Kerala Court February 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.
Radhakrishnan Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT291
Kurian Joseph, J.1. What is 'aggregate income' for the purpose of profession tax under the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and whether Deamess Allowance is to be included in calculating the income are the issues to be considered in this Writ Petition. Section 230 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 permits levy of profession tax by a Municipality. Section 245(2) of the Act provides that 'a person shall be chargeable under the class appropriate to his aggregate income from all the sources...'. Aggregate income is defined under the Explanation to Section 245 which reads as follows :'For the purpose of this Section 'aggregate income' shall not include local allowance or allowances for house rent, carriage hire or travelling expenses'. The expression 'aggregate income' excluded Dearness Allowance also under the Explanation to the section, originally. But the same was deleted by Act 14 of 1999 with effect from 24.3.1999. Under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, right from the inception, the...
Mangalam Publications (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Thampy
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR71]; 2006(2)KLT327
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Whether the grievance of an individual workman is liable to be adjudicated in a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is the question to be decided in this case. Section 10(1)(c) reads as follows:10. Reference of dispute to Boards, Courts or Tribunals.-(1) Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time, by order in writing-(c) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, if it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication.The industrial dispute which is liable to be adjudicated by the Labour Court, is defined under Section 2(k) of the Act which reads as follows:2(k) 'Industrial dispute' means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment o...
Janardhanan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT607
M. Ramachandran, J.1. Although by separate judgments the claims raised by the petitioners in the respective Writ Petitions stand rejected, the appeals were jointly heard and are disposed of together. The appeals have come to be filed pointing out that the judgments require to be re-examined, especially in the light of certain precedents, which had been omitted to be noticed.2. Petitioners in the Writ Petitions had responded to notifications issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission for selection and appointment to the post of Higher Secondary School Teachers (Junior) in different subjects. The facts, excepting in W.A.No. 2199 of 2005, are similar in all respects and we may advert to the pleadings in W.A.No. 2104 of 2005 for the purpose of discussions.3. The appellants there were the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 17364 of 2005. They had responded to the notifications and had come to be included in the supplementary list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission, arraying the n...
Malabar Food Processors (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-2006
Reported in: 2006FAJ256; 2006(1)KLT827
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The question involved in this Original Petition is whether entry A.16.16 in Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, in so far as it prescribes that the pickles of the variety 'pickles in oil' shall be covered with oil so as to form a layer of not less than 0.5 cm above the contents or the percentage of oil in pickle shall be not less than 10 per cent, is ultra vires Section 2(ia)(k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and also whether it is ultra vires the rule making authority of the Central Government under Section 23(1-A)(i) of the said Act.2. Petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the distribution of pickles and other fruit and vegetable products. It is stated that the petitioner company is the main distributor for the fruits and vegetable products manufactured by a firm called Malabar Coast Products, Kottayam, which manufactures pickles under the brand name, namely, 'Palat'. It is alleged that the Food Inspector o...
Janatha Tile Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-2006
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Ker)103; [2006]283ITR35(Ker); 2006(2)KLT426
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Tribunal, Cochin Bench has made this reference under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961. Three questions of law have been referred for consideration which are given below :(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) would survive after passing an order of assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) could be rectified after the order under Section 143(3) was passed ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there could be a levy of additional tax under Section 143(1A) for the first time by an order under Section 154 ?The assessee filed return of income on 31st Dec, 1990 for the asst. yr. 1990-91 declaring a loss of Rs. 1,58,225. AO processed the return under...
Basheer Vs. Pearl Food Products
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT346; (2008)12VST238(Ker)
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioners are two of the workmen of the first respondent, a firm of which respondents 2 to 5 are the partners. The first respondent is an assessee borne on the rolls of the seventh respondent.2. Going by the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 6 and 7, an amount of Rs. 14,80,345/- is due from the first respondent firm as sales tax due for the year 2001-02 and 2002-03. Revenue recovery certificates and demand notices were issued periodically to the first respondent firm and its partners. Since the demands were not satisfied, the movables of the firm were attached on 23.7.2003 and sold in auction for Rs. 17,525/-. Apart from seizing the bank account of the firm in the Syndicate Bank, Cherlai, Kochi and Lord Krishna Bank, Eramallur, two items of immovable properties have been attached during the course of the revenue recovery proceedings. The upset price of the land comes to Rs. 35,80,672/- and that of the building comes to Rs. 55,39,180/-....
State of Kerala Vs. Valiyakulangara Hardwares
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-2006
Reported in: (2007)5VST430(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This tax revision case was preferred by the State of Kerala raising the following questions of law:(a) Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the first appellate authority are justified in coming to a conclusion that the suppressed turnover also is entitled to get exemption since the conceded turnover has already suffered tax and for which no evidence is produced by the assessee?(b) Can the Tribunal and also the first appellate authority come to a conclusion without any materials before it that the suppressed turnover had suffered tax when the accounts of the assessee do not show the said turnover?2. Assessee is a dealer in iron and steel. Assessee has returned a total turnover of Rs. 1,76,56,830 for the year 1990-91 claiming exemption for the entire turnover as second sales for which first point tax has already been suffered. Assessing authority after examining the accounts of the assessee for the relevant year had found that there was shortage of 664.75...
P.P. Mohammed Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC155
K. Thankappan, J.1. Common question involved in these cases is with regard to the power conferred under Section 389, Cr.P.C. on an Appellate Court to impose condition at the time of suspension of execution of sentence and granting bail. Hence all these cases arc heard together and disposed of by a common order.2. All the petitioners who are accused (facing) trial for offences punishable under Section 138 for the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. They were convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for different periods. Some of the petitioners were sentenced to pay fine upto Rs. 2,00,000 and some were ordered to pay compensation to the complainants in tune with the cheque amounts for which the complaints were filed. Against the conviction and sentence ordered by the trial Court, the petitioners filed appeals before the Appellate Courts along with petition for suspending execution of the sentence ordered by the trial Court. The griev...
Vijaya Narayanan Vs. Prabhakaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker373; 2007(1)ARBLR1(Kerala); 2006(1)KLT797
M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Whether a court before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement has only to refer the parties to arbitration or to appoint an arbitrator and refer the parties to arbitration before that arbitrator under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This is the vital question to be resolved in the appeal.2. Appellants were the plaintiffs in a suit for dissolution of a partnership firm and for accounting on the file of Sub Court, Kozhikode. Respondents were the defendants in the suit who are the other partners of the firm M/s.Deepa Restaurant and Tourist Home, Ramanattukara. On appearance before court on receipt of the summons, respondents filed I.A.2676/03, a petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 1996 Act) for a reference to arbitration. The partnership deed admittedly contained an arbitration clause. Appellants did not oppose the petition. T...
Abdul Razak Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT818
M. Ramachandran, J.1. Appellant was the petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 30609 of 2005. The representation submitted by him before the Government had been turned down on 07-07-2005 and although this was not specifically subjected to challenge, collaterally a claim had been made in the Writ Petition pointing out that the period spent by him on leave without allowances is to be counted for the purpose of the grant of a higher grade.2. The learned single Judge noticed that without challenging the earlier orders passed, the Writ Petition could not have been sustainable. On the merits also, it had been held that the claims of the petitioner for reckoning the period of leave without allowances for the purpose of grant of higher grade was legally not sustainable. Aggrieved thereby this Writ Appeal has been filed.3. Sri. Ajith Narayanan, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that a grave error had been committed by the learned single Judge while considering the relevant rules and the matter ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »