Kerala Court May 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mathew
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-19-2005
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(Ker)551; [2006]280ITR44(Ker); 2005(4)KLT22
J.B. Koshy, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue raising the following questions as substantial questions of law arising from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 115H of the Income-tax Act? '2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the provision being applicable only in a case where the person was assessed earlier as a non-resident, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in relying on the order of the Tribunal for a subsequent year (1992-93) for which year there was no adjudication of the issue by the Tribunal?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, should not the Tribunal have considered the issue on merits for the assessment year without relying on an order for the subsequent year?'The assessment year is 1991-92. The assessee was a non-resident and he had deposited money in non-resident account with various br...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. N. Nandakumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-18-2005
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Ker)386; [2005]279ITR80(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. The questions of law raised in this appeal by the appellant are the following :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that no penalty could be levied in respect of the two amounts totalling Rs. 1,92,341 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the absence of a finding of bona fide in the absence of findings (or consideration) contemplated under Expln. 1(B) to Section 271(1)(c), Tribunal is justified in relying on the same and in reaching the conclusion ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and when the statute contemplates a finding of 'bona fide' (in discharge of onus) on the assessee, does the finding that 'there is nothing to show that the assessee's claim of receipt of tin sheets on loan from the sister-concern is not bona fide', 'merely because there is no entries in the books it would not be correct to say that the explanation was not bo...
Murali Vs. Joint Registrar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT69
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner is the President of the second respondent society. He seeks to challenge Ext.P13, which is an order issued in exercise of the powers under Section 68(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The issue raised is that the petitioner was entitled to be heard before the issuance of an order in the nature of Ext.P13 in view of Rule 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Sub-rule 5 of Rule 66 provides for a rule of hearing before the Registrar decides to issue orders. Rule 66 of the Rules is directly relatable to the proceedings under Sections 65 and 66 of the Act. This means that while the Registrar proceeds to issue directions as are contemplated under Section 66, the Society is entitled to be heard before any such order is issued. This does not necessarily mean that before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies takes a decision under Section 68(1) of th...
Sebastian Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-17-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC217; 2005(3)KLT930
M. Ramachandran, J.1. This batch of Writ Petitions were heard together and on the suggestion of the parties are being disposed of by a common judgment. We may refer to the facts as narrated in O.P.No. 12774 of 1997 as also W.P.(C) No. 19392 of 2003.2. Excepting W.P.(C) No. 19392 of 2003 the rest of the petitions have been filed basically challenging a Circular issued by the State Transport Authority dated 31.5.1997 (hereinafter referred to as Circular No. 3/97). Further Circulars had also come to be issued in the course of further developments. It may be of relevance to note that ultimately on 11.1.1999 the State Transport Authority had decided that since amendments to Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules were on the anvil, it would have been more appropriate that directives need be issued only after the Government completes such proceedings. It was therefore decided that till that time implementation of Circular No. 3/97 and consequential orders are to be kept in abeyance,3. Nevertheless the p...
Paulose Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT850
M. Ramachandran, J.1. The above two Original Petitions were heard together, and as suggested by the parties, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. Recovery steps under Abkari liabilities are subjected to challenge.2. In O.P.No. 1369 of 1995, there had been advertence to another Original Petition filed by a similarly situated person as O.P.No. 8318 of 1994. After noticing the contentions, this Court, by judgment dated 1.2.2002, had dismissed the said Original Petition. But, however, taking notice of the submissions of the petitioners that the arguments may be noticed afresh, we had gone to the merits of the contentions raised.3. The Original Petitions had been referred to be heard by a Bench, by order dated 13.6.2002. The learned Judge had recorded that the arguments urged by the petitioners with reference to Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act were to be noticed. The scope and impact of the amendment to Rule 13 of the Abkari Shops Departmental Management Rules, 197...
Retnavalli Vs. Ambalapadu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-16-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR1182]; 2005(3)KLT320; (2005)IIILLJ379Ker
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. A very important question affecting the employees of the Co-operative Societies across the State of Kerala arises in this case. The question is whether the gratuity payable to retired employees or legal heirs of deceased employees of Co-operative Societies should be restricted to the maximum prescribed under Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, (for short 'the Act'), Rule 59 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and the bye-laws framed under the said Rule 59, even in cases where the Societies have entered into arrangement with the L.I.C. to have their liability for payment of gratuity to its employees insured as per the 'Employees Group Gratuity Life Assurance Scheme' of the L.I.C., as per which more amounts than the statutory maximum payable as per Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, Rule 59 and bye-laws of the society are payable to the employees.2. The facts of the case fall in a narrow co...
Mathew Fernandez Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT788
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in the appeal. The suit was for return of the articles seized from the residence of the plaintiff on 24.7.1984 or the value of the same estimated at Rs. 3,50,000/- and compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for illegal detention and other . mental agony caused on account of the action of the respondents as stated in paragraph 24 of the plaint. The plaintiff paid a court fee of Rs. 50,000/- in the Trial Court but the appeal was filed as an indigent person. The Trial Court granted a decree for Rs. 38,783.05 which was the admitted amount due to the plaintiff with 12% interest from the date of suit till realisation.2. The averments in the plaint are as follows. The plaintiff came to India on 31.5.1984 after ten years of employment abroad. He brought back some goods used by him. The Customs Preventive Intelligence Unit conducted search of his residence on 24.7.1984 and seized the items shown in the plaint schedule. Notice to show cause as to why tho...
Madhavi Vs. State Election Commission
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT275
A.K. Basheer, J.1. The sole prayer in this Writ Petition is to issue a writ of quo warranto against respondent No. 2 'directing her to vacate the office of the Municipal Councillor from Ward No. 22 of Kozhikode Corporation as she is not qualified to be elected in the reserved constituency for Scheduled Castes'.2. A brief reference to the chequered history of this litigation is necessary to consider the question whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief prayed for.3. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 had contested the municipal election held in September 2000 from a constituency reserved for Scheduled Castes. The petitioner lost the election. She filed an election petition before the Munsiff's Court contending that respondent No. 2 did not belong to a Scheduled Caste and therefore her election from the reserved constituency was not legally valid. The above objection was upheld by the Munsiff's Court. However, the District Court in appeal held that the certificate issued by ...
Thomas Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT443
A.K. Basheer, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this Original Petition is whether the rejection of the declaration filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Kar Vivad Saraadhan Scheme (for short 'the Scheme') is legally valid and sustainable2. The petitioner is an assessee under the Income-tax Act. Consequent on a search made at the residence of the petitioner, an order of block assessment was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax for the period from April 1,1986 to October 15,1996. The above order of assessment was passed on October 29,1997. It is the admitted position that the petitioner filed a revision petition against the above order on January 29,1999 along with a petition to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. A medical certificate was also produced along with the petition for condonation of delay. According to the petitioner, he could not file a revision petition within time since he had undergone a surgery for Retinal De...
E.J. Thomas Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-06-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Ker)83; [2006]281ITR40(Ker)
A.K. Basheer, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this original petition is whether the rejection of the declaration filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (for short 'the Scheme') is legally valid and sustainable 2. The petitioner is an assessee under the IT Act. Consequent on a search made at the residence of the petitioner, an order of block assessment was passed by the Asstt. CIT for the period from 1st April, 1986 to 15th Oct., 1996. The above order of assessment was passed on 29th Oct., 1997. It is the admitted position that the petitioner filed a revision petition against the above order on 29th Jan., 1999 along with a petition to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. A medical certificate was also produced along with the petition for condonation of delay. According to the petitioner, he could not file a revision petition within time since he had undergone a surgery for retinal detachment.3. Shortly after filin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›