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.
Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-08-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Ker)281; [2004]270ITR452(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following two questions for the decision of this Court at the instance of the assessee :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the objects of the assessee contained in its memorandum of association was the Tribunal right in holding that the investments made in the capital of the cooperative societies cannot be considered as its objects and the loss arising therefrom cannot be treated as a revenue/business loss allowable under the IT Act?2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in disallowing deduction of an amount of Rs. 80,20,588 being the amount written off by the assessee in the P&L; a/c from out of its advance in the form of shares in co-operative societies which had either become defunct or had gone under liquidation?'2. The brief facts relevant for answering the above two questions may be stated. The applicant-assessee is a public sector undert...
Reeja Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT599
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.W.P.(C) No. 16221/041. The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking inter alia, a direction to therespondents to allow her to open her shop and to sell the tickets of on-line lotteries ofthe States of Sikkim, Karnataka and Arunachal Pradesh. The brief facts of the case,as stated by the petitioner, are the following :2. The petitioner is running a retail outlet of M/s. Playwin, which is the sole selling agent of M/s. Tashi Dalek Gaming Solutions Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Ultra Entertainment Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Kenlot Gaming Solutions Pvt. Ltd., who are the marketing agents of online lottery tickets of the States of Sikkim, Karnataka and Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner was running the said retail outlet from 30.8.2002. The room, housing the retail outlet, was also being used for the sale of packaged drinking water Bislery and Valvoline Lubricants, Oils Filters etc. The State of Kerala, by framing the Kerala State Lotteries and On-line Lotteries (Regulation) ...
Kurien E. Kalathil Vs. Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT1118
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Exts. P2 and P4. orders passed by the Sub Court, Nedumangad. The petitioner in the Writ Petition was the 7th defendant in O.S. 79/2002. The suit was filed for realisation of balance unpaid purchase money in a sale transaction. The petitioner is a subsequent assignee from the original assignee. The original plaintiff filed the suit as indigent person. After his death the first respondent has been impleaded as additional plaintiff and he was also allowed to continue the suit as indigent person, Subsequently the present petitioner filed an application under Order XXXVIII, Rule 9 of the C.P.C. to withdraw the permission granted to the plaintiff to file the suit as indigent person. That application has been dismissed by the impugned order in this Writ Petition. The reason stated is that the petition is highly belated and the suit is already listed for evidence.2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the Trial Court ha...
Dhirajlal Hemchand Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-07-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ker42; 2004(3)KLT829
A.K. Basheer, J.1. The short but interesting question that arises for consideration in this Original Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution relates to the stamp duty payable on a registered document executed by the co-owners of an immovable property. While the co-owners/executants insisted that the document in question was a deed of partition, the registering authority took the view that it was a release deed and as such stamp duty was payable under Article 48(b) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act').2. The petitioners were co-owners of an immovable property having an extent of 1 acre 11 cents in Nellikkode Village of Kozhikode District. The petitioners decided to effect partition of the co-ownership property. Petitioner No. 2 wanted his share to be separated. But he agreed that in lieu of his share being allotted to him in specie, he may be given the money equivalent of his share in the property. His share value was fixed at Rs. 15 lakhs. Accordingly, a deed of p...
Sasi Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT778
Kurian Joseph, J. 1. Special rules generally provide for promotion as method of appointment as Head of the Service. In spite of the availability of a qualified, competent and eligible incumbent, is the Government empowered and justified in appointing an Officer from All India Service2. Petitioner is aggrieved since he was not considered for appointment to the post of Director of Animal Husbandry, instead the second respondent who is an IAS Officer, has been appointed. Petitioner joined service as a Veterinary Surgeon on 11.12.1989. On further promotions, he was appointed as Additional Director on 25.7.1996. The post of Director fell vacant on 30.9.2002 on the retirement of the then incumbent. Being the seniormost Additional Director, petitioner was given the additional charge as per Ext.P3 and the petitioner has been continuing as such. While so, as per Ext.R4 order dated 21.5.2004, the second respondent was appointed as Director by creating an ex-cadre post for a period of one year.3....
