Kerala Court March 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.
State of Kerala Vs. Vazhakkala Agencies
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT44; [2006]148STC576(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that is posed for consideration in this case is whether LDPE (Low Density Poly Ethylene) transparent film comes under Entry 91 of the First Schedule or under Entry 101 as plastic products to be taxed at 10%.2. Assessee is a dealer in pesticides, rubber chemicals etc. at Kottayam. Assessment year in question is 1995-96. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Special Circle, Kottayam levied tax at 10% on the sale of LDPE transparent film and denied the reduced rate of tax as per SRO 1541/1993 on the sale of silicon dioxide etc. Assessee took up the matter in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Tribunal was called upon to consider the question whether LDPE transparent film used for packing sold by the assessee is a material used for the purpose of packing and coming under Entry 91 of the I Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and not under Entry 101. Assessing authority and the appellate authority have taken the view that it would not com...
Merchants Association Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT127; (2006)IILLJ985Ker
Kurian Joseph, J.1. An accident to a workman not only upsets the victim and his family but affects the employer as well. If the victim is a headload worker, who is the affected employer and how to meet the liability of compensation are the issues arising for consideration in these cases.2. The validity of paragraph 29 A of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme 1983 providing for Accident Relief Fund for headload workers is under challenge in these writ petitions. The said paragraph was introduced by way of an amendment to the Scheme with effect from November 2002. The impugned paragraph reads as follows:-29A. Accident Relief Fund.--(1) Apart from the welfare levy as a contribution payable to the general welf are fund under paragraph 29 every employer who employs or engages a headload worker in or for an establishment shall pay a contribution at the rate of 2% of the wages actually payable to the headload workers on completion of work for a day as add...
Panchaman Traders Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Ker)224; [2006]283ITR50(Ker)
Kurian Joseph, J.1. In exercise of the power of revision under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 whether the CIT is justified in directing to reopen the computation of income which was not interfered with by the appellate authority in the appeal filed by the assessee on other grounds, is the question to be considered in this writ petition.2. Short facts. The petitioner is the assessee, a partnership firm. The assessment year is 1992-93. Section 44AC in the matter of computation of income was available on the statute book at the relevant time (omitted w.e.f. 1st April, 1993). It was the usual practice at that time, both for the assessee and the Revenue, to take 40 per cent of the purchase price of alcoholic liquor for human consumption other than Indian made foreign liquor (IMFL) as the profit. The petitioner also adopted the same method and returned an income of Rs. 5,25,645 from arrack business (40 per cent of the purchase cost). After setting off the loss in the toddy business the net ...
Siby Jose Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: [2007]289ITR177(Ker)
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner is the transferee of the property, covered by exhibit P-1 sale deed, executed by the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent is in default to the Income-tax Department. This writ petition is filed challenging exhibit P-7 communication, issued by the first respondent, stating that the transfer of the property, covered by exhibit P-l, made by the fourth respondent, in favour of the petitioner, is invalid. This is an order on a claim petition filed by the writ petitioner under Rule 11 of Schedule II to the Income-tax Act. Going by exhibit P-7, it would appear that the fourth respondent defaulter has been served with a notice on November 13,1997, itself. Therefore, according to the first respondent, any transfer made thereafter is void, as the fourth respondent is disabled from dealing with his properties. The petitioner seriously attacks the findings in exhibit P-7. According to him, he entered into an agreement in 1993 with the fourth respondent...
Mayflower Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ394
K.M. Joseph, J.1. Common questions of law having arisen in the Original Petitions and Writ Appeals, they are being disposed of by a common Judgment.2. The Government of Kerala issued Order dated 11-7-1986 wherein it was ordered that tourism will be treated as an industry. Concessions were announced. It included, inter alia, 'exemption from building tax levied by the Revenue Department'. It was also stated in the said Order that action to amend the Kerala Building Tax Act will be taken separately. This position would appear to have been reiterated by its Order dated 30-11-1990. Therein, it was stated as follows:The Ordinance amending the Kerala Building Tax Act has been notified on 06-11-1990. Department of Taxes will issue the notification under Section 3A of the Ordinance.Section 3A was inserted with effect from 6-11-1990. It reads as follows:3A. Power to make exemption.- (1) The Government may, if they consider it necessary so to do for the promotion of tourism, by notification in th...
Thankamma Vs. John
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker237; 2006(2)KLT221
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. C.R.P. No. 57 of 1994 is filed by the judgment debtors 2 and 3 while C.R.P. No. 438 of 1994 is filed by some of the legal representatives of the deceased decree holder, the challenge in both the revisions being against the order in E.P. No. 95 of 1991 in O.S. No. 182 of 1977, on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Punalur.2. The suit was filed by one Maria Nadanial for declaration of title and possession over the plaint schedule property and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of, and enjoyment of the property by, the plaintiff or from trespassing upon the property or destroying its boundaries or committing any waste therein. The trial court decreed the suit declaring the plaintiffs possession over the plaint schedule property. A decree for injunction was also granted as prayed for. However, the prayer for declaration of title was not granted by the trial court on the ground that the plaintiff was n...
Kunhami Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT661
K. Denesan, J.1. Petitioner is the mother of Late Shri Kunjabdulla who died in a road accident on 21/01/1982 while serving the Indian Army in Pattiala. Consequent on his death, some amount was paid to his widow--Smt. Haleema, towards terminal benefits. Ordinary family pension was sanctioned in favour of Smt. Haleema with effect from 22/01/1982. A sum of Rs. 4747/- was also paid on account of death gratuity. Smt. Haleema remarried and lost her right to receive family pension. Shri Kunjabdulla had no issues. On coming to know about the fact of remarriage, the respondents stopped payment of family pension to Smt. Haleema.2. Parents of Shri Kunjabdulla who were depending on him for their livelihood, applied for family pension. Their request was turned down by the second respondent on 10/02/1984 stating that consequent on the disqualification of the widow to receive family pension, ordinary family pension cannot be authorised to the parents. According to the respondents, if any minor child ...
Starline Agencies Vs. R.B. Agencies
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC323; 2006(3)KLT485
K.R. Udayabhanu, J.1. The appellant is the complainant in S.T. No. 293/1997, the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in which the accused was acquitted.2. It is the case of the complainant firm that it is dealers in pipe fitting equipment wholesale had supplied goods to the first accused firm on cash credit basis and A2 who is the owner of the first accused firm had issued the impugned cheque for Rs. 33,630/- towards the amount due as per bills dated 28.3.96, 1.4.96 and 2.5.96. The cheque was dated 30.11.96 and when it was presented, the same was got dishonored on the ground 'funds insufficient'. Lawyer notice was sent to which the accused had replied raising untenable contentions. The evidence adduced in the matter consisting the testimony of PWs. 1 to 4, and Exts. P1 to 10; and the defence examined DW-1 and Exts. D1 and D2 marked.3. It is the case set up by the accused that he had purchased pipe fittings prior to 30.11.95 and the amount due towar...
E.S. Sukumaran and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker250
ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. These writ petitions are filed challenging GO(P) No. 5/2006/Tran. dt. 13-1-2006 issued by the Government of Kerala, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Rules'), thereby notifying that all Tipper Lorries shall be fitted, by the operators of such vehicles, with a speed governor (speed controlling device) conforming to the standard AIS:018, as amended from time to time, in such a manner that the Speed Governor can be sealed with an official seal of the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, in such a way that it cannot be removed or tampered with, without the seal being broken. For the purpose of the said notification, the Note contained therein states that Tipper Lorry' means any class of a Goods Vehicle (except three wheelers), of which the platform for carrying the goods can be raised or tilted hydraulically or...
Thressia Vs. K.S.E.B.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KarLJ94
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner is challenging Ext. P2 revenue recovery proceedings initiated for recovery of Rs. 17,040/-, towards court fee payable in respect of suit, O.S. No. 219/1995 filed originally by the petitioner along with her husband against KSEB claiming compensation for the death of their 17 year old daughter on account of the electric shock from electric line. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner's husband died and consequently children of the petitioner are impleaded as additional plaintiffs in the suit.2. The suit filed by the petitioner and her children as indigent persons was decreed vide Ext. P1. As against the claim of Rs. 2.5 lakhs towards compensation, an amount of Rs. 85,500/- with 9% interest from the date of the suit was granted. The 2nd plaintiff in the suit was awarded a cost of Rs. 3,140/- which includes the stamp duty of Rs. 10/- paid on the plaint.3. Even though the civil court passed Ext. P1 decree, it did not calculate the amount of court...