Kerala Court February 2005 Judgments
Sukumaran N. Vs. Guruvayoor Devaswom Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR113]; (2005)IIILLJ430Ker
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Managing Committee of the Guruvayoor Devaswom by Resolution No. 8, dated August 12, 1993 resolved to revert the writ petitioners to the lower post of Sweepers and further to withhold their promotion for a period of three years. The Committee also ordered that the writ petitioners should deposit Rs. 101 to the Hundi taking a pledge that such misconduct would not be repeated. Decision was later confirmed by the Committee as per Resolution No. 41 dated March 19, 1996. Punishment imposed was communicated to the writ petitioners by Exhibit P-4 order. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioners have approached this Court. Learned single Judge found no reason to exercise jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same this writ appeal has been preferred.Counsel appearing for the appellants advanced a legal contention that the Managing Committee had committed an error in placing reliance on the second...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mother Hospital (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-2005
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Ker)269; [2005]275ITR563(Ker); 2005(3)KLT14
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The Revenue is the appellant in these two appeals filed under Section 260A of the IT Act against separate orders of the Tribunal for the asst. yrs. 1995-96 and 1996-97 on the very same question pertaining to the very same assessee. When appeal for the asst. yr. 1996-97 was admitted, this Court framed some questions of law arising from the order of the Tribunal. However, during hearing of appeals, we felt there is only one issue to be decided in both the cases and accordingly we framed the following question, the answer to which will be sufficient to dispose of the two connected appeals :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in granting depreciation under Section 32 of the IT Act for the building occupied by the assessee-company by reversing the first appellate order confirming disallowance in assessment 2. The controversy arose because the assessee-company admittedly is not the owner of the building under general...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. St. Thomas Cathedral Church, Irinjalakuda
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-2005
Reported in: [2006]153TAXMAN64(Ker)
Ramachandrdn, J.These original petitions are disposed of by a common judgment. The Tribunal had rejected the application for reference, filed by the revenue, on the three questions, i.e.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of sub-section (4A)) of section 11, the assessee, i.e., entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that 'the assessee is a religious and charitable institution and carried on Kuri business for utilising the income therefrom also for the charitable such as medical relief, education etc.3. Whether, on the facts and in, the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the interest claimed cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee trust as it is exempt from taxation2. We have heard learned counsel for the respondent as well. Taking notice of the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel t...
Tag this Judgment!Target Overseas Exports (P) Ltd. Vs. Iqbal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-14-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC152; [2005]127CompCas264(Ker); 2005CriLJ1931; 2005(2)KLT45
R. Basant, J.1. Is a person facing indictment under Section 141 of the N.I.Act entitled to notice under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the N.I. Act? This is the question of law of importance raised in this case.2. The revision is directed against the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The complainant alleged that the 1st accused company, to discharge a legally enforceable debt/liability to him, had issued Ext.P1 cheque for an amount of Rs. 1,78,000/-. The cheque was signed jointly by the 2nd accused, its Managing Director and the 3rd accused, another Director. The cheque, when presented for encashment, was dishonoured on the ground of 'insufficiency of funds'. Thereupon, Ext.P5 notice of demand was issued to all the three accused. Notices issued to the 1st and 2nd accused were returned unserved. Notice issued to the 3rd accused was allegedly served on him and acknowledged under Ext.P8. There was no reply. No payment w...
Tag this Judgment!Sreenivasan Vs. Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-14-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT396
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J. 1. The complainant in M.P. No. 803 7 of 2004 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam is the petitioner. This Writ Petition is filed challenging an order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by which it was decided to conduct an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the complaint filed by the petitioner.2. The petitioner is one of the Directors of M/s. Sujith Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Managing Director of Kalliyara Estates (Pvt.) Ltd. and Vasco Metals and Steels Pvt. Ltd. He is also stated to be the Managing Partner of G.P. Nair Plantations. It is averred that 41.5 cents of land in Survey No. 602/1 of Ernakulam Village along with a building standing thereon belongs to M/s.Sujith Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 11 rooms in this building are rented out to various persons and the remaining rooms are occupied by M/s.Sujith Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. It is averred that rooms 1 to 5 are occupied by G.P. Nair Plantations, 6 to 14 by Kall...
Tag this Judgment!Dy. Director Vs. Manoharan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-14-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT641
M. Ramachandran, J.1. The order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.No. 1007/2001 has been subjected to challenge by the respondents including the Chief Post Master General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram. The direction of the Tribunal was that the applicant (the first respondent herein) to be paid the House Rent Allowance ('HRA' for short) from April 1996 onwards. The Tribunal had held that this was because he had been residing separately from his wife not on his violation but on account of enstrangement and since he was prevented from sharing accommodation with his wife in the quarter allotted to her, he was constrained to have a separate establishment and hence could not have been denied the benefit of HRA.2. A Central Government Employee is entitled to the benefit of HRA. However, in certain circumstances, he becomes ineligible to claim such benefit. R.5(c)(iii) of the H.R.A. Rules deals with such situation, which reads as follows:--'(c) A Gover...
Tag this Judgment!Jaya Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-14-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT543
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner is the wife of defaulter of sales tax dues. She was served with a notice of demand seeking recovery of an amount of Rs. 24,01,476/- and also an amount of Rs. 1,86,65,176/-. Properties were brought to sale to recover the amount and the petitioner has obtained stay. Petitioner has also challenged the validity of Section 26A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and the learned Single Judge referred the matter to the Division Bench and hence the matter has been placed before us.2. Petitioner's husband was an assessee in the rolls of the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax Office Special Circle, Thiruvananthapuram. Penalty proceedings were initiated against him in respect of assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94. Assessing Authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 24,01,476/- for the offence committed under Sub-section (1) of Section 45A. Notice to that effect was sent to him under Form No. 24A on 14.9.1994. On the same day another notice was also sent ...
Tag this Judgment!Thrissur Taluk Chethu Thozhilali Multipurpose Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC382; 2005(1)KLT918
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. These five Writ Appeals relate to payment of amounts under Kisan Vikas Pathras. Under Kisan Vikas Patra Rules, 1988, the amount invested will be paid after the maturity period of 5 1/2 years. The maturity value, after the prescribed period, would be double the amount invested. In the instant cases, co-operative societies had invested the amounts, but, after the maturity period, the promised amount was to be paid by the Postal Department, Government of India who had received the amounts for investment under the Kisan Vikas Pathra Scheme. The Government was prepared to refund only the amount invested and not any amount in addition to the same and that has prompted the co-operative societies to file the Writ Petitions. The learned Single Judge had issued writs directing the Central Government to pay the invested amounts under Kisan Vikas Pathra Scheme together with normal rate of interest applicable to long-term deposits. The Central Government filed W.A. Nos. 9...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT848
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether reservation of the office of the President of a Grama Panchayat exclusi vely to woman belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community under the second proviso to Section 153(4)(d) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act is constitutionally valid, is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. Appellants-petitioners, who are members of Vadavucode Puthencruz Grama Panchayat submit that reservation of the office of President of the Grama Panchayat exclusively to women belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community is opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also would override the provisions of Article 243D of the Constitution of India. Further they also maintain the stand that the second proviso to Section 153(4)(d) is liable to be struck down as ultra vires the Constitution on the ground that such a reservation would amount to 100% reservation offending the principles of democracy.3. Facts and Pleadings:Appellants...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Dasa Prabhu Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker146; 2005(1)KLT933
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. This Writ Appeal has been filed aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition. Writ Petition has been filed questioning the award of the Arbitrator appointed under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The Arbitrator came to be appointed because of the dispute in the quantum of telephone bills dated 1.5.1997 and 1.7.1997 raised against the appellant. Appellant's case is that being a small shop owner and the average bi-monthly bill for all times to come having not exceeded Rs.1,000/-, there was a sudden spurt in the bills dated 1.5.1997 and 1.7.1997, which are hereinafter referred to as the 'disputed bills' and inspite of complaint being lodged soon after the receipt of the disputed bills, proper enquiry has not been conducted and that even the Arbitrator had failed to conduct the enquiry properly and that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated these contentions well.2. Learned counsel for the appellant submit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »