Kerala Court January 2007 Judgments
J.V.J. Liquors Vs. the Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KLT50; (2007)10VST512(Ker)
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. In this original petition a question of law has been raised by an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (for short 'KGST Act'), as to whether for delay in payment of surcharge under the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957 (Surcharge Act), interest can be levied under Section 23(3) of the KGST Act in the absence of a specific provision in the Surcharge Act for levy of interest2. The facts necessary for disposal of this original petition are as follows. The petitioner was a firm engaged in the business of retail sales of arrack during the year 1992-'93. The petitioner opted to pay tax under Section 7(14) of the KGST Act to remit tax on compounded rates as per Ext. P1 order. Pursuant to Ext. P1 order, the petitioner paid tax in monthly instalments after deducting the tax paid on purchase of arrack at the first sale point. Although at that point, surcharge under the Surcharge Act was also leviable on the tax so paid, the same was not paid as original petitions...
Tag this Judgment!Chandy Mathew Vs. Assistant Registrar of Companies and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: (2007)2CompLJ61(Ker); [2007]76SCL471(Ker)
ORDERK.R. Udayabhanu, J.1. The petitioner in Crl MC No. 4993/2003 and the petitioner in the Crl MC No. 5001 of 2003 is the Managing Director of Duroflex Coir Industries Ltd, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, against whom criminal proceedings have been initiated vide ST No. 84/2000 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Court, Ernakulam, for the offence under Section 211 of the Companies Act 1956 (Crl MC 4993/2003) and for the offence under Section 209 of the Companies Act vide ST No. 85/2000 and against the above petitioner and another director have filed MC No. 3906/2005 with respect to the proceedings initialed against them for the offence under Sections 628 and 209(1) of the Companies Act vide ST 79/2000. The petitioner has sought for setting aside the proceedings initiated, as, according to them, the violation alleged are covered by the immunity clause contained in the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (hereinafter men...
Tag this Judgment!Salilan Vs. D.i.G. of Police and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR295]
Kurian Joseph, J.1. The Writ petition is filed mainly with the following prayers:(i)Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st and 3rd respondents to provide alternate employment to the petitioner as Typist/Clerk forthwith;(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st and 3rd respondents to grant disability pension to the petitioner with effect from the date of his discharge, from CRPF with 18% interest;(iii) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the originals of Exts. P3, P4, P9 and P12 and to quash the same.2. The facts to the extent not disputed and stated in the counter affidavit read as follows:No. 861162052 Ex Rt. M. Salilan was enrolled as a Constable in Group Centre, CRPF, Avadi on 9.12.1986 and was undergoing basic training in the Recruits Training Centre-11, CRPF, Avadi. While undergoing training he sustained injury on his left leg on 4...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Glen View Rubber Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-30-2007
Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Ker)366; [2007]291ITR1(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Actg. C.J.1. This matter has been placed before us on a reference made by the Division Bench after having doubted the correctness of the Bench decision of this Court in CIT v. Steel Complex Ltd. : [1999]238ITR1054(Ker) wherein this Court has taken the view that the expenditure incurred on the installation of water treatment plant and fume extraction plant is revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure. Referring Bench opined that the asset created is of a durable nature and its maintenance and operating cost only could be called revenue expenditure while the investment could only be capital.2. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacture of latex and such other rubber products. During the financial year 1991-92 assessee installed a water pollution treatment plant spending an amount of Rs. 4,31, 017 in due compliance with the direction of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. For the year ended 31st March, 1991, relevant to...
Tag this Judgment!Philomina Francis Vs. the Accountant General of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ83
K.M. Joseph, J.1. Case of petitioner, in brief, is as follows:Petitioner is a retired Govt. L.P. School Headmistress. She retired on 31-03-2005. She had availed a term loan from State Bank of Travancore, Kalpatta Branch. The loan amount obtained was Rs. 90,000/- in the years 2003 and the amount was being renvtted in the loan amount. It is stated that there happened difficulty in repayment of the loan due to financial difficulties. It is stated that the petitioner has to pay off the liabilities of State Bank of Travancore. The amount is demanded. The total DCRG amount of petitioner is Rs. 1,05,000/-. According to her, respondents 1 & 2 have no authority to recover any amount from the DCRG due to petitioner towards the Bank's liability. Second respondent has fixed the liability of petitioner as Rs. 87,273/- + 2,550/- Rs. 89,823/- vide Ext. P2. Exts. P1 and P2 are challenged and the prayer sought for is to order that petitioner is entitled to get her DCRG amount unaffected of her liabilit...
Tag this Judgment!Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Anr. Vs. K.N. Premanandan a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR128]; (2008)IILLJ539Ker
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. This appeal is filed at the instance of the Employees State Insurance Corporation against the order of the Employees Insurance Court, Alappuzha in I.C. No. 104/1999 raising the following substantial questions of law:(1) Whether the Financial difficulties or the pendency of litigation will absolve the Employer from the payment of damages by way of Penalty.(2) Whether Sakthi Tiles case (supra) will empower the E.I. Court to reduce the quantum of damages imposed on the ground of pendency of litigation and the financial difficulties.(3) Whether Section 85-B of the Employees State Insurance Act and the Regulation given unfettered right to the Corporation to impose damages by way of penalty for the belated payment of Contribution upto 100 percent.The basic facts from which the above, questions of law are sought to be raised are as detailed under.2. The respondents herein were the employers who filed the I.C challenging the order of the appellants imposing on them damages ...
Tag this Judgment!District Insurance Officer Vs. M.K. Moosakutty and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-2007
Reported in: 2007ACJ1336; AIR2007Ker168
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The point involved in this appeal is whether the river bank from where taking of sand is prohibited is a 'public place' within the meaning of Section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.2. The petitioner before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was the owner of a country boat. The boat was tied at the river bank of Chaliyar river at a ferry at Perinkadavu on 28-8-1993. At about 12 noon on that day, lorry bearing Registration No. KL-11/A-2579, owned and driven by the first respondent in the claim petition, hit on the boat and damage was caused to the boat. It is alleged that the boat was damaged completely. The allegation is that the first respondent drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in high speed and suddenly reversed the lorry and in that process the lorry hit on the boat. The second respondent is the insurer of the lorry. A sum of Rs. 90,033/- was claimed as compensation.3. The first respondent did not file any written statement. The second resp...
Tag this Judgment!Mathew Joseph Vs. Janaki
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-2007
Reported in: II(2007)ACC140; 2007ACJ912; AIR2007Ker117
Ramachandran, J1. This reference has come up before us in terms of the reference order of a Division Bench dated 12-09-2006. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha had directed award of compensation to the legal representatives of a deceased individual. It was on a finding that a private jeep, wherein he was a traveller, was driven in a negligent manner resulting in the accidental death. The jeep had been registered as a private vehicle, but the finding was that it was used for hire and there was violation of the policy conditions. The Tribunal held that the vehicle owner is liable to pay the amount of compensation, although the initial liability for payment was on the insurer. The insurance company normally would have been liable, however, but was entitled to be exonerated, according to the Tribunal, as there was violation of the policy conditions. It would have been therefore possible for them to proceed against the vehicle owner for reimbursement. The appeal has been filed ...
Tag this Judgment!M.U. Sherly W/O. P.S. Saju Vs. the President, Parappuram Milk Producer ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT809
Kurian Joseph, J.1. In the matter of disciplinary proceedings against an employee of a cooperative society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as 'the KCS Act') once the Registrar exercises his power under Rule 176 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KCS Rules'), is it open to the aggrieved employee to take recourse to the remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act') is essentially the question referred to the Full Bench. To pose a general question, is an employee subjected to disciplinary proceedings entitled to have his grievance adjudicated before an authority, Forum, Tribunal or Court, which is independent of the executive2. The appeal is at the instance of the employee who is the third respondent in the writ petition filed by the society. The society challenged the reference order passed by the Government under Section 10(...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Meenakshi Sathish Vs. Southern Petrochemical Industries and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-2007
Reported in: [2007]137CompCas107(Ker); 2007CriLJ2250
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The common question that arises for decision in these cases is whether this Court can quash a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Coimbatore and issue a writ of prohibition against the said Court from proceeding with the case, in so far as the same concerns the writ petitioner. Since the facts and the questions of law involved are the same, these cases are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.W.P. (C) No. 21289/2005:2. This writ petition is treated as the main case. The petitioner was a partner of the 2nd respondent-firm, which is an unregistered partnership firm. The 1st respondent is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, engaged in the manufacture of fertilizers and Agro-chemicals. The 2nd respondent was marketing the goods manufactured by the 1st respondent. The petitioner retired from the partnership with effect from 1-4-2001. For the amo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »