Kerala Court July 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.
Pachayammal Vs. Dwaraswamy Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT527
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Whether market value of the property should be taken for calculating court fee when a suit is filed to set aside a gift deed is the question referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge. Section 40 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (in short 'the Act') deals with valuation of suits in such cases. The court below in the impugned order, following earlier Division Bench decisions of this Court held that when a suit is filed to set aside a gift deed as one obtained by fraud and misappropriation, court fee is to be paid on the basis of the real market value on the date of filing of the suit as contemplated under Section 7(3A) of the Act. The above was challenged by the Writ Petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India contending that in the earlier Division Bench decisions, Section 40 was not correctly interpreted. In Krishnan Damodaran v. Padmanabhan Parvathy 1972 KLT 774, Appikunju v. Meeran Pillai 1964 KLT 895, Vasudeva Rao v. H...
Radhamma Vs. Thulasi Bai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT909
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The first among these two Writ Appeals is by the Manager of an aided school, the second respondent in the Original Petition. The second is by a teacher who might be affected by the implementation of the judgment in that Original Petition.2. The Writ Petitioner, the first respondent in the Writ Appeals, while working as Headmistress was placed under suspension on 2.9.02, on the basis of certain allegations as contained in Ext.Pl. This suspension was allowed to be continued beyond 15 days as enjoined in Rule 67 Chap.XIV-A KER, as per Ext.P4 order of the Deputy Director, the first respondent in the Writ Petition. Challenging the suspension order as well as Ext.P4 the writ petitioner approached earlier, in O.P.No. 34944/02, which resulted in Ext.P5 judgment. In Ext.PS, This court directed expedite completion of the formal enquiry and finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings. As the incumbent was a Headmistress the formal enquiry in a disciplinary proceedings as ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Ker)684; [2007]289ITR191(Ker); 2006(4)KarLJ78
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner is the Commissioner of Income Tax feeling aggrieved by the stand of the 1st respondent, reflected in Ext.P2 order dated 18,03.1999 that a rectification application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be signed by the Assessing Officer, this Writ Petition is filed. The brief facts of the case are the following:2. The departmental representative, representing the Revenue before the Income Tax Department filed Ext.P1 application under Section 254(2) of the Act seeking rectification of certain mistakes in an appellate order. The assessee raised objections stating that the application is not maintainable for the reason that it is signed by the departmental representative and not by the Assessing Officer. Upholding the said objection, the said application was dismissed by Ext.P2 order. Though, another petition was attempted, seeking modification of Ext.P2, the same was dismissed by Ext.P4 order dated 26.06.2000. Hence this Writ P...
C.V. George and Sons Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Ker)593; [2006]286ITR389(Ker)
V. Ramkumar, J.1. In this appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), the appellant challenges the appellate order dated August 16, 2000, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I. T. A. No. 486(Coch.)/92. Notice on the following substantial questions of law has been ordered:1. Is not the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee is not entitled to get the benefit under Rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, perverse and illegal ?2. Is the Tribunal justified in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent, holding that the assessee had not filed any confirmation letters from the dealers, in the circumstances of the case, especially when major transactions are with one of the partners of the appellant-assessee ?3. Is not the decision of the Tribunal rendered without affording the assessee an opportunity to furnish the confirmation letters from the dealers in question illegal and opposed to the principles of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›