Kerala Court January 2008 Judgments

The Commnr. of I.T. Vs. the Co-op. Sugars Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2008]304ITR259(Ker); 2008(2)KLJ145; 2008(2)KLT626; [2009]178TAXMAN123(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rejecting departmental appeal. The question raised is whether the contribution of Rs. 25 lakhs paid by the assessee to the State Irrigation Department being part of cost incurred for cement lining of a irrigation canal serving sugarcane cultivators is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the I.T. Act.2. We have heard senior counsel appearing for the appellant and counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee. The Tribunal has extracted the minutes of the Board Meeting of the respondent-assessee which explains the nature of contribution made. It is clear from the minutes that the amount was paid at the suggestion of the Minister to the assessee to meet the cost of expenditure incurred by the Irrigation Department for improving an irrigation canal which supplies water to an area under sugarcane cultivation. ...

Rijo Vs. State of Kerala and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ407; 2008(1)KLT664

ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The petitioner who is the 2nd accused in Crime No. 17 of 2003 on the file of the Chengamanad Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 12(2), 20,48(k) and 58(1) of the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 was charge-sheeted along with the first accused by the Sub Inspector of Police, Chengamanadu on 20-2-2003. On 20-3-2003 the J.F.C.M.I., Aluva took cognizance of the offences and registered the case as C.C. 412 of 2003. Subsequently, the case against the petitioner who was absconding was split up and re-filed as C.C. 836 of 2006.2. The prayer of the petitioner is to quash Annexure I charge-sheet and the subsequent proceedings initiated as C.C. No. 836 of 2007 before the J.F.C.M. I, Aluva.3. Section 25 of the aforesaid Act enjoins that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act, except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Government or the District Co...

Kurian K. Kuriakose Vs. Usha Cherian and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ410; 2008(1)KLT739

K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The tenant challenges the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate authority under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The principal contention raised by the tenant in this Revision is that the landlord has not pleaded in the Rent Control Petition that the tenant is not depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business carried on in the petition schedule building and that there is suitable building available in the locality for the tenant to carry on the business, in order to deny to the tenant the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. According to the tenant, lack of necessary pleading in this behalf in the Rent Control Petition would have the effect of taking away the burden of proof on the tenant to prove the ingredients of the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3) the petitioner also contends that the courts below have not p...

V.K. Rajeev Vs. the Asst. Excise Commissioner and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ638

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Exercising authority under Section 67E of the Abkari Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', the second respondent issued Ext.P3 order on 28-2-2002, setting aside Ext.P2 order of confiscation passed by the first respondent. On 27-11 -2002, the third respondent Excise Commissioner issued Ext.P4 show cause notice proposing to invoke the sua motu revisional power under Section 67F of the Act. Following that, the impugned Ext.P6 order was issued on 31-12-2002, setting aside the appellate order.2. Leaving aside the challenge to the decision on its merits based on facts, it is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P4 show cause notice is issued only after the period of limitation fixed for the suo motu action under Section 67F. He, accordingly, argued that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and is hence void.3. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader, relying on the counter affidavit, argued that the word 'may' occurring in ...

Dr. L.P. Prabhu Vs. the Official Liquidator, High Court of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2008]146CompCas157(Ker); 2008(2)KLJ282

J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellant, a surety, claims the benefits of subrogation under Section 92 of the Transfer of Properties Act, 1882 (in short 'the T.P. Act'). Apart from issues relating to subrogation by operation of law, effect of registration/non-registration of charges with the Registrar of Companies under Section 125 and 135 of the Companies Act and Rule 14 of the Companies Rules and application of the principles of estoppel and Section 115 of the Evidence Act are the questions to be considered in this case.2. Appellant was one of the directors of the company, M/s. Mittal Steel Re-rolling and Allied Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'company'). The above company, now in liquidation, applied for and availed of financial facilities from Canara Bank, Wadakkancherry to a limit of Rs. 75 lakhs out of which an amount of Rs. 22 lakhs and odd was outstanding as payable in June, 1981. The entire assets of the company including the land and machinery were mortgaged to the Canara ...

R.F. Enterprises Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)23VST148(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 40 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter called, 'the Act') challenging annexure VII order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued under Section 59A of the KGST Act. The appellant was engaged in packing and marketing of 'kattimoru' (thick buttermilk) and 'sambharam'. The product labels produced as annexures V and VI show that one item is thick buttermilk which is given the name 'kattimoru' in Malayalam and the other 'sambharam', the ingredients of which under the label are buttermilk, ginger, green chillies and curry leaves. Though the appellant classified the products under 'curd and buttermilk' coming under entry 49 of the First Schedule to the KGST Act taxable at four per cent and returns were filed accordingly, the assessing officer issued notice proposing to assess the products as 'milk products' under entry 92 taxable at 12 per cent. This prompted the appellant to file an application for cl...

The Asst.Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapura ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 7th day of January 2004 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.211/03. The complaint in the said OP.211/03 was filed by the respondent as complainant against the appellants as opposite parties requesting for cancellation of the A1 arrear bill dated.7.1.03 issued by the second opposite party. The aforesaid complaint in OP.211/03 was disputed by the opposite parties contending that the arrear bill was issued on the basis of the actual consumption of water by the appellant/complainant. But the Lower forum accepted the case of the complainant and thereby passed the impugned order canceling A1 arrear bill dated 7.1.03. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred. 2. This Commission heard the counsel for the appellants/opposite parties and the respondent/complainant. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted his case on the basis of the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present app...

P.J. Eappen Vs. the Asst.Executive Engineer Water Works Sub Division

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 8th January 2004 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.772/02 whichwas filed by the appellant herein as complainant against the respondent as opposite party seeking for cancellation of Ext.A1 arrear bill dated.30.6.02 issued by the opposite party/Kerala Water Authority. The case of the complainant was disputed by the opposite party/Kerala Water Authority and contended that the A1 arrear bill was issued on the basis of the meter reading taken. The Lower forum accepted the case of the respondent/opposite party to a greater extent and thereby the complaint in OP.772/02 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the complainant therein. 2. We heard the counsel for the appellant/complainant and respondent/opposite party. The learned counsel for the appellant argued this appeal on the basis of the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He also submitted a ca...

T. Vineed Vs. Manju S. Nair

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ525

Kurian Joseph, J.My joy was boundless. I had learnt the true practice of law. I had learnt to find out the better side of human nature and to enter men's heart. I realized that the true function of a lawyer was to unite parties given as under. The lesson was no indelibly burnt into me that a large part of my time during the twenty years of my practice as a lawyer was occupied in bringing about private compromises of hundreds of cases. I lost nothing thereby - not even money, certainly not my soul. [M.K. Gandhi - An Autobiography or The Story of My Experiments with Truth (page 133)].1. Motivated and inspired, we have also realized that by settling one case in this Court, quite a few litigations between the parties and their families before various other courts or forums can also be either closed or settled. The recent litigation trend in matrimonial disputes indicates that a matrimonial disputes indicates that a matrimonial dispute between the parties could generate at lease half-a-doze...

P.A. Thomas and ors. Vs. Authority Under the Minimum Wages Act and anr ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2008(117)FLR257]; 2008(1)KLJ607; 2008(1)KLT858; (2008)IILLJ985Ker; 2009(2)SLJ78(Kerala)

S. Siri Jagan, J.1. A very difficult question arises for consideration in this case, on the question of interpretation of Section 14 of the Minimum Wages Act on which there are two conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court, one by a three Member Bench and the other by a two Member Bench. The situation arises in the following factual scenario.2. The petitioners in this original petition filed an application under Section 14 of the Minimum Wages Act before the 1st respondent seeking overtime wages. As per the settlements arrived at between the management and the Unions, the workmen were actually getting wages in excess of the minimum wages prescribed as per notifications issued under the Minimum Wages Act. The authority under the Minimum Wages Act, by Ext.Pl order, following a decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Council. Hatta v. Bhagat Singh and Ors. 1998 (1) LLJ 815, denied jurisdiction on the ground that Section 14 can be invoked only by persons who are getting minimum rate of...