Euler Waldemar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT1072
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The accused who is faced with conviction under Section 20(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, 1985 has come up with this appeal. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1 lakh. According to the court below he has been in possession of 2.20 Kg. of Hashish as seized by PW4, upon Ext.P1 mahazar which was duly proved through PW2, an eye witness.2. The prosecution case was that PW4 the Sub Inspector of Police, Kovalam police station obtained reliable information that a foreign national was engaged in sale of drugs, residing in a house named 'Sudhi' in Avaduthura. There upon he reduced the information he received in writing and sent a report Ext.P3 to his superior officer, PW6 and proceeded to the spot and apprehended the accused. The accused voluntarily took out from a refrigerator kept in the house the contraband in this case, in ten packets. It was seized in the presence of PW1 an independent witness. He was arrested and the c...
S.E.P.R. Employees Association and ors. Vs. National Productivity Coun ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-2004
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ336Ker
M. Ramachandran, J.1. The issue that has been canvassed by the petitioners is about their entitlement to bonus for the year 2002-2003 over and above 20% of the earnings received by them during the relevant year. As an interim measure, in fact an excess amount of bonus had been paid and steps are being taken for recovery of such excess amounts paid. The establishment concerned is a factory in private sector. I may briefly state the relevant facts which might be necessary for deciding the matter.2. By a conciliation settlement arrived at in the presence of the Additional Labour Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram (1st respondent) dated December 5, 2003, the petitioners, who were representatives of the employees of the S.E.P.R. Refractories India Limited (3rd respondent), has agreed that a fresh scheme for Productivity Linked Bonus (P.L.B.) could be evolved and the decision as given by the Agency will be accepted and adopted. The management had agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 7,750/- to each ...
Bharati Cellular Limited Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST764(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner is a registered dealer bringing goods from outside State which attract entry tax. According to the petitioner the petitioner is liable and will pay monthly tax along with the return on 10th of every month in terms of Rule 4(1) of the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Rules, 1994. The prayer therefore is for a direction to the check-post authorities not to detain the goods but to release the same as the petitioner is filing returns and remitting tax every month. The Government Pleader pointed out that there are unscrupulous dealers bringing goods in the name of reputed companies with their registration numbers and so much so unless petitioner owns up the goods at the check-post, it cannot be released except on account of chances that consignments apparently coming in the name of the petitioner may not really belong to them. In the circumstances there will be a direction to the check-post authorities to release the goods on the peti...
Veebros Freight Carriers Vs. Eshita Agency
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Ker307; 2004(2)KLT666
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The office refuses to register the Second Appeal on the ground of insufficiency of the court fee paid. The defendants against whom the trial Court passed a decree for a sum of Rs. 45,414/- with interest from date of suit till date of realisation at the rate of 18% per annum preferred appeal to the lower appellate Court impugning the trial Court's decree. The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the trial Court decree in all respects. According to the appellants as their appeal before the lower appellate Court stands dismissed they are aggrieved and the valuation of a second appeal is the same as the valuation of a first appeal which includes the principal amount decreed plus interest due after the trial Court decree from date of suit till date of that decree. According to the registry, going by Explanation 3 to Section 52 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act it is necessary that the Second Appeal should be valued calculating interest u...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Usha Gopalakrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC182; 2005ACJ581; 2004(2)KLT679
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J. 1.The only question to be considered in this order is regarding maintainability of the cross objection filed by the claimant in an appeal filed by the insurer in a motor accident claim matter. The insurance company in this case contested the case after getting permission under Section 170. In the appeal the contention of the Insurance Company is that the quantum of compensation awarded is very excessive. In the cross objection the contention of the claimant is that the quantum awarded is not sufficient and he wants enhancement of compensation.2. When the cross objection was filed an objection was raised by the Registry that cross objection will not be maintainable. The objection was raised mainly on the basis of the Division Bench decisions in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mary Pushpam, 1996 (1) KLT 806, and in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kunhiraman Nambiar, 1994 (1) KLT 956. In the decision reported in 1996 (1) KLT 806 it was held that in an appeal filed by th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »