Kerala Court March 2008 Judgments

C.J.John Cherumpilil Vs. M/S.indira Gandhi Memmorial Co-operative Hosp ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANANTHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER No representation for the complainant. On the last hearing date also (28.12.07) there was no representation for the complainant. Complainant is called absent. Counsel for the second opposite party is present. Hence the complaint is OP.118/2000 is dismissed for default....

M.Kothandan, Represented by His Power of Attorney- Holder, M.Sajeendra ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER No representation for the appellant. Appellant is called absent. I st respondent is represented. Hence appeal is dismissed for default....

Vijayan, Fibertech Industries Vs. R. Vijayan Nair and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is a 2nd opposite party in O.P.No.533/2001 in the file CDRF, Kollam. The appellant along with the 1st opposite party is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant with future interest at 9% and the compensation of Rs. 3,000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had a oral contract with the opposite parties for leak free roofing of his building and that a sum of Rs.60,000/- was paid. The work was guaranteed for 15 years. But after the execution of the work the roof is leaking more badly. He has claimed for the return of the amount paid with 18 % interest and Rs.20,000/- as compensation. 3. The 1st opposite party had filed a version contending that he had no contract with the complainant and that he is not running any outfit for conducting works of rectifying leaking of roof. He has submitted that it was the 2nd opposite party who is conducting the concern by name Fiber Tech Industries. According to him th...

O.P. Moideen Vs. the Registrar of Co-op. Societies

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ22

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. What is the quorum for a meeting of the committee, of a co-operative society, in which Government have nominees? The petitioner is the President of a society to which Section 31 of the Kerala Co-opearative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter, the 'Act', applied. The respondent, Registrar, issued Ext.P8 on the ground of lack of quorum for the meeting of the committee of that society, held on 8-8-2007. Hence, this writ petition. The relevant facts lie within a narrow compass. Clause 11.1) of Ext.P1 of Ext.P1 Bye-laws of the society provides that the committee shall consist of not more than 19 members, in terms of the classification in that provision. The Government have nominated three persons to be member of the committee in terms of Section 31 of the Act. The meeting in issue was attended only by 11 members of the committee. The impugned Ext.P8 is issued taking the view that the total number of members of the committee is 22 and therefore, the quorum for ...

illickal Joseh and ors. Vs. Cholappurath Vrindadevi and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2009Ker2

ORDERHarun-ul-Rashid, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 46 of 1999 except defendants 3, 5, 6, 8 and 17 on the file of the Sub Court, Vadakara are the revision petitioners. The suit was filed by respondents 1 to 4 as plaintiffs for realisation of money.2. The plaint schedule properties, 21 items, having an extent of 29 acres belonged to the defendants and they had agreed to sell the properties to the predecessor of the plaintiffs, late Sahadevan, for a consideration of Rs. 46,00,000/-. The terms and conditions agreed between the parties had been reduced into a written agreement for sale executed on 11-1-1994 and an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- was given as advance towards sale consideration on the date of agreement itself. Subsequent payments were also made and altogether an amount of Rs. 17,50,000/- was given towards sale consideration. As per the agreement, the sale deed is to be executed on or before 30-6-1994 after measuring the properties and verifying the extent of the same. One of the ...

Chakkyath Chandran Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ3159; 2008(2)KLJ88

J.B. Koshy, J.1. Doubting the correctness of the decision of the learned Single Judge in Krishnankutty v. State of Kerala : 2005(3)KLT568 , a learned Single Judge of this Court has referred this case to the Division Bench. Before answering the reference, we shall narrate the facts of this case.2. Appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act read with Rule 9 of the Foreign Liquor Rules for illegal possession of more than the permissible quantity of liquor while he was travelling in a bus on 27-6-1997. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default to. undergo simple imprisonment for one year more. The liquor seized from the bus allegedly from the possession of the appellant was 10 bottles of 180 ml. of Indian made Foreign Liquor and three bottles of 375 ml. of the same stuff. Ext.P4 seizure mahazar shows that the total quantity seized was 2.925 litres. During the relevant time, ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nedungadi Bank Ltd.,

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2009]312ITR96(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. These appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are against the common order of the Tribunal holding that interest-tax is not payable under the Interest-tax Act, 1974, as amended by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1991, on interest on Government securities received by the respondent-banks. We have heard senior counsel appearing for the Income-tax Department for the appellant and counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee in all these cases.2. The short question arising for consideration is whether interest on securities is chargeable to tax under the Interest-tax Act, 1974. In fact, until the amendment of the Interest-tax Act in the year 1991, there was specific exclusion of interest on securities from the scope of interest as defined under Section 2(7) of the Act. The issue cropped up and survives only for the assessment years 1992-93 to 1995-96 because from the financial year 1995-96 onwards Government of India issued orde...

Rayinkutty Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: II(2008)DMC575; 2008(1)KLJ883

R. Basant, J.1. Sufferance of the default sentence under Section 3(4) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act - will that wipe off the liability for payment of amounts due under Section 3 of that Act? This is the crucial question for consideration in this case. Petitioner had suffered an order under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He was directed to pay a total amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- under various heads. The petitioner did not pay (he amount. The learned Magistrate proceeded to take steps under Section 3(4) of the Act to recover the amount. The proceedings against the petitioner was registered by the learned Magistrate as a calendar case and a judgment was pronounced in the said calendar case and a judgment was pronounced in the said calendar case sentencing the petitioner under Section 3(4) of the said Act to undergo imprisonment for one year or until the payment of the amount; of Rs. 2,15,...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.J. Prasad

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Ker)169

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal cancelling penalty levied on the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the asst. yr. 1990-91. The respondent is an advocate and power of attorney holder of the assessee by name M.K. Ali. A search was conducted in the assessee premises on 14th Feb., 1990 and during search cash for Rs. 5,75,000 was seized by the Department. In the course of search the assessee gave a statement declaring that the amount belonged to one Sri M.G. Abdul Rahiman, Poochakad House, Poochakad P.O. Pallikkara. However/later the assessee failed to establish his case that the amount belonged to the said Sri Abdul Rahiman, and therefore he filed a return on 27th Sept., 1990 declaring the amount as income from other sources. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of Income. The assessee claimed immunity from penalty because of filing of return ...

William Goodacre and Sons India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Ker)293; [2008]305ITR365(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. These connected tax reference cases and appeal arise from the orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal confirming exclusion of 90 per cent, of income of various nature from the total profits of the assessee in the computation of export profit under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Besides manufacturing and exporting of products, the assessee was engaged in doing job works for others, particularly exporters, the income wherefrom was also included as business profit in the computation of proportionate export profit for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. The receipts involved are:1. Income received for job works.2. Latex backing charges received, and3. Rubber edging charges received.2. Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee clarified and the orders describe the nature of activities done by the assessee as the processing of items supplied by the awarders into final product in their factory by giving rubber latex backing to door mats and o...