Kerala Court October 2006 Judgments
ismail Vs. P.C. Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT831
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This Election Petition is filed by one of the defeated candidates challenging the election of the first respondent to the House of People from 12 H.P. Muvattupuzha Parliamentary Constituency in the election held on 10.5.2004. The first respondent won the election with a margin of 529 votes over the petitioner who got second largest number of votes. While the petitioner was the candidate from CPI (M), a constituent of Left Democratic Front, the first respondent was the candidate from the Indian Federal Democratic Party, a constituent of the National Democratic Alliance, and the second respondent who also contested the election on party lines was from. Kerala Congress (M), a constituent of the United Democratic Front. When the first respondent secured 2,56,411 votes, the election petitioner got 2,55,882 votes and the second respondent secured 2,09,880 votes. Respondents 3 to 15 contested the election as independents and all of them got insignificant number of...
Tag this Judgment!K.S.E.B. Vs. Karthiyayani
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ker102; 2006(4)KLT1006
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The suit from which the appeal arises was filed by the plaintiffs as indigent persons. The application to file the suit as indigent persons was filed on 22.5.1999. That application was allowed on 22.7.2002 and the Original Petition was converted as O.S. No. 657 of 2002 on 26.10.2002. The suit was decreed directing the defendants to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation to the plaintiffs with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. The appeal is filed by defendants 1, 2 and 3. Valuation as well as court fee are calculated by them reckoning interest from 26.10.2002, namely, date of conversion of the petition as suit. Registry has pointed out that interest should have been calculated from 22.5.1999 and at the instance of the appellants, the question has been placed before us.2. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that interest is payable only from the date on which the Original Petition was converted into a suit and not from the d...
Tag this Judgment!Silk Fab Exports Vs. Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-2006
Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Ker)495
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in the appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A(l) of the Income Tax Act, is against disallowance of Rs. 56,84,591 under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner who was engaged in purchasing massive quantity of fabrics during 1994-95 from various persons made payments of above Rs. 10,000, other than through account payee cheques and by demand drafts which attracted disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act. Even though the petitioner claimed benefit of exemption with reference to Rule 6DD(l) of the Income-tax Rules, petitioner could not establish the facts required to grant benefit of exemption. Thereafter the disallowance of exemption was contested in two rounds of statutory appeals but confirmed by an authorities including the Tribunal. In order to grant exemption of expenditure over Rs. 10,000, Section 40A(3) requires that such payments should be made through account payee cheques or demand drafts. However, Rule...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-2006
Reported in: (2007)7VST621(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1 Both the tax revision cases are filed by the same bank challenging the order of the Tribunal sustaining sales tax assessments on the sale of bullion to exporters for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92. The case of the petitioner is that the disputed quantity though delivered to exporters in the relevant year, was invoiced in the subsequent year after fixation of price. Therefore, according to the petitioner, sale of such quantity should be assessed in the succeeding year. However, the assessing officer estimated turnover in respect of full quantity delivered in the assessment year and assessed to tax. In the first appeal, the appellate authority though rejected the claim, directed acceptance of actual sale figures accounted in later year. This was confirmed by the Tribunal against which revisions are filed.2 We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.3 The petitioner's case is that though goods, namely, bullion was del...
Tag this Judgment!Midhun Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ51
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The petitioner is a Diploma holder in engineering, who passed the Diploma course conducted by the Board of Technical Examinations, Bangalore. He applied for admission to the B.Tech course in Kerala through the lateral entry system whereby the candidates who have passed diploma can directly be admitted to the 2nd year of the B.Tech course. According to the petitioner, he passed the common entrance examination conducted as per Ext. P2 prospectus. He has also 60 per cent marks for 5th and 6th semester examinations together. Therefore, according to him, he is eligible for admission as per Clause 4 of Ext. P2. However, he has not been given admission. Therefore, he has approached this Court seeking a direction to the 5th respondent to give admission to the petitioner in the lateral entry stream as per Ext. P3 rank certificate.2. The learned Government Pleader would submit that Clause 4 of Ext. P2 has been introduced in terms of Clause 11(c) of the Rules and Regulations o...
Tag this Judgment!Sweet 'O' Sour Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST85(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The common question raised in the connected revisions filed by the very same petitioner is whether the petitioner's product marketed under the brand name 'golden mixture', which is otherwise known as namkeens is a food or vegetative preparation sold in air-tight containers attracting sales tax at 12.5 per cent under entry 56 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Counsel appearing for the petitioner produced packing cover of the product, which shows that it is a product manufactured by Haldiram's, who are probably market leaders of the product. While the brand name of the product is 'fresh and tasty golden mixture', the cover contains a description of the product as namkeens, a tasty treat, the cereal-based crispy snacks, machine-packed for freshness, the hand-picked spices. The packing cover is a double layer material with inside plastic and outside alumnium foil. Admittedly the product is sealed air-tight on either side and has c...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Vs. Babu M. Palissery
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT809
ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner, an elector, challenges the election of the respondent to the Kerala Legislative Assembly from No. 56 -- Kunnamkulam Assembly Constituency, in the election held on 29.04.2006.2. Going by the pleadings in the election petition, the respondent, Babu M. Palissery, son of Chinnappan Nair, Mullath House, is included at Serial No. 802 in the electoral roll of No. 55 -Vadakkancherry Assembly Constituency of the Kerala Legislative Assembly.3. According to the petitioner, the above inclusion of the respondent in the electoral roll is illegal in terms of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, hereinafter, the '1950 Act', for short; the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter, the '1951 Act', for short; the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, hereinafter, the 'R E Rules', for short and the Constitution of India. It is also his case that there is no proper submission of the nomination paper, in as much as the affidavit in Form 26...
Tag this Judgment!Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank Vs. Joint Registrar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT959
K. Thankappan, J.1. Petitioner bank challenges Ext.P9 order, by which the 1st respondent Joint Registrar rejected the request of the petitioner for sanction to purchase a new vehicle.2. Petitioner bank is having its Head Office at Eraviperoor, Thiruvalla and has got 15 branches. The total deposits of the petitioner bank are more than Rs. 100 crores and the share capital is Rs. 212.5 lakh. The staff strength of the petitioner bank is 17, including two drivers. The bank has got two vehicles, one jeep and one car. Since the car started having mechanical problems, the Managing Committee of the petitioner bank decided to sell the car and to purchase a new vehicle as per resolution dated 27-5-2006. The resolution was forwarded to the 1st respondent with a covering letter requesting for sanction to purchase a new vehicle. The 1st respondent by Ext.P6 order directed the petitioner not to proceed with the steps for the purchase of the new vehicle pending disposal of the complaint filed by the 2...
Tag this Judgment!Ajesh Alex Vs. John
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1481; 2006(4)KLT828
ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The short issue that arises for decision is as to what constitutes 'the amount in dispute in the appeal', for the purpose of Sub-section 2 of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. This question falls for determination on an objection raised by the Registry regarding the numbering of this appeal, on the ground that the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal as per the award under challenge is less than Rs. 10,000/-.2. By the impugned award, the claimant is allowed 'to realise compensation of Rs. 9050/- (Rs. Nine thousand and fifty only) with 9% interest from 17.11.03 till realisation along with cost of Rs. 225/- from the respondents.3. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, this appeal is against the whole of the award and that, by adding on amounts that would accrue by way of interest from 17.11.03 till 3.1.05, the date of the impugned award, and the cost of Rs. 225/- awarded by the...
Tag this Judgment!Damien Subsidies and Kuries Ltd. Vs. Jose Pulicken
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2006
Reported in: [2007]137CompCas288(Ker); (2007)2CompLJ479(Ker); [2007]77SCL178(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by a public limited company aggrieved by the order of the Company Law Board1 directing the company to transfer the share in favour of the respondent-petitioner and to issue duplicate certificate after registering the transfer.2. The respondent herein filed a petition under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking a direction to the company to enter his name in the register of members. The petitioner stated that hie has purchased one share held in the name of one Chacko Pulikken from his legal heirs on November 10, 1997, and sent the instrument of transfer along with the share certificate together with the deed of sale dated November 10, 1997, to the company for registration of transfer since the same was the subject-matter of a trust authored by late Pulikken Ouseph Chacko. Company refused to register the transfer in the name of the petitioner.3. Sri C.M. Devan, senior counsel appearing for the company submitted that the Co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »