Kerala Court February 2008 Judgments

Karthikeyan Vs. Sheeja

Court: Kerala

Reported in: II(2008)DMC92

R. Basant, J.1. This writ petition is directed against Ext. P4 order. The respondent herein had approached the learned Magistrate with an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. An ex parte final order was passed against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application to set aside the said ex parte order. That petition was dismissed by Ext. P4 order. The petitioner has now come to this Court with a prayer that the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution may be invoked.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner was requested to explain why he has come to this Court with a writ petition and why the option to prefer an appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act has not been invoked. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is only a procedural order and, therefore, under the impression that such an order is not appealable under Section 29 of the Act, no appeal was pre...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Ker)311; [2008]306ITR54(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the IT Act challenging the order of the Tribunal confirming cancellation of proceedings under Section 143(1)(a) by the CIT(A) pertaining to disallowance of sales-tax payments made by the assessee. In the accounting year relevant for the asst. yr. 1994-95, the assessee which was following the mercantile system of accounting, made additional payment of Rs. 23 lakhs towards sales-tax payable for April, 1994. Since it was specifically stated in the statement of accounts accompanying the return that the amount paid was towards sales-tax payable for April, 1994, the AO disallowed the claim and computed tax liability. The assessee objected against disallowance under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act by filing a rectification application under Section 154 of the Act which was rejected by the AO. In the appeal filed against this order, the CIT(A) allowed the claim holding that disallowance of amount paid towar...

E.i.D. Parry (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLT723; (2008)16VST1(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The appellant is challenging annexure C order of clarification issued under Section 59A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Even though the Commissioner has clarified three questions raised by the appellant, the challenge is only against decision on question No. 1(b) which pertains to the appellant's liability for tax under Section 5A of the Act on the purchase of goods manufactured by an exempted unit in the appellant's brand name.2. The appellant, a registered dealer under the KGST Act and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, is marketing products manufactured by them and also products manufactured by other industries in the brand name of the appellant. One industrial unit which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of goods to the appellant in the appellant's brand name was entitled to sales tax exemption under the notification issued by the Government as an industrial unit in the Cochin Export Processing Zone. So ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2009]178TAXMAN449(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 Tribunal allowing deduction of around Rs. 1.86 crores towards wage increase payable by the assessee to the employees during the previous year under an agreement signed in the subsequent year. The respondent assessee is a Kerala Government undertaking engaged in Kury business and financing. The wage settlement with the employees expired on 31-7-1992, i.e., towards the middle of the previous year relevant for the assessment year 1993-94. Negotiations for settlement were going on in the previous year and the actual agreement approving wage increase with effect from 1-8-1992 was signed on 9-6-1993. This was approved by the Government by order dated 20-10-1993. The assessee claimed increased wages payable to the employees during the previous year as a deduction in the return filed for the assessment year 1993-94. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim on ...

M/S.Travancore Diagnostics (P) Ltd. Vs. Santhosh Kumar and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Matter settled. It is submitted that the settled amount received by the respondent. Amount deposited by the appellant under 2nd proviso to 5 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall be released to the appellant....

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and Another Vs. Latha B.Kaimal

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The above appeal is directed against the Order dated 18.07.02 of the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP 309/00. The complaint was preferred by the first respondent as the complainant against the appellants as (opposite parties 1 and 2) and the second respondent (3rd opposite party) claiming the insurance claim under the group insurance issued by the first appellant/first opposite party. New India Assurance Company Limited. Appellants/opposite parties 1 and 2 offered a sum of Rs.1,000/- as the insurance claim. But the complainant was not satisfied with the above said claim offered by the insurance company. Hence she filed the complaint claiming a sum of Rs.9,000/- with interest and cost. The Lower Forum accepted the case of the complainant to a greater extent and thereby awarded a sum of Rs.7,500/- with future interest at 14.5%. The Lower Forum has also ordered a general compensation of Rs.2,000/- with cost of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order...

South India Corpn. Ltd. Vs. the Addl. Commnr. of Income Tax and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2009]312ITR31(Ker); 2008(2)KLJ652; [2009]180TAXMAN319(Ker)

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Arising for decision in this case are certain questions relating to the interpretation of some of the provisions in Chapter XII-G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the 'Act', for short, providing special provisions relating to income of shipping companies, as per the Finance Act, 2004, hereinafter referred to as the 'Finance Act'.Chapter XII-G of the Act provides, among other things, a tonnage tax scheme, which is optional. That chapter, comprising of Sections 115V to 115VZC, was inserted in the Act, with effect from 1-4-2005.2. The petitioner opted for the tonnage tax scheme by making an application in terms of Section 115VP of the Act. The first respondent Additional Commissioner issued Ext.P5 decision rejecting that application. This is under challenge.3. The petitioner company alleges that it acquired four ships between 1995 and 2001 and that it has been regularly assessed to income tax in respect of income earned by it, including the income from the bu...

G. Arokiya Marie Vs. Superintendent of Police and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ4257

ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. All these petitions are filed seeking a direction to the Station House Officer concerned to register the case as the allegation made in the respective complaint reflects commission of cognizable offences.2. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) Mr. A. Saravanan, referring to the authority pronounced by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State Of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. : AIR2008SC907 and also the authority in Aleque Padamsee and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. CDJ 2007 SC 802 : 2007 Cri LJ 3729, would contend that the alternative remedy available under Sections 154(3), 190 and 200 read with Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure will have to be resorted to by the aggrieved party on refusal to register the complaint by the Station House Officer. It is his further submission that when there is effective remedy available under the statute, the Court cannot invoke the inherent jurisdiction conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal...

Sathyapalan and Co. Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2009]315ITR290(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and standing Counsel for the respondent. The petitioner is challenging exhibit P-7 order whereunder the Chief Commissioner has declined petitioner's application for waiver of interest payable under Sections 234B and 234C for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order because the Chief Commissioner has pointed out that the petitioner has not satisfied, any of the conditions for waiver referred to in the circular issued under Section 119(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Moreover, the Commissioner noticed that the assessee made substantial investment in immovable property and in the construction of hospital building during the previous years which go to show that the assessee had liquidity to pay advance tax. In the circumstances, the original petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit....

Hard ‘n’ Soft, Alappuzha Vs. Dr.Abraham and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated.29.01.2004 passed by CDRF, Alappuzha in O.P.A.39/2003. The complaint in the said O.P.A.39/2003 was filed by the 1st respondent herein as complainant against the appellant (1st opposite party) and the second respondent (second opposite party) claiming refund of the price of the computer which was purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties. The case of the complaint was disputed by the second opposite party/manufacturer. The 1st opposite party/dealer remained absent, after entering appearance through advocate. The Lower Forum accepted the case of the complaint to some extent and passed the impugned order directing the 1st opposite party /dealer to pay a sum of Rs.41,100/- with 10% interest from the date of the complaint with cost of Rs.500/-. But, no order was passed against the second opposite party/manufacturer. The lower forum was of the view that the complainant suffered the loss onl...