Kerala Court August 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.
Biju K. Francis Vs. K.S.R.T.C.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-09-2004
Reported in: III(2005)ACC479; 2005ACJ1073; 2005(1)KLT579
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Both these appeals are filed against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha in O.P. (MV) No. 33 of 1995. M.F.A. No. 421 of 1998 is filed by the claimant questioning the adequacy of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and M.F.A. No. 1466 of 1998 is filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, the respondent before the Tribunal, contending that the compensation awarded is excessive and arbitrary and also for exonerating the K.S.R.T.C. from paying the compensation. When execution proceedings were taken for realising the amount awarded, the Corporation filed O.P. No. 20781 of 1998 for a direction to the second respondent not to attach the movable or immovable properties of the Corporation for realisation of the award passed in O.P. (MV) No. 3 of 1995. Both the appeals and the Original Petition are being heard together.2. The accident as per the claim petition occurred on 5.12.1978 at 4.15 p.m. while the appellant in M.F...
Sivasakthi Engineering and Fabricators Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-09-2004
Reported in: [2006]145STC438(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. Petitioner is a works contractor. It is exclusively dealing with Kerala State Electricity Board for manufacture and supply of concrete poles. According to the petitioner, since cement and steel were supplied by the electricity board and since the petitioner was only doing job-work, it was under the bona fide belief that no tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was payable on the transaction. In the above circumstances, it is stated that the petitioner had filed returns for the assessment years 1990-1991 to 1992-1993 showing nil tax. It is stated that the matter went up to the Tribunal and the Tribunal finally decided in its appellate order (exhibit P4) that the petitioner is liable to pay sales tax on the supply of concrete poles to the electricity board. The petitioner had filed return for the assessment year 1993-94 also showing nil return. In these proceedings, the said assessment year is not in issue. Similarly, the petitioner filed returns under the Kerala ...
West Fort Hospital Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT139; (2004)IIILLJ1017Ker
M. Ramachandran, J. 1. By order dated 13.12.1995, the Government had referred the following issue for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad (2nd respondent herein):'Whether the termination of 6 workers namely, M.T. Mary Devassy, T.M. Mariamma, K.S. Vasanthi Smt.V.N. Radha, Omana Xavier and K.K. Lilly is justifiable?If not what relief they are entitled to?' 2. The Tribunal, by Award dated 8.3.1999 in I.D. No. 3 of 1996, has overruled the objection of the management-Hospital viz., that being contract workmen the dispute was not maintainable. The claim of the management that in any case they were entitled to invoke the provisions of Sub-clause(bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act') also has been rejected. It is pointed out that they had no complaint against the workers regarding the performance of their duties. Since their services were terminated without giving them notice and compensation or assigning any reasons, there was no compliance wi...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC245; 2004(3)KLT22
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. This is a petition to condone the delay of 130 days in re-presenting the appeal after curing the defects. Appeal was filed on 16.1.2004 without producing evidence for deposit of the amount required under the proviso to Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Receipt was produced subsequently. That shows that cheque for Rs. 25,000/-dated 18.3.2004 was deposited before the Motor Accidents, Claims Tribunal on 2.4.2004.2. First proviso to Section 173(1) reads as follows:'Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty-five-thousand rupees or fifty per cent of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court.'The above provision was incorporated to avoid hardship to the poor motor accident victims. When a competent Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal finds that claimants are entitled to compensation, at least...
Siraj Vs. High Court of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT1
K. Thankappan, J. 1. Questions involve in both the Original Petitions are identical and hence, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. By Ext.P1 notification dated 28.3.2001 applications were invited for appointment to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate in the Kerala Judicial Service in the pay scale of Rs. 2,500-4,000/- (pre-revised). Probable number of vacancies is 70. The petitioners submitted their applications for the above post. They belong to reserved categories namely, Muslim (Backward Community) and Hindu-Kurava (Scheduled Caste) respectively. Qualifications and method of recruitment are also prescribed in Ext.P1. Clause (6) of Ext.P1 deals with reservation of appointment, which reads as follows:-'6. Reservation of appointment:-- The Rules relating to reservation of appointment for Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes contained in Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (Rules 14 to 17) shall ap...
Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT113; [2005]140STC228(Ker)
J.B. Kohy, J.1. Whether conversion of tamarind seeds into tamarind power is a manufacturing process for claiming exemption under S.R.O.No. 1729/93 is the question to be considered in this case. The above notification grants exemption to small scale undertakings from payment of tax payable under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the goods manufactured for a specified period on satisfying certain conditions. Appellate/Petitioner is producing tamarind powder from tamarind seeds. Exemption was denied on the ground that the processing of tamarind seeds into powder is not a manufacturing process. The learned single Judge dismissed the claim for exemption following the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Nambuthiris Pickle Industries v. State of Kerala & Anr. (1993 (1) KLT 486 = (1994) 92 STC 1). In that case, assessee contended that processing of chilly into chilly powder is not a manufacturing process, and therefore, tax is not payable at ...
M.S.E.S. Attarwala Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT105
K.K. Denesan, J. 1. This Sales Tax Revision has been filed by the assessed raising the following questions'A) Is not the order of the Tribunal improper and unsustainable under the facts and circumstances of this case? Is not the order of the Tribunal vitiated by a perverse appreciation of the evidence on record? B) Whether the lower authorities are justified in assuming that the impugned inter state purchases were made by the assessee merely on the checkpost declarations collected by the assessing authority? Is it not the burden of the revenue to corroborate the contents of the checkpost declaration with other cogent materials to case liability on the assessee? Is there any presumption in law that an assessee had effected interstate purchases merely on the basis of the checkpost declarations found at the checkpost? C) Is not the rejection of the return and books of accounts of the assessee in order to proceed with best judgment assessment in the instant case unjust and improper? D) Is ...
Vasant Gordhandas Vs. Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN33(Ker)
1. Petitioner is an assessee to income-tax on the file of the second respondent. The assessment of the petitioner for the year 1991-92 (previous year ended 31-3-1990) was completed as per order dated 18-3-1996 (Exhibit P 1). Against the said order, the petitioner filed a revision (Exhibit P2) under section 264 of the Income Tax Act before the first respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said respondent did not consider the matter with reference to the contentions taken in the revision and passed an order dated 11-11-1997 (Exhibit P3) rejecting the revision.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is engaged in certain business activities as well as a member of the Cochin Stock Exchange. Counsel submits that in the assessment the petitioner contended that he had suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs from the business but the second respondent without any justification had treated a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as the loss on speculation of...
Vasant Gordhandas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-2004
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Ker)415; [2005]273ITR87(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee to income-tax on the file of the second respondent. The assessment of the petitioner for the year 1991-92 (previous year ended March 31, 1990) (sic) was completed as per order dated March 18, 1996 (exhibit PI). Against the said order, the petitioner filed a revision (exhibit P2) under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before the first respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said respondent did not consider the matter with reference to the contentions taken in the revision and passed an order dated November 11, 1997 (exhibit P3), rejecting the revision.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is engaged in certain business activities as well as a member of the Cochin Stock Exchange. Counsel submits that in the assessment the petitioner contended that he had suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs from the business but the second respondent without any justification had treated a...
Abdul Nazar Vs. Dileepkumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: III(2005)BC28; 2004CriLJ4707; 2004(3)KLT264
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. What are the ramifications of the right to silence -- the glorious right to silence as it is often referred to, in a criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act? Is Section 315 of the Cr.P.C. applicable in such a prosecution? These questions arise for consideration incidentally in this revision petition.2. This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.3. The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 20,000/-. Signature in the cheque is admitted. The cheque was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Notice of demand, though duly received and acknowledged, did not evoke any response. No defence evidence whatsoever was adduced before the trial Court. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1toP11. At the stage of trial, a contention was raised that the cheque was not issued voluntarily for the discharge of arty legally enforceable debt...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »