Kerala Court December 2005 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.
Choice Plywood Industries Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT513; [2006]147STC72(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to exemption from purchase tax under Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act for the manufacture of block board as per SRO 403/94 read with the clarificatory letters dated 8.6.2002 and 29.6.2002 with effect from 1.1.1994 is the question that is posed for consideration in these cases.2. Petitioners' earlier claim for exemption under SRO 419/90 from the levy of sales tax under Section 5A on the turnover of timber purchased from unregistered dealers in the State and used for the manufacture of block board and block board frames was rejected by the Sales Tax authorities and the Tribunals in the State. This was the subject matter of decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Vattukulam Chemical Industries : AIR2001SC3330 wherein it was held that SRO 419/90 is applicable only in respect of goods taxable at the last purchase point in the State. Several cases were decided on the basis of the above decision of the Ape...
Sankuru Vs. Gopinathan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-2005
Reported in: IV(2006)BC521
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 70.000/-. Signature in the cheque and handing over of the cheque are not disputed. The short contention raised is that the liability has been discharged under Ext. Dl receipt.3. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P7 were marked. The accused, in support of his plea of discharge, examined DW1 and proved Ext. Dl.4. The complainant denied execution of Ext. Dl receipt. Signature therein was stoutly disputed. To prove Ext. Dl the accused examined only his son-in-law as DW1. The Courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that reliance cannot be placed on DWI and Ext. Dl. In view of the stout denial of execution of Ext. Dl by the complainant, the accused must have proved Ext. D1 satisfactorily, it was held concurrently. Accordingly th...
Anthoosons Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT193
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that is posed for consideration in this case is whether the commodity 'Jam' would fall under entry 62 of the 1st Schedule which reads as 'food including vegetative or animal preparations sold in airtight containers and food colours, essences of all kinds and powders or tables used for making food preparations' or under entry 141 of 1st Schedule which reads as 'Squashes, sauces, fruit juices, fruit pulp, soda, mineral water, Horlicks, Boost, Bournvita, Complan, Glucose D, Glucovita and similar other items whether or not bottled, canned or packed'.2. Conflicting views have been expressed on the question whether 'Jam' would fall under entry 62 of the 1st Schedule or entry 141 of the 1st Schedule which led to the assessee to file an application under Section 59A of the KGST Act before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and sought a clarification on the rate of tax on 'Jam'. Commissioner issued a clarificatory order dated 4.7.2005 holding that the com...
George Mathew Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT903
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. This Writ Appeal is filed by 50 Low Tension consumers of electricity challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 38006 of 2002 upholding the demand of the Electricity Board for three months' probable current charges of the appellants as additional security deposit under Clause 14 of the Regulations Relating to Supply of Electrical Energy, 1990. In the Original Petition, the appellants challenged the power of the Electricity Board to demand additional security deposit. However, in view of the Supreme Court decision in Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity Board reported in : [1993]3SCR199 on the basis of which the learned Single Judge upheld the demand, the appellants are now confining their challenge against the demand to the extent the Electricity Board discriminates between High Tension and Extra High Tension consumers on the one hand and Low Tension consumers on the other, in so far as for High Tension and Extra High Tension...
The Welfare Fund Inspector and anr. Vs. N.E. Mohana and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-2005
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ49
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Writ petition was preferred by respondents 1 to 4 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P7 final determination order dated 26-5-1992 and also the appellate order. Ext. P9, passed by the Government confirming the final determination order. Welfare Fund Inspector found that the writ petitioners were conducting toddy shop No. 31 of Alwaye range for the year 1985-86 though licensee was the sixth respondent. Enquiry as contemplated under Section 8 of the Kerala Toddy Workers as contemplated under Section 8 of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969 was conducted on 26-5-1982 by the Welfare Fund Inspector. Sworn statement of the licensee and the workers had revealed that though the shop was bid by the sixth respondent the business was conducted by the petitioners along with the sixth respondent. Licensee and all the writ petitioners were, therefore found to be employers as defined in Section 2(c) of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969. Based ...
Regional Transport Officer Vs. Binu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC646; 2006(1)KLT188
Rajeev Gupta, C.J.1. The Regional Transport Officer, Idukki, the respondent in the Original Petition, is the appellant before us in this Writ Appeal, filed against the judgment dated 6.4.2001 passed in O.P. No. 8536/2001.2. The respondent herein who was the petitioner in the Original Petition filed the Original Petition, for the following reliefs:--i) to quash Ext. P4 issued by the respondent by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order;ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent to issue No Objection Certificate (clearance certificate) in respect of KEH.900 as requested in Ext.P3, forthwith;iii) to issue an interim direction directing the respondent to issue No Objection Certificate (clearance certificate) in respect of KEH.900, forthwith, pending disposal of the Original Petition;iv) to issue any other appropriate writ, direction or order which this Honourable Court deem fit in...
E. Sankaran Vs. Union of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-2005
Reported in: [2006]152TAXMAN620(Ker)
1. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the decision contained in Ext. P2 and f or a direction to the respondents to grant the petitioner 20 per cent of the amount seized by the respondents on 20-4-1989 from the firm M/s. Kushiram Ramchand.2. The allegation of the petitioner is that on information given by him, certain undisclosed income was detected and amounts confiscated and, accordingly, he is entitled to 20 per cent of the amount detected and confiscated as a reward.3. The petitioner filed O.P. 14774/1993, before this Court, which was disposed of as per Ext. P1 directing that untrammelled by any of the contentions raised in the counter-affidavit in that case, the petitioner's case shall be reconsidered by the Chairman of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The Chairman was to issue orders with notice to the petitioner.4. It is thereafter that Ext. P2 has been issued by stating that the Competent Committee consisting of the members stated in Ext. P2 have, after giving opport...
Josita Antony Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC713; 2006(1)KLT393
M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Whether the acceptance of the premium and the proposal for an insurance policy by themselves create a concluded contract? Whether the loss of the insured boat, without proving that the loss was due to one of the perils insured against, will enable the insured to claim the insured sum? These are the questions to be resolved in the appeal.2. Plaintiff in O.S .No. 63/92 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Kochi is challenging the dismissal of the suit in this appeal. Respondents are the defendants. The fishing boat by name 'Kadalthuruthu' was insured with first respondent New India Assurance Company Limited for the period 28-10-1988 to 27-4-1989 under Ext A-2 policy. The policy was not renewed before the expiry of the period. Appellant submitted Ext.B-2 proposal on 11-5-1989. Under Ext.A-2 policy the boat was insured for Rs. 2,00,000. Under Ext.B-2 proposal, appellant claimed the sum assured at Rs. 2,50,000. A premium of Rs. 4,168 was paid on 18-5-1989 for whic...
E. Sankaran Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-2005
Reported in: [2007]288ITR578(Ker)
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the decision contained in exhibit P2 and for a direction to the respondents to grant the petitioner 20 per cent, of the amount seized by the respondents on April 20, 1989, from the firm M/s. Kushiram Ramchand.2. The allegation of the petitioner is that on information given by him, certain undisclosed income was detected and the amounts confiscated and accordingly, he is entitled to 20 per cent, of the amounts detected and confiscated as a reward.3. The petitioner filed O.P. No. 14774 of 1993, before this Court, which was disposed of as per exhibit PI directing that untrammelled by any of the contentions raised in the counter-affidavit in that case, the petitioner's case shall be reconsidered by the chairman of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The chairman was to issue orders with notice to the petitioner.4. It is thereafter that exhibit P2 has been issued by stating that the competent committee consisting ...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. T.V. John S/O T.S. Varkey
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-2005
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR119(NULL)]
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. This writ appeal is filed by the Union of India, the Post Master General, Thiruvanthapuram and the Post Master General, Calicut, against the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 28568 of 2002 whereby they were directed to pay the maturity value of Indira Vikas Patras which were stated to be lost from the possession of the respondent herein, after obtaining a simple bond with sureties from him, undertaking to the Government to make good any loss in the event of any claim being made by anybody under the very same Indira Vikas Patras.2. The main contention of the appellants is that as per the Indira Vikas Patra Rules, since name and other details of the person purchasing the Indira Vikas Patras are not recorded at the Post Office, they are transferable and lost certificates are not replaced, amounts in respect of lost Indira Vikas Patras cannot be paid on the strength of a bond. They particularly rely on Rule 10 of the Indira Vikas Patra Rules, which provid...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »