Kerala Court August 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.
Qualified Private Medical Practitioners and Hospitals Association Vs. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KarLJ81
P.R. Raman, J.1. In all the above Original Petitions there is a common prayer for a declaration that laboratories and clinics which do not conduct pre-natal diagnostic, test using ultrasonography will not come within the purview of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and for a direction to the respondents not to insist for registration of all ultrasound scanning centres irrespective of the fact as to whether they are conducting ultrasonography, under the Act, 1994.2. First petitioner in O.P. 10193/2002 is the Lourdes Matha Hospital and the second petitioner is the P.V.S. Memorial Hospital, Kaloor. O.P. 39084/2001 is filed by the Qualified Private Medical Practitioners and Hospitals Association, represented by its President. O.P. 3446/2002 is also filed by hospitals. In O.P. 2704/2002, there are seven petitioners who are also hospitals situated in different places of State of Kerala. O.P. 2194/2002 is...
Thrissur Municipal Corporation Vs. Ummer Koya Haji
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT897
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. Thrissur Municipal Corporation has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext. P3 common order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur in O.P. Nos. 463, 464, 465, 466, 467 and 468 of 2005 wherein the Forum directed the Corporation to cancel the notices issued by the Corporation to the complainants in those OPs demanding property tax under the Kerala Municipality Act and directed payment of Rs. 1000/- each to the petitioners as costs which has to be adjusted against future tax on the ground that the demands for properly tax were barred by limitation prescribed under Section 539 of the Kerala Municipality Act.2. The Municipal Corporation challenges the said order on three grounds viz, (1) the demand for tax is a sovereign function. Therefore, the same does not come within the purview of service and the complainants in the petitions before the Forum are not consumers of the Corporation and therefore the order of the Forum is without jurisdiction (2). The Keral...
Aspinwall and Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-01-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Ker)475
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. is the appellant in IT Appeal Nos. 21 and 25 of 1999 and Aspinwall & Co. (Travancore) Ltd. is the appellant in IT Appeal No. 30 of 1999.2. Questions raised in all these appeals overlap and hence we are disposing of these appeals by a common judgment. Following questions of law arise for consideration in IT Appeal No. 21 of 1999 which relates to the asst. yr. 1991-92:(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case was the Tribunal justified in confirming the disallowance of the contribution made by the appellant-assessee to the Executive Staff Provident Fund ?(b) Whether Section 40A(9) of the IT Act is applicable to the contribution to executive staff provident fund and should not the Tribunal have allowed the deduction claimed under Section 37 on the basis of the decision of this Hon'ble Court in CIT v. Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. (1993) 111 CTR (Ker) 138 : (1993) 204 ITR 255 in the appellant's own case ?(c) Whether on the facts and circum...
K.J. Babu Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-01-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST901(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Heard the Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Special Government Pleader for the respondent. The order under challenge is penalty restored by the Tribunal after reversing the order of the first appellate authority cancelling the penalty. The consignment in respect of which penalty is levied in 23 cases of liquor transported in a jeep without being accompanied by invoice. The specific case of the petitioner is that consignment was part of purchase of liquor for above Rs. 5 lakhs from the branch office of the Beverages Corporation, Thodupuzha and the common invoice copy was accompanying the lorry which carried bulk of the purchases. The liquor found in the jeep though not accompanied by invoice contained labels of Beverages Corporation. The Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the department has no case that the liquor is illicit because no excise proceedings for seizure or confiscation were initiated. The seizure wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›