Kerala Court June 2008 Judgments

Prassanna Rajeev and Another Vs. Siby Joseph

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellants are the complainants in OP.438/2000 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The complaint has been filed by the appellants for realization of a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- said to be due from the opposite parties as the share value. It is the case of the complainants/appellants that they entrusted 100 shares of Sterlite Industries(India) Limited to the opposite party, share brokers for sale, in February 2000. It was assured that the TD (transfer deed) forms will be sent to the complainant within 2 days. After the receipt of the TD forms complainant agreed for sale of the shares at Rs. 925/- per share. The opposite party informed that the shares can be sold only at Rs.900/- per share which is agreed to by the complainants. On 3.3.2000, opposite party informed the complainants that he has made the transfer at Rs.900/- per share. It was agreed that the payment will be made within 21 days. The signed TD form was forwarded through courier on 4.3.2000. Sub...

Azam Laminators (P) Ltd. Vs. the Secretary to Govt. and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ572

J.B. Koshy, J.1. The question to be decided in these cases is whether scented betel/arecanut sold by the appellants is taxable at 4% under Entry No. 2 of the Third schedule to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short 'KVAT Act') or under entry 75(2) of S.R.O. No. 82 of 2006 attracting tax at 12.5%. The Betel Nut Manufacturers' Association preferred an application under Section 94 of the KVAT Act before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes seeking clarification on the rate of tax applicable to the above product. By impugned order No. C3/25772/07/CT dated 14-1-2008, the Commissioner clarified that the commodity is classified under entry 75(2) of S.R.O. No. 82 of 2006 and will attract tax at the rate of 12.5%. That is questioned by the appellants herein. The matter was argued on behalf of the appellant by Smt. Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Advocate and Shri Raju Joseph, Advocate. Special Standing Counsel for Taxes, Shri Mohammed Rafiz presented the arguments for the Revenue. The proces...

Dr. P. Sivaramakrishnan Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ695

K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The question involved in this Writ Petition is whether a Writ Petition under Article 226 could be maintained to quash an order of transfer on the ground that it is not fully in consonance with the guidelines for transfer. G.O.(P) No. 12/04/P&ARD; dated 10-9-2004 (Ext.P5) issued by the Government contains the guidelines for 'Minimum Tenure Policy for Government Employees of the State'. Ext.P2 dated 21-2-2005, issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department, contains the guidelines for the transfer of employees in the Health and Family Welfare Department including doctors. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P6 order of transfer is violative of Exts. P2 and P5 guidelines.2. The petitioner is working as Associate Professor, Department of Genito Urinary Surgery, in Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. As per Ext.P6 order of transfer dated 14-5-2008, the petitioner was transferred and posted in Medical College, Kozhikode. As per the same order of transfer, th...

Madya-videsamadya Vyavasaya Thozhilali Fedn. Vs. Secretary to Govt.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ869

V. Giri, J.1. Common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions. Therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. I will refer to the facts in 27944/2006 in the first instance. The first petitioner is the Madya-Videsamadya Vyavasaya Thozhilali Federation. It claims that about 689 Abkari workers are on daily wages, now working in the Kerala State Beverages Corporation after the foreign liquor trade was taken over by the Corporation as per orders of the Government. The Government issued G.O.(MS). No. 24/2006/TD dated 1-3-2006. By the said order the Government took note of the fact that the Managing Director of the Kerala State Beverages Corporation had reported that there are 689 daily wage employees in the Corporation who are covered under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme and the contribution of 12% of the wages which are otherwise paid to the employees has been incurred by the Corporation and that if the daily wage employees are...

Latha S. Nair Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Ker)267; [2009]309ITR256(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This tax reference arises from the order of the Tribunal disposing of the appeal for the year 1990-91. Since the income-tax reference and the original petition pertain to the same matter, we heard the matter together and proceed to dispose of both the cases through this common judgment.2. This income-tax reference arises from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, disposing of the appeal filed by the Revenue. Even though cross-objection was filed by the assessee, the same was not noticed by the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal got disposed of independently, without reference to the assessee's cross-objection. Later, the cross-objection was taken up and the Tribunal dismissed this as infructuous because the appeal arising from the same order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was already disposed of, after hearing both sides. In the appeal, the assessee has raised the question pertaining to disallowance of loss confir...

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Vs. Mustang Rubbers Ind ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(237)ELT257(Ker); 2008(3)KLJ115

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. These connected appeals filed under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act are against the common order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal holding that respondents are entitled to benefit of Annexure-B notification issued by Government of India on 11.08.2003 retrospectively from 01.04.2003. Respondents are limited companies mainly engaged in manufacture of tread rubber. Besides producing and clearing excisable goods on their own account, these companies are engaged in manufacturing and processing of goods for other parties including tyre companies on job work basis. Notification No. 9/2003-C.E issued on 01/03/2003 provides concessional rate of duty at 60% of normal rate of duty for first clearances up to rupees one crore and exemption from payment of duty for clearances of specified goods under certain conditions. The benefit of concession and exemption under Clause 2(vi) of this notification is available only if the aggregate value of...

Thomas Cheriyan K. Vs. the Commissioner of Comml. Taxes

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ531; (2009)24VST550(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for appellant and learned Government Pleader.2. Order under challenge is Clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes clarifying that the labeling equipment sold by the appellant answers the description of 'machinery' falling under Entry 84(1) of I Schedule to the KGST Act. Learned Counsel for appellant contended that the item is only an equipment to print price of a product on the label to be fixed on the cover of the product. During hearing, learned . counsel for appellant produced sample of the item marketed by appellant. We find that one side gum pasted paper roll is loaded in it and what the machine dose is printing the figures or letters on the label. It is a simple device like a rotating seal or a stapler. The items of machinery referred under Entry 84(1) are internal combustion engine, marine engine, diesel generating set, diesel engine etc. We do not think the simple equipment used for printing the pr...

Mrs. Meera Jacob Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2009]313ITR411(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Heard senior counsel Sri Joseph Markose appearing for the appellant and standing counsel appearing for the respondent. The question involved is whether the assessee, in the computation of long-term capital gains, is entitled to deduction under Section 54F of the Income tax Act in respect of investment in modification/expansion of an existing residential house. The Tribunal took the stand that exemption is available only when the investment is in the construction of a house and not for investment in modification or renovation. Admitted facts are that the assessee had a fairly big house to which the assessee made addition of 140 sq. metres of plinth area. However, it is the conceded position that the assessee has not constructed any separate apartment or house. Section 54F does not provide for exemption on investment in renovation or modification of an existing house. On the other hand, construction of a house only qualifies for exemption on the investment. E...

M/S.Control Zee (P) Ltd.Vs. P. Abdul Samad, Comp-land and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the first opposite party in OP.No.275/94 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.30,975/- to the complainant with interest at 12% from 5.4.94 and also a sum of Rs.5000/- as costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a computer from the appellant for a sum of Rs.63,300/- and also placed order for a laser printer for which he paid an advance of Rs.24,500/-. The laser printer was not supplied. The computer supplied was not having the configuration that he ordered. Hence he could not use the computer. The complainant is running a computer training institution. 3. The opposite parties 1 to 3 ie; the first opposite party firm, and its Managing Director and Chief Executive had disputed the contentions of the complainant and alleged that the liability if any, is that of the manufacturer. It is also pointed out that it is the fourth opposite party, the financier to the complainant...

Chaithanya R. Menon (Dr.) @ Mini Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ3392; 2008(2)KLJ789

ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The Revision Petitioner (Dr. Chaithanya R. Menon @ Mini) challenges the order dated 30-10-2007 passed by the J.F.C.M., Kunnamangalam discharging all the 8 accused persons under Section 245(1) Cr. P.C.2. In the private complaint filed by the revision petitioner against her husband the 2nd respondent herein (Dr. Suresh T.N.) and 7 others, she alleged the commission of the offence of bigamy punishable under Sections 494 read with 107 and 34 IPC. According to her, she is the lawfully wedded wife of the 2nd respondent herein (Dr. Suresh T.N.), their marriage having Been solemnized on 18-1-1998 2nd one male child was also born in that wedlock and while sot the marital partners fell apart and on accused, the 3rd respondent herein (Mini) with the connivance and assistance of her relatives who are accused Nos. 3 to 8.3. The learned Magistrate, as per the impugned order discharged all the accused persons. Hence this revision.4. I heard Advocate Sri. Rajit, the learned Coun...