Kerala Court July 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.
Kerala State Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Ker)653; [2006]282ITR647(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner, a Government of Kerala undertaking, is challenging Ext. P12 demand notice issued under Section 156 of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter called the 'Act', demanding excess interest paid by the Government to the company as computed by the Chief CIT, pursuant to Ext. P4 order of the Tribunal. Petitioner has paid advance tax of Rs. 1,05,00,000 for the asst. yr. 1998-99. Though petitioner filed IT return for the very same year, it was not accompanied by audit report in terms of Section 44AB of the IT Act, and so much so, the return was treated as invalid one. However, the AO issued Ext. P1 assessment order whereunder petitioner was granted refund of the entire advance tax paid by it with interest under Section 244A of the Act amounting to Rs. 47,25,000. However, the AO later found that delay in completing the proceedings resulting in refund for substantial period was attributable to the assessee and so much so, granting of interest for the full period fr...
South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT65
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether a decree obtained by a bank before the introduction of Section 26B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 would override the first charge created in favour of the State.2. The South Indian Bank Ltd. instituted a suit, O.S.720 of 1992 before Sub Court, Trichur for realisation of amounts due to the bank. Loans were secured by equitable mortgage of immovable properties created by deposit of title deeds by respondents 3 to 5. Suit was decreed on 30.1.1995 for an amount of Rs. 3,51,36,073,18 inclusive of costs with future interest at 23.25% from the date of suit till realisation by sale of items 1 to 12 in the plaint A schedule immovable properties and also the movables described in plaint B to F schedule. Bank also filed OA. 1081 of 1998 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ghennai for recovery of the amounts as per the decree by sale of immovable properties mortgaged in favour of the bank. Notic...
P.E. Arifa Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ59
A.K. Basheer, J.1. The traumatic and harrowing experience of a young housewife at the hands of the Police, as unfolded in this Original Petition, has thrown up the very same exasperating and oft repeated question, yet again.2. Is the basic human right to dignity and personal liberty at such low premium in the hands of the police? Can a citizen and that too a woman, be detained by the police in illegal custody and dumped in the midst of sickly and old destitutes in a rescue home for days together with impunity3. These disturbing questions have arisen in the following facts and circumstances.4. Admittedly, the petitioner was taken into custody by the Police from her parental home at Pulleppady in Ernakulam at about 9.30 AM on May 24, 1997. She was brought to the Vanitha Police Station, Ernakulam and detained there till 5,30 in the evening. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was thereafter taken to a rescue home known as 'Palluruthy Relief Settlement' in the suburb of Ernakulam...
Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR147]; 2005(3)KLT622
P.R. Raman, J.1. The appellant is the Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Thrissur. The appellant challenges the order passed by the Employees' Insurance Court in I.C. No. 76 of 1996 to a limited extent. Respondent herein is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and is an establishment covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act and who was the applicant before the Employees' Insurance Court. Though the application was originally filed by M/s. Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd., since M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited took over the said company, a plea was made to amend the cause title, which was allowed by the court below and thereafter, the matter was prosecuted by M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited, the respondent herein.2. The respondent is engaged in the manufacturing, marketing and exporting of various products including tea and is having office at Willingdon Island, Kochi. The employees of the respondent Company are covered under the Employees' State I...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. United Marine Exports
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-2005
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Ker)298; [2005]278ITR155(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether the export premium received by a supporting manufacturer from an export house would fall under the expression 'brokerage, commission charges or any other receipts of similar nature' contemplated under Sub-clause (i) of clause (baa) of Explanation to Section 80HHC(4A) of the IT Act, 1961 is the question that has come up for consideration in these cases.2. IT Appeal No. 140 of 2001 arises out of the order passed in ITA No. 152/Coch/1999 dt. 30th March, 2001 by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench. IT Appeal No. 62 of 2001 arises out of the order passed in ITA No. 183/Coch/2000 dt. 7th Dec., 2000 and IT Appeal No. 320 of 2002 arises out of the order passed in ITA No. 233/Coch/1996. Common issues arise for consideration in all these cases and hence we are disposing of the same by a common judgment.3. Assessee in IT Appeal No. 140 of 2001 claimed deduction under Section 80HHC(3A) of the IT Act at the assessment stage and the AO excluded 90 per cent of the export house...
Suresh Kumar Vs. Ranjan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC906; 2005(3)KLT531
M. Ramachandran, J.1. Taking notice of the common nature of the contentions that had been urged by the parties, the two Writ Petitions, as above, were heard together and could be disposed of by a common judgment, although facts which have been narrated in the petitions, are to be adverted to separately.W.P.(C) No. 13846 of 20052. Petitioners are respectively the President and Secretary of an Association, functioning at Kottayam District, representing a class of persons known as Transporting Agents. Originally, there were five private respondents. 6th and 7th respondents respectively are the Superintendent of Police, Kottayam and the Circle Inspector of Police, West Police Station, Kottayam. Additional 8th respondent - Regional Transport Officer, Kottayam-- had been impleaded. An impleading petition as I.A.No. 7362 of 2005 had been filed by the Lorry Owners Federation, Kottayam, as they would have been affected by the orders passed, indirectly.3. According to the petitioners, interventi...
Roshy Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3657; 2005(3)KLT796
K. Thankappan, J.1. Accused 1 to 3 in S.C. No. 86/1999 on the file of the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Palakkad are the appellants. The offence alleged against the appellants and the 4th accused, who was discharged by this Court as per order dated 28-5-2002 in Crl. RP. No. 206/2000, is under Section 57A(1)(iii) of the Abkari Act. As per the prosecution case, on 15.4.1996 at about 3 p.m. while on the basis of the permit issued to the 1st appellant, who was the toddy shop contractor of Group Nos. III, XIII, XVI, XVIII and XXIX of Thrithala Range for the period 1996-1997, appellants 2 and 3 were transporting 400 litres of toddy in two plastic barrels of 200 litres each in the Mini Lorry KL 7B 745, the excise party stopped the vehicle and took the sample of toddy for examination and on chemical examination 8 milligram of chloral hydrate per one millilitre was found in the sample of the toddy, which, according to the prosecution, is a dangerous substance to human l...
Abdul Jaleel Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT807
Kurian Joseph, J. 1. The possibility and procedure in getting refund of value of impressed stamps and executed instruments is the issue arising for consideration in this case. Petitioner purchased non-judicial stamp paper to the value of Rs. 16,600/- on 30-8-1994 for the purpose of execution of a sale deed. The vendors Mr. P.T. Skaria and Mrs. Chinnamma Skaria executed a document by affixing the signatures on 31-8-1996. The same was promised to be registered on 1-9-1994. It is stated in the Writ Petition that Sri. Skaria fell ill on 31-8-1994 after the execution and hence registration did not take place on 1-9-1994. It was noticed that there was a mistake in the extent and survey number of the property and hence the registration got delayed further. In the meanwhile Sri.P.T. Skaria died. It is submitted that after correcting the mistake the legal heirs of Sri. Skaria along with Smt. Chinnamma Skaria executed another document on 3-8-1996 and got the same registered on the same date. Ext...
George Vs. K.S.E.B.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT714
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellant-contractor challenges the order of the civil court in modifying an arbitral award. The appellant and the second respondent executed agreement No. 17/81-82 dated 30.9.1981 for the contract work of casting 2000 Nos. of 8mm long RCC poles using departmental steel moulds. The work has to be completed on 9.12.1981. The Board has not supplied the moulds as agreed in the agreement and cement and steel rods were supplied only after a delay of 32 months. In these circumstances, the contractor was compelled to purchase his own moulds and supplemental agreement was also executed for casting 2000 Nos. of poles. Final bill was received under protest and the matter was referred for arbitration. Existence of arbitration clause is not disputed. The Arbitrator awarded Rs. 33,298/- towards damages of general increase at the rate of 25%; Rs. 91,907/- towards rates for using own moulds and Rs. 3,333/- towards ground rent totalling to Rs. 1,28,538/- with 12% interest from 12.3.19...
State of Kerala Vs. P. Mohammed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-01-2005
Reported in: [2006]145STC427(Ker)
P.R. Raman, J.1. The following is the question of law raised for consideration in this revision : Is not the Tribunal in error in holding that the assessee is entitled to concessional rate of tax in respect of sale of gunny bags to a manufacturer of cattle feed, when the sales turnover of cattle feed stands exempted from payment of tax under S.R.O. No. 504/89 2. The assessee is a manufacturer and dealer in gunny bags. He filed valid form 18 declaration supplied by the buyer, viz., M/s. Koyemco Solvent Extraction, Calicut, who purchased the said gunny bags for packing cattle feeds produced by them. The Additional Income-tax Officer found that since the respondent/assessee has sold gunny bags against form 18 declarations to a dealer in cattle feed, which was exempted from payment of tax for the period from April 1, 1989 to March 31, 1991 by virtue of the notification granting exemption, he is not entitled to the concessional rate of tax. It was held that under Section 5(3) of the Kerala ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›