Kerala Court February 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.
Ameena Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Ker)265; [2005]275ITR8(Ker); 2005(3)KLT465
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Same questions of law are raised in these appeals filed by the assessee against the common order of the Tribunal for the asst. yrs. 1992-93, 1996-97 & 1997-98. The main question raised for all the three years is whether the Tribunal was right in confirming disallowance of assessee's claim for exemption on export profits under Section 80HHC of the IT Act. The other question pertains to the confirmation of disallowance of assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80I of the Act for the two asst. yrs. 1996-97 & 1997-98.2. We have heard Sri Kochunni Nair, counsel appearing for the assessee, and Sri P.K.R. Menon, senior counsel appearing for the IT Department. The first question pertains to disallowance of exemption under Section 80HHC of the Act. All the three authorities below found against the assessee holding that the assessee which has exported goods through export houses is not entitled to exemption under Section 80HHC(1A) of the Act for the years 1992-...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lakshmi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC833; IV(2005)ACC723; 2005ACJ1873; 2005(2)KLT511
K.K. Denesan, J.1. National Insurance Company -- the third respondent in O.P(MV) No. 384/1991 on the file of the M.A.C.T., Thrissur is the appellant. The appellant has no grievance against the award granting compensation to the claimant. Award is challenged on the ground that the Claims Tribunal fastened the appellant with liability to indemnify the owner of the vehicle ignoring the fact that there was no valid policy as on the date of the accident, i.e., 15.1.1991.2. It is contended that though RW1 was examined on behalf of the appellant and Exts.B1 to B7 were produced and marked to show that there was no policy as on 15.1.1991, the Tribunal without adverting to those documents passed the award directing the Insurance Company to deposit the amount of Rs. 13,000/- with interest in the name of the claimant in a Nationalised Bank. In answer to issue No. 3, framed by the Tribunal, the award says that though the insurer denied the policy in its written statement, no evidence was adduced to...
Poornima Vs. Director of Public Instructions
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT502
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner and the 7th respondent were appointed as HSAs in a School under the 4th respondent Corporate Manager. The 7th respondent was appointed for the first time on 22.12.1999, for a spell from 22.12.1999 to 23.2.2000 and the first appointment of the petitioner was on 22.6.2000, for a spell from 22.6.2000 to 1.11.2000. It is stated that the appointment of the petitioner as above was approved by the competent statutory authority on 22.6.2000 while the question regarding the approval of the appointment of the 7th respondent as above continued to be undecided for quite some time. Ultimately, the statutory authority approved the appointment of the 7th respondent by order dated 20.3.2004.2. Going by the relevant Rule in Chapter XIVA K.E.R., the approval of appointment of the 7th respondent granted as per order dt. 20.3.2004 will relate back to 22.12.1999 and the approved service of the petitioner will be from 22.6.2000. Therefore, it goes without say...
Thankamma Mathew Vs. Ravi Mathew
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT859
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. The common landlords are the revision petitioners in these petitions. Some of the legal heirs of the deceased tenants are the respondents. These cases have had a chequered history by now. Proceedings commenced as early as in 1967 by the landlords filing applications against all their tenants in a common building under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Eviction was ordered both under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iv). The tenants preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority confirmed the direction for eviction under Section 11(4)(iv) and set aside the direction under Section 11(3). Both parties preferred revisions before the District Court, the then revisional authority. The District Court confirmed the order of the Appellate Authority. Thereupon revision petitions were filed before this Court. The order under Section 11 (4)(iv) was upheld. Execution was ta...
Green Valley Builders Vs. Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: [2008]296ITR225(Ker); [2005]149TAXMAN671(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kochi-Bench in I.T.A. Nos. 68 and 109/ Coch./98 and also against the order dated 7-2-2003 in M.P. No. 53/Coch./ 2002.2. Appellant-assessee is a firm consisting of three partners. The firm had filed its return of income for the assessment year 1994-95 on 31-8-1994. Assessee had claimed a loss of Rs. 6,63,630. While completing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, the assessing officer made certain disallowance and additions which resulted in determining the total income of the firm at Rs. 25,00,950. Assessing officer had quantified the loss at Rs. 2,37,530 as against the loss of Rs. 6,63,630 claimed by the assessee. Assessing officer added Rs. 27,38,475 as unaccounted income on sale of land,3. Assessee was engaged in real estate business. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Limited had proposed to start a Nylon filament manufacturing unit at Mylam near T...
Narayana Kurup Vs. Valsala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3266; II(2005)DMC266; 2005(2)KLT199
M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. The interesting question to be decided in the revision is whether the dismissal of a petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance debars the wife forever from claiming maintenance by a second application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The facts relevant for the case is as follows:-- Petitioner is the husband and respondent his wife. They are Hindus. Their marriage was solemnised on 23.5.1975. Two children were born in that wedlock. Respondent had filed M.C. No. 7/80 before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Quilandy claiming maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Petitioner had claimed maintenance for herself as well as their two children who were then aged 21/2 years and 8 months. As per order dated 17.12.1980 learned Magistrate on the evidence adduced granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75 for the eldest child and Rs. 50 per month for the second child. The claim for maintenance by the respondent wife was rejected on the ground that the...
Paul Davis Vs. Gujarat Lease Financing Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: I(2007)BC372
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. A complaint was filed against him by first respondent herein, alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('the Act', for short) in respect of two cheques alleged to have been issued by petitioner in favour of the first respondent. The cheques were allegedly issued in connection with the purchase of a vehicle. Complainant/first respondent is the financier. The vehicle was purchased by petitioner from complainant based on a hire purchase agreement. Petitioner allegedly issued the cheques towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt in favour of complainant. But the cheques when presented, were returned as unpaid. Thereafter, complying with the formalities under the provisions of the Act, the complaint was filed against petitioner.2. According to petitioner, cheques arc not covered by consideration. Those were given as security and those cannot be used against the undertaking given by first respondent. The cheques were not liable to be encas...
Leelamma Vs. Radhakrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT212
V. Ramkumar, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 114/85 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Cherthala, is the appellant in this second appeal. The said suit was one for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's one half share over one item of immovable property described in the plaint A Schedule. The plaintiff also prayed for partition and separate possession of her half share over the plaint B Schedule movables in case the plaintiff s contention that they exclusively belong to the plaintiff is not upheld.2. The case of the plaintiff can be summarised as follows: The plaint A Schedule property belonged to Sanku Kumaran who died on 27.2.1984. After the death of Sanku Kumaran the plaint A and B Schedule properties are in the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the second wife of the said Sanku Kumaran and the defendant is the son born to Sanku Kumaran in his first wife. The marriage between Sanku Kumaran and his first wife was divorced through Court on 31.1.1962. The plai...
Nihas Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT173
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The appellants/accused are faced with conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34. The-appellants are brothers. The deceased Nazimudeen is yet another brother.2. Homicide of Nazimudeen is not disputed. As admitted by the prosecution, Nazimudeen was residing in another house nearby that of the accused along with PW.2, his wife. The deceased had a quarrel with his wife who fled away with her child from his house and took asylum in the house of the accused. The deceased followed her and asked his mother not to give her asylum. PW.1, the mother, kept her in a room to save her from the deceased. The deceased broke open the door and assaulted his mother and attempted assault on PW2. It was in that situation, the accused took MO1 chopper which was available in the front room of the house and inflicted injuries successively on the deceased. He succumbed to the injuries on the spot itself. It is also the prosecution case that one among th...
E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Ramaswamy
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT757; (2005)IIILLJ77Ker
K.K. Denesan, J.1. The opposite parties in I.C.No. 26/97 before the Employees Insurance Court, Kollam have preferred this appeal against the order of the Insurance Court dated 23.11.1999. By the impugned order, the Insurance Court held that the respondents/applicants (herein) cannot be made liable for contribution for the period from 18.9.1991 to 4.2.1997 on the ground that the establishment was under the receivership of Employees Provident Fund (E.P.F.) Authorities during the aforesaid period.2. Respondents were running an establishment by name 'Sreebala TVR Cine House'. They filed an insurance case claiming that the establishment cannot be brought under the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act as the establishment do not have the required minimum number of employees for the purpose of coverage under the Act.3. Respondents herein challenged the action of the appellants, demanding contributions in respect of the employees for the period from 1.7.1991 to 31.3.1997, which admitted...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »