Kerala Court November 2007 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.
Pala Marketing Co-op. Socy. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2007
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Ker)80; [2009]311ITR177(Ker); 2008(1)KLJ561
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner is a co-operative society to be engaged in marketing agricultural produce of its members. Even though society was entitled to exemption from income tax during the assessment year 1997-98, it remitted an advance tax of Rs. 10 lakhs during the accounting year. Besides this, an amount of Rs. 47.957/- is recovered by others from petitioner's bills towards tax deduction at source. The petitioner's audit is done by auditor appointed under Section 63(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Invariably the statutory audit is delayed and in this accounting year also, petitioner's audit was completed only on 28-1 -2000. After completion of audit, petitioner filed return claiming refund of advance tax and TDS remitted by others through Ext.P5 application. The Assessing Officer rejected the return as time barred and consequently declined refund. However, petitioner filed application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax before the central B...
P.K. Balakrishnan Vs. Orakkal Neethu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2007
Reported in: 2008(I)KLJ199; 2008(1)KLT360
ORDERK. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlady. The respondent filed the Rent Control Petition under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), claiming eviction of the tenanted premises. The brief facts of the case are the following2. The scheduled room originally belonged to the grandmother of the respondent. The same was taken on lease by the tenant in the year 1983. On 27-03-2004, the grandmother executed a will bequeathing the said room in favour of the respondent. The testator died on 20-04-2004. Soon thereafter, the respondent issued a notice to the tenant on 16-09-2004 claiming arrears of rent from 1-6-2003. When the Rent Control Petition was filed, apart from the ground under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, the ground under Section 11(3) of the Act was also included. The respondent wanted the room for starting a Tax Consultancy Office for h...
Janatha Wood Crafts Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2007
Reported in: (2008)16VST134(Ker)
ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. The petitioner is a firm and it is registered under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('the Act', for short). The petitioner-firm is engaged in the manufacture and sale of block board and block board frames. In its manufacturing activity, the petitioner-firm purchases and consumes soft wood.2. The notification issued by the State Government under S.R.O. No. 403 of 1994 grants exemption from payment of purchase tax under Section 5A of the Act provided the end-product is exigible to sales tax.3. In the returns filed for the assessment year 2000-01, the assessee had claimed exemption from payment of purchase tax relying upon S.R.O. No. 403 of 1994. The claim so made by the assessee was rejected by the assessing authority.4. Aggrieved by that order the assessee had filed appeal before the first appellate authority. During the interregnum, persons similarly placed like the assessee had approached the State Government to issue appropriate clarif...
Preethimon and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1233; 2008(1)KLJ148; 2008(2)KLT666
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The petitioners are the accused persons in C.C. No. 555 of 2002, on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the first class II, Kanjirappally. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 448, 294(b) and 506(1) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On appearance before the court below, they filed an application under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was dismissed by the trial court and the order of the trial court was confirmed in Crl.R.P. No. 18 of 2003, on the file of the Court of Session, Kottayam. The prayer in the Crl.M.C. is to quash Annexure-B order in Crl. R.P. No. 18 of 2003 as well as to quash all the proceedings in C.C. No. 555 of 2002, on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the first class n, Kanjirappally.2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that even if all the allegations contained in Annexure -A FIR are taken as true, no offence is made out against the petitioners. ...
P.M. Alavi Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-2007
Reported in: (2009)20VST495(Ker)
P.R. Raman, J.1. These writ petitions are filed by different assessees under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The petitioners are Public Works Department contractors engaged in works contract. They have opted to pay tax at compounded rate at the rate of two per cent as provided under Section 7(7) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. By virtue of subsection (7B) the awarder is bound to deduct tax at source at the time of payment of the bill at the rate of two per cent. Since in these cases the tax liability is at compounded rate and the tax deducted at source being at the same percentage, no further liability on the part of the contractors to pay any amount of tax arose, since the entire amount of tax payable by them at such compounded rate has been deducted at source. Assessments were completed and it was found that the deduction at source made by the awarder and paid over to the department is in excess of the actual tax due and payable by the assessee. Now I may proceed to cons...
Wood Veneers Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Commercial Taxes ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-2007
Reported in: (2009)23VST452(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner is challenging exhibit P15 order, under which the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has confirmed interest levied for belated payment of tax. According to the petitioner, the levy of interest is illegal and unauthorised. He has also relied on decision of the Supreme Court in Maruti Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer [2001] 122 STC 410 and that of this Court in P.K. Damodaran v. State of Kerala [2004] 12 KTR 133 in support of his contention that interest is not payable in this case. I have heard the Government Pleader also.2. Even though the petitioner was granted sales tax exemption, the same was withdrawn by the Government vide exhibit P1 on July 24, 1998. Though the petitioner challenged the order withdrawing sales tax exemption, the same was dismissed by this court. Even after withdrawal of sales tax exemption, petitioner did not file revised return or remit the tax. According to the petitioner, the turnover in question was incl...
Ramani Nessiar D/O Devaki Nessiar and M. Surendran S/O Prabhavathy Nes ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-21-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLT565
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. We are in this case case primarily concerned with the scope and ambit of Section 62(1)(ii) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1951 which says that the civil court can modify or cancel an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 57, Section 58 or Section 60 read with Sub-section (1)(a), (2), or (4)(a) of Section 19 but it shall have no power to stay the Commissioner's order pending disposal of the suit. Petitioner is the senior most member of the Madathinkeezhil Tharavadu and is the hereditary trustee of Shri Bhayanamkavu Bhagawathy Temple which is a private temple of that family. Being the senior most member of the family and hereditary trustee he manages the affairs of the temple. While so, 5th respondent, one of the members of the family who is in enimical terms with the family of the petitioner due to certain civil litigations filed OA. No. 20 of 2003 under Section 57(a) of the HR & CE Act seeking declaration to the effe...
The Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Siniya Mol C.S. D/O Siddique an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-21-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLT30
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. WP(C). 18140 of 2006 was preferred by respondents 1 to 5 herein seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P2 and P3 by which the women candidates were prohibited from being considered for appointment to the post of Electricity Worker (Mazdoor) and also sought for a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent, Kerala Public Service Commission to issue erratum notification providing opportunities to the women candidates who are desirous of getting appointment as Electricity Workers (Mazdoor). Challenge was made against the above mentioned orders on the ground that it violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution as there is a hostile discrimination on the ground of sex. Learned single Judge made a theoritical exposition of law and general equality and held that the exclusion of women based on sex for being considered for the post of Electricity Worker would offend Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned single Judge held t...
i. Damodaran and anr. Vs. M.K. Valsala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2082; 2008(1)KLJ48; 2008(1)KLT396
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Only question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether in a claim under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, age of the deceased or claimants has to be taken into consideration for determining the multiplier. Above mentioned legal question is covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2004 ACJ 934. Supreme Court held as follows:The Second Schedule referred to in Section 140 of the Act provides for a structured formula for the purpose of grant of compensation to a third party involved in fatal accident/injury. By reason thereof a multiplier system is introduced pursuant whereof and in furtherance whereof the amount of compensation is required to be calculated having regard to the age of the victim and his annual income. However, in terms of the note appended to the said Schedule the amount of compensation so arrived at in the case of fatal accident, the claim is to be reduc...
J. Sarojini Alias Nesamma and ors. Vs. Narayani Sarojini and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ139; 2008(1)KLT516
ORDERHarun-Ul-Rashid, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 2452/1990 who are aggrieved by the order passed by the Court below in an application filed by them under Section 152 of the C.P.C. for correction of certain mistakes which had crept in the description of the property scheduled to the plaint and so in the decree.2. According to the revision petitioners the survey number of the scheduled property shown in the plaint was a mistake and all other entries are correct. The survey number alone had been wrongly described but this wrong description did not in any way affect the identity of the property. The only question which arises for consideration is whether on the facts the application for amendment is allowable by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 152 of the C.P.C. Section 152 reads as follows:Clerical or arithmetical mistakes injudgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any ti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »