked as Ext.P8 has been subjected to challenge. Tribunal had entered a preliminary finding upon the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry held by the management Bank. After holding that the enquiry was held properly, in form, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be endorsed as one, which was supported by legal evidence to establish the charges alleged against the workman. The Tribunal was of the opinion that key witness and whose evidence would have been material had not stepped into the witness box at the time of domestic enquiry. It had been observed as following:'No doubt the management has the liberty to examine the witness of their own choice. But here is a case were the defence has to establish the case through this prime witness and due to the non examination of that particular witness...
Mohana Pai Vs. Jabbar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-11-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC582; 2005(1)KLT118
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Reversing the conviction ordered by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Kochi, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam acquitted the1st respondent. Therefore the appellant/complainant has come up with this appeal against the acquittal.2. The offence alleged are that punishable Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Under Section 420 of the IPC. The subject matter was Ext.P2 cheque dated 5.5.1993 for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- issued by the accused/1st respondent. When the cheque was presented to the bank, it bounced. So the offence as alleged has been committed by the 1st respondent. Reversal of the conviction is therefore bad; the appellant submits.3. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge that Ext.P2 cheque was issued as a security and therefore does not attract Section 138, now cannot be accepted in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in I.C.D.S. Ltd. v. Beena Shabeer, 2002 (3) KLT 218. Even a cheque issued by...
K. Govindan Vs. Cgt
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-11-2004
Reported in: [2004]140TAXMAN101(Ker)
Sankarasubban, J.The above case has been referred to us by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench on a reference by the assessee. The assessee is a partner in the Firm of M/s. Hindustan Engg. Co., Calicut. A reconstitution deed of the partnership was executed on 25-5-1982. That deed shows that there are three partners, K. Govindan, K.P. Prabhakaran and K.G. Krishnakumar. It is further seen that KG. Manojkumar was a minor and he was admitted to the benefit of the partnership. Capital of the Firm was Rs. 25,000 provided by the three partners and the minor in proportion of Rs. 10,000, Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 5,000 respectively. Clause 7 of the deed says that the first partner will be entitled to a profit of 5096 and a liability to the extent of 62.5%, second partner is entitled to a profit of 25% and a liability of 25%, third partner is entitled to a profit of 12.5% and a liability of 12.5% and the minor K.G. Manojkumar is entitled to a profit of 12.5%.2. By agreement dated 1-4-1984, c...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hotel Classic
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Ker)19
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This IT reference is on reference by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, under Section 256(1) of the IT Act. The questions referred are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in the light of Expln, 1 to Section 271(1)(c), the Tribunal is right in law and fact in cancelling the penalty ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is not the order of the Tribunal vitiated for not considering the case in the light of Expln. 1 to Section 271(1)(c) and placing the burden of proof on the Revenue ?' The facts of the case are as follows :2. The assessment year is 1989-90, During the previous year, the assessee was carrying on the business of running a bar attached hotel at Trivandrum, On 28th Aug., 1989, the assessee had shown a loss of Rs. 2,16,430 under the head 'business'. The AO noticed various defects in the books of accounts produced by the assessee. Further, there were also credits which were not proved, In view ...
Sobha Kumar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT755
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Assessment of suitability under Rule 28 of the KS & SSR is generally oh consideration of the Confidential Reports for the three preceding years. Does the Rules require that the Reports should be those prepared at the relevant period?2. Ext.P9 order is under challenge. The said order is passed by the second respondent pursuant to Ext.P7 Judgment of this Court. Petitioner filed the Original Petition leading to Ext.P7 aggrieved by her supersession in the select list of Lecturers fit for promotion to the category of Assistant Professors in the Department of Paediatrics under the Medical Education Service for the year 2001. Ext.P5 is the select list. Petitioner availed long leave from 8.4.1995 and thereafter joined duty on 10.4.2001. She filed Ext.P6 review petition. That was directed to be considered as per Ext.P7 Judgment. It was made clear in the Judgment as follows:'The filling up of one vacancy reserved shall be subject to the final orders that may be passed in the ...
Sasidharan Vs. Saroja
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT885
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The legality of the clubbing of all the Rent Control Appeals by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in a case where joint trial was refused by the Rent Control Court is the moot question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. Landlord preferred three Rent Control Petitions namely, R.C.P. Nos. 61, 62, 63 of 1992 in respect of different tenants. Landlord filed the application for joint trial before the Rent Control Court and the same was refused and all the three Rent Control Petitions were tried independently and evidence adduced separately. Rent Control Court dismissed all the petitions filed by the landlord under Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. Landlord preferred three appeals before the Appellate Authority. Expressing grave concern over the Rent Control Court in not conducting a joint trial Appellate Authority clubbed all the appeals together and disposed of all the appeals by a common judgment. Appellate Authority has minuted that all the c...
Associate Agencies Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-09-2004
Reported in: [2006]144STC185(Ker)
Cyriac Joseph, J.1. The revision petitioner is a dealer in gold jewellery. The assessment of the petitioner for Central sales tax for the year 2000-2001 was completed by the assessing authority as per his order dated September 20, 2002. The true copy of the assessment order dated September 20, 2002 has been produced as annexure A. In the said assessment order the assessing authority rejected the contention of the assessee that what was sold by him in inter-State sales was bullion and hence he was liable to pay Central sales tax only at the rate of 1 per cent and further that since the rate of tax was below 4 per cent he was not required to furnish the 'C' form. The assessing authority held that what was sold by the assessee in the inter-State sales was jewellery and not bullion. Aggrieved by the assessment order the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority contending that the rate of tax applicable was only 1 per cent. As per annexure J order dated June 18, 2003, the a...
Jayakumar Vs. Rajamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-08-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC41; 2005ACJ172; 2004(2)KLT904
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. Both these appeals are filed by the owner of a Mahindra Trekker KBT 1231. The claimants in the two petitions were travelling in the jeep and they sustained injuries in an accident which occurred on 27.6.1987. In the petitions filed by them, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the claimant in O.P.(MV) 41 of 1988 and an amount of Rs. 18,000/- to the claimant in O.P.(MV) 61 of 1988. In these appeals by the owner of the vehicle, the only contention pressed at the time of arguments is with respect to the liability of the Insurance Company for payment of compensation. The Tribunal held that the Insurance Company is not liable. The Tribunal found that the claimants who are passengers were travelling for hire, though it was registered as a private vehicle.2. In these appeals, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant had taken a comprehensive policy and therefore the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation as found by the Trib...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »