Kerala Court January 2006 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.
Abdul Nazer Vs. K.S.E.B.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker203; 2006(1)KLT811
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.J.1. Writ Petition was preferred seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 order dated 18-3-2005 rejecting the petitioner's objection to the demand for energy charges for the period 1998-99 contending that the same is hit by Section 56(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.2. Petitioner was the Managing Partner of M/s. Soniya Enterprises, Chandiroor which was a small scale industrial unit engaged in the business of manufacturing of ice. Firm was a consumer of electricity having consumer No. 5246. Petitioner submits that the petitioner had sustained heavy loss in the business and accordingly he was constrained to wind up the operations of the unit during the year 1998 and also could not remit the electricity dues. Electricity supply was disconnected on 10-1-1999 due to non-payment of electricity charges and equipment were dismantled on 27-9-2001. Petitioner was served with demand notice dated 16-5-2002 directing him to pay an amount of Rs. 10,38,249/- on or...
Rajesh Vs. K.S.E.B.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT686
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.J.1. Whether the Kerala State Electricity Board (in short 'the Board') is entitled to claim any amount under the minimum guarantee agreement after disconnection of the electricity supply is the question that arises for consideration in this case.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Meledam Saw Mills v. K.S.E. Board 1998 (2) KLT 227 contended before the learned single Judge that once disconnection has been effected, minimum guarantee agreement also ceases to exist, consequently the Board has no legal right to demand any amount under the minimum guarantee agreement. Learned single Judge found that the provisions of the conditions relating to supply of electrical energy which came into force on 1.1.1990 was not considered by the Division Bench and hence referred the matter to the Division Bench.3. Petitioner started a wooden furniture industry under the name and style 'Parayakath Furniture Ind...
Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager Vs. Intelligence Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT834; (2007)8VST434(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.J.1. General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras along with two others have approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Kerala to issue necessary direction to his subordinate officials to refrain from taking action under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act against the Station Masters and other authorities in the various railway stations in the State in discharge of their duties of booking goods and dealing with booked consignments under the provisions of the Railways Act.2. Third petitioner in the Writ Petition was served with a notice dated 5.11.1998 under Section 46/45A of the Kerala General Salestax Act, 1963, for short 'the Sales Tax Act', by the Intelligence Officer, Squad No. II, Commercial Taxes, Trivandrum proposing to impose penalty of Rs. 36,400/- under Section 45A of the Sales tax Act presumably on the ground that the third responden...
Oonnoonny Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT899
K.M. Joseph, J.1. Petitioner entered service in the fourth respondent Bank on 14.12.1964. He allegedly has 40 years of service in the Bank, By Ext.P2 the Committee decided to relax the qualifications in relation to the post of Manager in regard to the petitioner. The feeder categories and the posts which are relevant to resolve this dispute are as stated in Ext. (a).1) General Dy.General By B.A., B.Sc., or B.Com degree of a recognized Manager Manager Promotion University with Higher Diploma in Co-operation or successful completion of JuniorDiploma in Co-operation or diploma in Ruralservice with co-operation as optionalsubjects. Candidates have CAIIB Certifi-cates will be given preference in directrecruitment2) Dy.Gen. Manager By The same as in the case of Gen. Manager,Manager Promotion 3) Manager Accountant By The same as in the case of Gen. Manager. Promotion 4) Accountant Senior By B.A., B.Sc. or B.Com. degree with HDCclerks Promotion or JDC, SSLC or its equivalent and successful com...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. N. Jayaprakash, Package India TIn Fabri ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2006
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Ker)111; [2006]285ITR369(Ker); 2006(2)KLT808
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Actg. C.J.1. Income-tax Appeal No. 149 of 2001 is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in ITA No. 210/Coch/1998 dt. 27th July, 2001 and IT Appeal No. 140 of 2001 is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the same order. We may first deal with the appeal preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961. Assessee has raised six questions of law, of which the first four questions are consolidated, redrafted and stated as follows :1. Is not the notice dt. 1st Oct., 1993 issued under Section 148 legal and valid in the light of the amended provision contained in Section 148 as per Finance Act 2 of 1996?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the assessment order dt. 26th March, 1997 was barred by limitation in terms of Section 153(2) of the Act ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the a...
N. Jayaprakash, Package India TIn Fabricators Vs. Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2006
Reported in: [2006]152TAXMAN432(Ker)
Radhakrishnan, ACTG. C.J. ITA 149 of 2001 is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA No. 21O/Coch/98, dated 27-7-2001 and ITA 140 of 2001 is an appeal preferred by the revenue against the same order. We may first deal with the appeal preferred by the assessee under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 196 1. Assessee has raised six questions of law, of which the first four questions are consolidated, redrafted and stated as follows:-1. Is not the notice dated 1-10-1993 issued under section 148 legal and valid in the light of the amended provision contained in section 148 as per Finance Act 2 of 19962. Whether on the facts and in the Circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the assessment order dated 26-3-1997 was barred by limitation in terms of section 153(2) of the Act 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the additions sustained by the...
Raju Jacob Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT788
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.J.1 This appeal arises out of the judgment in O.P.No. 37852 of 2002 which was disposed of along with certain other original petitions. Learned single judge disposed of batch of cases by common judgment dated 16.12.2002 and the judgment is reported in Prakash Jewellery and Anr. v. State of Kerala 2004 (12) KTR 543. Writ Appeal Nos. 1690 and 1708 of 2003 were filed against the common judgment and those appeals were dismissed by this Court on 25.11.2005. Counsel for the appellant however submitted that the facts of this case stand on a different footing and addressed elaborate arguments.2. Assessee in this case having opted for payment of tax at the compounded rate as provided under Section 7(1)(a) of the Kerala General Salestax Act, 1963 wanted to withdraw the option under Section 5 of the Act. Assessee is a dealer in gold ornaments. Gold and silver ornaments are taxable at the point of first sale in the State by virtue of Section 5(10) read with relevant entry ...
Abdu Vs. Gopalakrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT701
R. Basant, J.1. Petitioner is the sole defendant in a suit for money on the basis of Ext.P1 document. The petitioner denies execution of Ext.P1. It is inter alia contended that Ext.Pl is not an agreement as described in the document and is a bond. The petitioner contended that the bond is not properly stamped and is hence not admissible unless the requisite stamp duty and penalty are paid. On the contentions raised inter alia an issue was raised as to whether Ext.P1 document is a bond or agreement.2. The matter was listed for trial. There was no specific insistence that the issue as to whether Ext.Pl is a bond or agreement must be decided as a preliminary issue. Parties went to trial. Proof affidavit was filed by the plaintiff. The court below, considered the objection that Ext.P1 must be reckoned as a bond and not an agreement and should not be admitted in evidence without payment of the requisite stamp duty/ penalty. Vide Ext.P3 order passed by the learned Munsiff in the course of re...
Chackolas Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT989; [2006]145STC250(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.J.1. Common question arises for consideration in all these cases, hence we are disposing of the same by a common judgment.2. Legislative competence of the State in empowering the Government to levy additional court fee in respect of appeals or revisions to the Tribunals and appellate authorities under Section 76(1) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 was questioned before the learned single Judge without success. Though appeal was preferred against the various findings of the learned single Judge including the findings regarding legislative competence of the State to impose such a levy learned Counsel appearing for the appellant did not dispute the legislative competence of the State to levy the fee as per Section 76 of the Court Fees Act.3. Counsel for the appellant Sri. A.K. Jayasankar however contended that imposition of levy by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the Court Fees ...
Mani Vs. Tata Tea Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT310
ORDERK. Thankappan, J.1. The first counter petitioner in I.A. No. 1622 of 2001 in O.S. No. 88 of 2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Thodupuzha is the revision petitioner.2. The above suit was filed for declaration of title and right of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule properties and for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint B schedule property and destroying the boundary walls and the improvements in the property. I.A. No. 1622 of 2001 was filed by the plaintiff in the suit seeking to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.3. As per the plaint averments, the respondents in I.A. No. 1622 of 2001 trespassed into 12 cents of land out of the decree schedule property owned and possessed by the plaintiff. While the suit was pending, an application was filed for temporary injunction which was dismissed by the court below finding that part of the property in question was in the possession of the defe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »