Kerala Court February 2006 Judgments
Rohini Vs. Kumaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: 2006ACJ1709; 2006(2)KLT8
Kurian Joseph, J.1. The period of validity of a driving licence is the issue raised in this writ petition. In the impugned Ext.P2 award in O.P.(MV)No. 1092/1996 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery it was found that there is violation of the permit and policy conditions since the validity of the driving licence of the driver was only upto 9-12-1995. The accident took place on 6-1-1996. The renewal of licence is only on 15-1-1996. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners - owner and driver, is that the licence is effective for a period of 30 days from the expiry. The contention of learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company is that since the licence was renewed on 15-1-1996, the effect is only from the date of renewal and hence the driver involved in the accident which took place on 6-1-1996 did not have valid licence at that time and hence there is violation of permit/policy. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it ...
Tag this Judgment!Chovva Educational Society Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT340
V.K. Bali, C.J.1. Whereas the appellant, petitioner in the original lis, is a tenant, Arakkal Aadiraja Sajida Beebi, the 5th respondent herein, is the land owner. The land and buildings were leased out to the appellant for building up and conducting a high school. It was initially let out by the predecessor of the 5th respondent, Mariyumma Beevi, the former president of the appellant society on an yearly rent of Rs. 400/- on 29th October, 1947, Admittedly the property is still used for conducting the high school. There was no renewal of rent and therefore the 5th respondent claiming the property to be commercial filed an application under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act read with Rule 142 of the Rules framed thereunder for fixation of fair rent. It has been the case of the 5lh respondent that marupattom was executed for a meagre amount only due to the fact that the tharwad belonged to one Muslim Kingdom and benevolence of her predecessor. After coming into effect of the Kera...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Kumar Vs. Public Service Commission
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT50
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner, a member of the Scheduled Caste, was placed at Rank No. l in the supplementary list of Scheduled Caste for selection and appointment to the post of Tradesman (TV Maintenance and Repair) in the Technical Education Department in the Kannur District.2. Petitioner was not advised for recruitment as the turn of the petitioner did not arise while advising candidates as per the rules of reservation and rotation. Rank list which was brought into force with effect from 7-2-1998 had passed through two selection years, viz. 7-2-1998 to 6-2-1999, 1st selection year and 7-2-1999 to 6-2-2000, 2nd selection year. Since the post of Tradesman (TV Maintenance and Repair) was notified for the first time in Kannur District, fresh rotation was followed starting from MRI 1 OC. Five candidates were advised for recruitment from the rank list. During the first selection year, ie., from 7-2-1998 to 6-2-1999, three candidates were advised for recruitment against the three fre...
Tag this Judgment!Jayaprakash Vs. Superintendent of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR927]; 2006(2)KLT41; (2006)IILLJ995Ker
M. Ramachandran, J.1. Petitioners, who are husband and wife, own paddy fields and are engaged regularly in agricultural operations at Payyaloor, Kollengode. They employ permanent workers to attend to all works of farming. During the current year, the third respondent-Union representing employees engaged in headload works in the area had put up a demand that loading works, especially that of paddy available there, should be entrusted to them. Petitioners do not recognise the right, especially since their own permanent workers would have to be kept idling. As there was obstruction and threat of use of force, they had requested for police help, and as this was not forthcoming the writ petition has come to be filed. The interim order passed, as at present, takes cares of the interest of the petitioners now.2. When the matter came up for hearing, we had heard Sri. Binoy Vasudevan, appearing on behalf of the third respondent--Union. He submits that the petitioners are large scale agriculturi...
Tag this Judgment!Saj Flight Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Supdt. of Central Excise
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Ker)490; 2006(2)KLT73; 2006[4]STR432
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Writ Petition was preferred by the appellant seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 and also for other consequential reliefs. Ext.P3 is an order passed by the Superintendent of Central Excise holding that the writ petitioners are providers of catering service to M/s. AIR India and are liable to get registered under Section 69 of Finance Act (No. 2), 2004 and also to follow the provisions of the said Act and Rules with effect from 10-9-2004.2. Writ petitioner submitted that it would not fall within the definition of 'caterer' under Section 65(24) of the Finance Act since petitioner is not providing any catering service. According to the petitioner, those who supply food on occasions like marriage etc. alone can be treated as caterers. Petitioner pointed out that it would not fall within the definition of caterer and no service tax can be imposed on the petitioner. Contention was rejected by the learned single Judge. Learned single Judge Reported in : 2006(...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kerala State Industrial Development Cor ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Ker)371; [2007]289ITR238(Ker); 2006(2)KLT98
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act aggrieved by the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA. No. 445/Coch/96 holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction of the two amounts in question, i.e., Rs. 47,776/- being the debt due from Vanchinad Leather Ltd. and Rs. 27,04,875/- being the debt due from Velton Prefab Elements Ltd. under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. The following questions of law are raised for our consideration:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that the final order of the official liquidator did not become available within the year of account relevant for the present assessment year is not the claim for deduction of the two amounts premature?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for the deduction of the two amounts in questio...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Trivandrum Club
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Ker)265; [2006]282ITR505(Ker); 2006(2)KLT87
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench on a direction given by this Court in OP. 7449 of 1999 has referred the following question of law for our opinion under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the rental income received by the assessee from non-members was not taxableThe Trivandrum Club, the assessee, is a private club situated at Trivandrum. The bye-laws of the club show that it was formed mainly to provide entertainment to its members by providing accommodation, library, reading room etc., and by encouraging sports and games among members. Return of income for the year 1988-89 was filed by the assessee along with a covering letter from M/s. Suri & Co. Chartered Accountants, Trivandrum showing the details of income, but at the same time pointed out that it is not an assessable entity. Assessee's representative had taken up the stand that assessee ...
Tag this Judgment!Gupta Enterprises Vs. Dy. Commissioner
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT494; (2008)12VST313(Ker)
Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. These cases arise under the KGST Act. They may, generally, be called appeal pending matters, though, in some cases, appeals are not filed. Since identical points are involved in these cases, they are heard and disposed of by a common judgment.W.P. (C) No. 31079/052. In this case, the petitioner challenges Exhibit P4 proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Idukki, passed under Section 35 of the KGST Act, setting aside the final assessment orders, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Devikulam, for the years 1992-93,1993-94 and 1994-95, and remitting them back to the assessing authority for fresh disposal, in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said remand, the Commercial , Tax Officer has issued Exhibit P5 notice, proposing to hear the petitioner for completing the assessment. This writ petition is filed, challenging Exhibit P5, without invoking the appellate remedy available to the petitioner. When there is an appellate remedy available under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Vinaya Nair Vs. Corporation of Cochin
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker275; 2006(3)KLT17
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This matter has been placed before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge having expressed doubt with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the learned single Judge's judgment in Ramesh Kumar v. Kannapuram Grama Panchayat 1997 (2) KLT 434 wherein the learned single Judge took the view that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 would apply to a Hindu outside the territory of India only if he is a Hindu domiciled in the territory of India and that he should have permanent residence in India.2. Petitioners herein are husband and wife who belong to Nair community. Their marriage was solemnized on 13-7-2005 at Vinayaka Kalyana Mandapam at Ernakulam in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. First petitioner husband is employed at Canada and second petitioner his wife is a native of Kannur District in Kerala. First petitioner's parental home is at Thodupuzha and parents own properties there. First petitioner was born while parents were at Canad...
Tag this Judgment!intelligence Officer Vs. Ray Constructions Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC751; 2006(2)KLT80; [2006]147STC438(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this case is whether an excavator not running on inflated tyres, but on iron chain plates such as a caterpillar vehicle or a military tank would be a motor vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Section 2(1)(j) of the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994 and therefore would fall under Entry 1 of the Schedule to the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994 and is liable to tax under Section 3 of the said Act.2. Original Petition was preferred by the respondent herein seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P8 order passed by the third respondent holding that the excavator owned by the petitioner is a motor vehicle and liable to pay entry tax as per Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994. Learned single Judge allowed the writ petition Reported in : 2005(2)KLT436 - Raj Constructions Ltd. v. Intelligence Officer hol...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »