Kerala Court January 2008 Judgments

P.A. James and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)19VST103(Ker)

1. This is an appeal filed by a business concern from Tamil Nadu against the order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram issued under Section 37 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The sales tax authorities noticed from the check-post records that the appellant made sale of jaggery from Tamil Nadu to various dealers in Kerala. However, when notices were issued, the purchasers in Kerala denied the transactions. Since the purchases were denied by the dealers in Kerala, notices were issued to the appellant under Section 30B(4) of the KGST Act asking to prove the sale with the identity of dealers in Kerala. The appellant sought opportunity to cross-examine the purchasers in Kerala. Even though notices were issued, the purchasers did not turn up to give evidence for the appellant.2. However, the appellant did not produce any evidence regarding the details of payments received or receipts issued. In other words, transactions could not be proved by the appellant a...

K.J. Thomas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2008]301ITR301(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The judgment of the court was delivered by C. N. Ramachandran Nair J.-The common question raised in both the appeals is against the disallowance of interest in the computation of income from a theatre by name 'Pandyan Theatre' in which the appellant was a partner. It is seen from the orders produced that the disallowance was made following an earlier order of the Tribunal. However, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the disallowance of interest was made in the earlier year because the theatre was under construction. However, according to the appellant, the construction of the theatre was completed and the appellant started earning income during the previous year relevant to the two assessment years, viz., 1990-91 and 1991-92 against which these appeals are filed. It is seen that the interest paid is in excess of the income returned.2. Consequently, the income from the firm is a loss and we see no reason why the appellant did not return a loss. ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Benhur Trades and Investments P. Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Ker)644; [2008]306ITR354(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Even though four questions are raised, actually only two issues are involved which pertain to addition of estimated unpaid dividends from chitty business and estimation of foreman's commission on the date of auction. We have heard Counsel appearing for the appellant and Counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee.2. It is clear from the orders of the Tribunal and that of the first appellate authority and the assessment order that the assessee which was engaged in different lines of business including chitty, did not produce entire books of account. If the assessee does not produce books of account to substantiate the return of profit and loss account filed, assessment should have been completed under Section 144 as provided under Section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and not under Section 143(3). However, the Assessing Officer has accepted the profit and loss account and made certain additions based on a guess work. However, he has made addition tow...

Perur Service Sahakarana Bank Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2008(117)FLR55]; (2008)IIILLJ39Ker

S. Siri Jagan, J.1. In these two writ petitions, a Co-operative Bank is the petitioner. They are challenging the awards of the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad, in these writ petitions. In W.P. (C) No. 20922/ 2003, they are challenging Exhibit P-3 award in I.D. No. 18/2001, whereby, after finding the workman guilty of the misconducts charged against her, the workman was directed to be reinstated without any other benefits by interfering with the punishment of dismissal imposed by the management invoking powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and substituting the same with the punishment of barring of four increments. In O.P. No. 29953/2001, they are challenging the direction issued by the Tribunal in I.D. No. 38/1998 to pay to the workman concerned monetary benefits during the period when a moratorium was in force in the Society regarding service benefits to its employees. The learned Counsel for the bank submits that since the period of moratorium is over, practically n...

Lekshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2008Ker188

ORDERV. Giri, J.1. The petitioners challenge Exts. P6 and P7 notices issued under the Revenue Recovery Act (for short ('the RR Act') demanding an amount of Rs. 20,13,87,103/-with interest at 19.75% per annum with effect from 1-8-2006 as also collection charges at 5.5%. The notices under the RR Act are under challenge in this writ petition inter alia on the ground that the provisions of the RR Act cannot be invoked for recovery of amounts due from the petitioners at the instance of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent is a new Generation Bank, and it is not in the public sector. The petitioners challenge the notices under the RR Act on more than one ground.2. It is firstly contended that the 3rd respondent, has already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.A. No. 227/06. It is then contended that the 3rd respondent has also invoked the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act [Act 54/02] {for short...

Abdul Nazeer M. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ296

V. Giri, J.1. A question of common occurrence relating to the competence of an authority in one department to order the suspension of a Subordinate Officer received on deputation from another department arises for consideration in this case. Resolution of the same. centres around the interpretation of Rules 10 and 19 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules. The question, in my view, seems to be res integra. I, therefore, heard the counsel on either side elaborately.2. Petitioner, who entered Government service as Second Grade Surveyor in the Department of Survey and Land Records, was posted on deputation in various departments. He was suspended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Thrissur Division, second respondent herein. Said order of suspension has been challenged by he petitioner essentially on the ground that he could be suspended either by the appointing authority or by the authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate or by an authori...

Pappachan Vs. the Branch Manager, NewIndia Assurance Company Ltd.

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated.1st December 2004 of the CDRF, Kollam in OP.No.76/02 which was filed by the appellant herein as complainant against the respondent as opposite party claiming Insurance Medi claim under the Pravasi Sureksha Kudumbarogya Scheme. The aforesaid Insurance medi claim was repudiated by the opposite party on the groundthat the complainant/insured was having pre-existing disease and so the claim is excluded by the policy of Insurance issued under Pravasi Sureksha Kudumbarogya scheme. The Lower forum accepted the case of the complainant regarding deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party Insurance Company. But the claim of Rs.41615.68 was dis-allowed by the Lower forum on the ground that the opposite party insured failed to prove the medical expenses incurred by him. Lower forum awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant on the ground of deficiency of service on the part of t...

V. Moidu Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ387; 2008(1)KLT555

Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The main point that arises for decision in this writ appeal is the constitutional validity of Rule 90(7)(a) of Part III, Kerala Service Rules.The facts of the case are the following: The appellant is the writ petitioner. He was 4 pensioner, who retired from service on 31 -3-1990, while working as the Headmaster of an L.P. School. His second wife Smt. Susheela retired from service as the Headmistress of the very same school. While she was a pensioner, she died on 19-5-1996. She had nominated the petitioner, her husband as eligible for receiving family pension. On her death, the petitioner applied for family pension and the same was sanctioned to him. He was receiving the pension through the Central Bank of India. While so, the Branch Manager of the said Bank, by Ext.P2 communication dated 10-11-2003 informed him of the objection raised by the Accountant General regarding the payment of pension. This was preceded by Ext.P3 communication issued by the Accountant Ge...

C. Krishnakumar and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ406; 2008(1)KLT580

J.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner is challenging the order dated 24-12-2007 cancelling the community certificate passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 11 of the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) issue of Community Certificate Act, 1996 (in short' the Act'). Such orders were appealable under Section 12(3) of the Act. But by Ordinance No. 55/2007, Section 11 was amended by inserting Sub rule 4 to Section 11 providing that no appeal or suit will lie against such orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee. Section 12(3) was also omitted. Section 7 Ordinance reads as follows:7. Amendment of Section 11: In Section 11 of the principal Act:-(i) omitted(ii) after Sub-section (3), the following sub-section shall be inserted, namaly:(4) An order passed by the Scrutiny Committee shall be final and conclusive. No suit or appeal shall lie against the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee.Section 8 of the ordinance reads as follows:8. Amendment of Section 12: In Section 12 of the principal ...

Cherotty Vs. Charu

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ329; 2008(1)KLT532

ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. In the partition suit filed by the petitioner herein, a preliminary decree was passed declaring 1/4 share to the plaintiff, 1/4A share each to defendants 2 and 3 and 1/4 share to defendants 3 to 7 together. On the application of the plaintiff, final decree was passed on 29-8-1989.2. E.P. No. 2 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner for delivery of the property allotted to him. Delivery was effected and the Execution Petition was closed on 4-10-1999. As per the final decree, the petitioner was also held entitled to realise a sum of Rs. 10,487.50 as the value of the tress cut by the second defendant. E.P. No. 149 of 2000 was filed by the petitioner for realisation of the amount from the second defendant. The executing court passed an order to sell the property allotted to the second defendant, which was made a charge for realisation of the amount due to the plaintiff. Sale was scheduled to be held on 25-09-2002. The petitioner had obtained leave of the Court under R...