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. Deccan Industries
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT125
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. These Tax Revision Cases have been preferred by the State of Kerala raising the following questions of law, which are extracted hereunder:i) Is not the Tribunal in error in its conclusion that steel springs sold by the assessee would fall under Entry 2(ii)(d) and 2(ii)(f) of the Second Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act?ii) Is not on a proper interpretation of the classification of the entries for the purpose of taxation under the Kerala General Sales tax Act, steel springs would fall only under Entry 99/68 of the 1 st Schedule to the KGST Act?The assessee is a dealer in various types of steel sections, channels, bottom plates and wire coil (springs) mainly used for rolling steel bars. Assessment years in question are from 1991-1992 to 1996-1997. Primary question that has come up for consideration in these cases is whether steel spring sold by the assessee would fall under Entry 99 of the First Schedule for the year 1991-92 which was taxable at 6% and...
Commissioner of Police Vs. Abida Beevi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT112
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioners are respectively, the Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram, the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department and the Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala. They have approached this Court, challenging Ext.P2 order of the Lok Ayukta, directing them to disburse the pay and allowances, due to the deceased husband of the first respondent herein, for the period from 26.06.1974 to 28.08.1988. The said respondent's husband was a Police Constable, who was dismissed from service on 26.06.1974, invoking the provisions of Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India, without holding any enquiry into the allegations against him. Finally, the Government, by order dated 30.07.1990, ordered to reinstate the complainant's husband and others, who were dismissed along with him, in service as it was found that there was procedural impropriety in terminating their services. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:3. The Governor is...
National thermal Power Corporation Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT235; (2007)6VST655(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner is challenging Exts. P1 and P5 orders by which entry tax and penalty thereon are demanded for purchase and import from outside the State of a Tower Wagon and Tree Trimming Vehicle, a Foam Tender and a Dry Chemical Powder Tender vehicle. While the case of the petitioner is that none of the three items fall within the description of 'motor vehicle' as defined under Section 2(j) of the Entry Tax Act read with Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act the case of the respondents is that all the three vehicles are motor vehicles of Tata make, though equipped with machinery and fittings for tree trimming and repair of electric line at high altitude and for fire fighting and therefore, entry tax was payable. Having failed to file the returns and pay the tax, the petitioner was assessed for tax and penalty is the case of the respondents.2. In order to appreciate various contentions, the nature and function of the various items have to be gone into. The...
Joseph Vs. Intelligence Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT444; [2006]145STC479(Ker)
K.T. Sankaran. J.1. The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P. Nos. 5020 of 1995, 5019 of 1995 and 5034 of 1995 in these Writ Appeals. The Writ Petitions were filed by the appellant against the common revlsional order passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Board of Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram.2. The appellant runs a jewellery under the name and style 'M/s. Velliappally Jewels' at Palai. On 21.10.1986, eleven shops at Palai town were inspected by the Central Intelligence Squad, Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax, Ernakulam. It is admitted that on that day, the shop of the petitioner was also inspected. A shop inspection report (hereinafter referred to as 'SIR') (Annexure B in the Writ Appeal) was prepared incorporating the stock of goods available in the business place. It was signed by the appellant endorsing that he received the copy. In the 'SIR', it is recorded thus: 'Separate receipt issued for records received.'' However, the appellant refused t...
James Vs. Accountant General
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT870
Kurian Joseph, J.1. What is the subscription in terms of the General Provident Fund (Kerala) Rules and what is the subscription which attracts interest are the simple question to be decided in this case. The subscriber to the General Provident Fund is entitled to make subscription in terms of Rule 11. Rule 11 reads as follows:11(1) The amount of subscription shall be fixed by the subscriber himself, subject to the following conditions.(a) It shall be expressed in whole rupees.(b) It may be any sum, so expressed, not less than 6 percent of his emoluments and not more than his emoluments.2. The minimum mandatory subscription is not less man 6%'of the emoluments and the maximum is the total emoluments. The term 'emoluments' is defined in Rule 2(b) which reads as follows:-Except where otherwise expressly provided 'emoluments' means pay, leave salary or subsistence allowance as defined in the Kerala Service Rules or other Service Rules applicable to the officer concerned and includes dearne...
Saranya Zaveri and anr. Vs. Kamadon Academy P. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: [2006]133CompCas546(Ker); 2008(38)PTC554(Ker)
V. Ramkumar, J.1. The two defendants in O.S. No. 23 of 2005 on the file of the Second Additional District Court, Ernakulam, are the petitioners in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit. The aforementioned suit filed under Section 26 read with Order VII, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, is for a declaration that the plaintiff is the exclusive owner and proprietor of the marks Kamadon and Melchizedek method of meditation technique and its innumerable logos, insignias, emblems, devices and materials and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves or through their directors, heirs, legal representatives, assignees, servants, agents, etc., from using, deploying, advertising or otherwise adopting in any manner the marks Kamadon and Melchizedek or any deceptive imitation thereof and to render a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›