Kerala Court October 2005 Judgments
Vasu @ Vasal Vasu Vs. K.V. Varghese
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-24-2005
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ79
ORDERT.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The question that arises is whether the landlord can maintain a subsequent petition for eviction of the tenant, if a previous application which was filed raising the same grounds, was dismissed as not pressed. The short facts are the following:2, The present petition for eviction was filed under Section 11(2)(b)(arrears of rent) and 11(3)(bona fide need for own occupation), of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). The premises was let out on 8-3-1984 for a monthly rent of Rs. 275/-. The landlord gifted the same to the respondent herein, his son on 2-5-1997. The respondent herein filed R.C.P. No. 26/1997, before the Rent Control Court, Kalpetta for an order of eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The premises were required for starting grocery business. It was dismissed as not pressed on 11-5-1998. Later on, the present R.C.P. No. 16/1998 was filed for star...
Tag this Judgment!Kesavan Vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-21-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT159
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner who is a retired Driver of the K.S.R.T.C. seems to be legitimate. He was appointed as Driver in K.S.R.T.C. at Chengannoor Depot in March 1975. While working as a Driver he had a massive heart attack and was admitted in Medical College Hospital, Kottayam and was advised to take only light duty postings. The Corporation accordingly engaged the petitioner as a Security Guard on working arrangement upto 1991 in the same scale of pay of Drivers. After 1991 the petitioner was re-engaged at Chengannoor Depot as Driver. On 30-11-1994 the petitioner retired as Driver. In March, 1995 when the petitioner went to receive pension, the K.S.R.T.C. directed him to remit back the excess salary received by him while he was working as Security Guard. The aggrieved petitioner submitted a representation before the 2nd respondent. This Court vide judgment dated 26-3-1996 directed the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation. The...
Tag this Judgment!Raju Vs. Director General of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-21-2005
Reported in: [2006]283ITR154(Ker); 2006(1)KLT147
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner's residential premises as well as hospital premises were searched on 7-10-2004. Hospital premises was searched by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Alleppey Range and the residential premises was searched by Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Kollam Circle. Separate Panchanamas were prepared. Petitioner submits search did not unearth any black money or unexplained income. However, books of accounts and other documents were inventorised and seized by the searching party and are in the possession of the investigation wing of the Income tax Department.2. Petitioner is however, aggrieved by the illegal detention of those documents by second respondent, an officer functioning under first respondent. Petitioner submits that though second respondent was not an authorised officer who conducted search, he being subordinate, first respondent is entrusted with post search duties to process the case for eventual entrustment to the Assessing Officer. Petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Parry Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-21-2005
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Ker)267; [2006]285ITR440(Ker)
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The only question that has been raised for consideration in this case reads as follows:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the profits of eligible business computed in accordance with the requirements of Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956 should be reduced by income from coffee sales, arecanut sales, rent receipts, interest and subsidy from Tea Board for the purpose of computing the deduction allowable under sub-cl. (ii) of cl. (b) of Section 32AB(1) Assessee in his return claimed deduction of Rs. 37,02,849 under Section 32AB on the basis of the entire income of the previous year. AO allowed deduction on an amount calculated without including rent, interest and sundry receipts. CIT(A) agreed with the AO that the relief was to be worked out on the profits of eligible business or profession as contemplated in Section 32AB and that rent, interest and sundry receipts did not...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Krishna Poduval
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Ker)581; 2005(4)KLT947
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The issues involved in these two appeals are identical. Therefore the two appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The matter relates to payment of service tax, interest and penalty under the Finance Act, 1994, by the respondent in each of the two appeals. The Revenue is the appellant in both the appeals. Notices were issued to the respondents in these two appeals directing them to show cause why service tax amounting to Rs. 27,425/- and Rs. 33,450/-, respectively, along with interest as applicable under Section 75, as also penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, should not be recovered from them for failure to pay service tax and suppression of the value of taxable service with intent to evade payment of service tax. The show cause notices culminated in demand for service tax, interest and penalty under both Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The respondents in these appeals challenged the same in appeals before the Commission...
Tag this Judgment!Asstt. Cce and ors. Vs. V. Krishna Poduval and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-2005
Reported in: (2006)199CTR(Ker)581
S. Siri Jagan, J.The issues involved in these two appeals are identical. Therefore, the two appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The matter relates to payment of service-tax, interest and penalty under the Finance Act, 1994, by the respondent in each of the two appeals. The revenue is the appellant in both the appeals. Notices were issued to the respondents in these two appeals directing them to show-cause why service-tax amounting to Rs. 27,425 and Rs. 33,450, respectively, along with interest as applicable under section 75, as also penalty under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, should not be recovered from them for failure to pay service-tax and suppression of the value of taxable service with intent to evade payment of service-tax. The showcause notices culminated in demand for service-tax, interest and penalty under both sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The respondents in these appeals challenged the same in appeals before the CCE(A). However, ...
Tag this Judgment!Chellappan Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT499
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Since he was not able to engage a lawyer, his case in the Sessions Court was conducted by a lawyer arranged by the State. In this appeal filed from Jail also, this Court has appointed a State Brief for arguing his case.2. According to the prosecution, due to the previous enmity the accused had with the deceased, the accused, at 0.45 hours on 12-3-2001 at a place called Thadam' at the northern side of the bridge of the canal at Perinjam, inflicted two cut injuries with a chopper on the back side of the head of the deceased Velappan Nair and thereafter the accused attempted to cause cut injury on the head which was warded off by the deceased Velappan Nair and consequently the said attack caused cut injuries on the left forefinger of Velappan Nair. The accused again inflicted cut injuries on the face of Vel...
Tag this Judgment!Amina Vs. Kunjubawa
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT609
V. Ramkumar, J.1. Heard both sides.2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 262/1993 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha. The said suit was one for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property on the strength of title and also for a perpetual injunction in respect of a portion of the property. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the decree, the petitioners filed A.S. No. 67/1998 before the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. While the appeal was pending, they moved I.A. No. 864/2004 for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. The said application was dismissed as per Ext.P3 order inter alia on the ground that it was belated. It is the said order which is assailed in this Writ Petition.3. Placing strong reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Karthiayani and Ors. v. Ramanathan and Ors., 2005 (2) KLT 115 : 2005 (1) KLJ 730, the learned Counsel for the respondents/defendants submitted that a petition under ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Bahuleyan Vs. Moossa E.P. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Ker369
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The judgment-debtor, whose application for setting aside the Court auction sale under Rule 90 of Order XXI was dismissed by the Executing Court, challenges the order in this appeal. The suit was filed by the first respondent for amounts due to him as per an equitable mortgage created by the appellant/petitioner. The suit was compromised and a compromise petition was filed by the parties. The trial Court passed a decree in terms of the compromise.2. In execution of the compromise decree, E.P. No. 91 of 2002 was filed by the decree holder for sale of the immovable property belonging to the judgment-debtor. It would appear that there was attachment of the property, though it was not necessary since the suit was on mortgage. The Executing Court passed an order to sell the immovable property for realisation of the decree debt. A proclamation was issued fixing the date of sale as 7-1-2003. On 7-1-2003, the judgment-debtor paid a sum of Rs. 25.000/- towards the decree debt...
Tag this Judgment!Bahuleyan Vs. Moosa
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-2005
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT882
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The judgment debtor, whose application for setting aside the court auction sale under Rule 90 of Order XXI was dismissed by the Executing Court, challenges the order in this appeal. The suit was filed by the first respondent for amounts due to him as per an equitable mortgage created by the appellant/petitioner. The suit was compromised and a compromise petition was filed by the parties. The trial Court passed a decree in terms of the compromise.2. In execution of the compromise decree, E.P. No. 91 of 2002 was filed by the decree holder for sale of the immovable property belonging to the judgment debtor. It would appear that there was attachment of the property, though it was not necessary since the suit was on mortgage. The Executing Court passed an order to sell the immovable property for realisation of the decree debt. A proclamation was issued fixing the date of sale as 7-1-2003. On 7-1-2003, the judgment debtor paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards the decree debt...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »