Kerala Court June 2008 Judgments

Nalini B. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008ACJ2214; 2008(2)KarLJ687

J.B. Koshy, J.1. An unfortunate mother applied for compensation for Rs. Four lakhs with interest for the death of her son while travelling as a bonafide passenger on 3-3-2005. The tribunal found that she is entitled to compensation and she was a dependent parent and compensation of Rs. Four lakhs was awarded as provided under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, but interest was awarded if the amount is not paid within a period of 45 days after passing of the award. Claim of the appellant is that the amount payable for the death of a passenger is fixed and, therefore, compensation is payable by the railway on the date of accident itself and the interest is payable from the date of accident. The learned Counsel for the appellant also relied on Section 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act wherein it is stated that compensation is payable from the date when compensation is due and the date when compensation is due is die date when the accident occurred. Stan...

Soman Vs. the Forest Range Officer

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ3418; 2008(2)KLJ544

ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The revision petitioner, who was the accused in C.C. No. 3 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakkad for an offence punishable under Section 51 r/w Section 9(2) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Section 27(2)(c) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him by the courts below for the offence punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act.2. The case of the prosecution as unravelled by the oral and documentary evidence can be summarised as follows:On getting credible confidential information to the effect that wild animals were being hunted and removed from the reserve forest, PW 1, a Flying Squad Range Officer, Palakkad and PW 2, a Mobile Squad Range Officer, Palakkad waited near the K.S.R.T.C. bus stand, Palakkad along with the their forest party at about 9.30 a.m. on 07-09-1987. They soon found the accused coming with a bag. On frisking the accused and e...

Sanil K.M.P. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ223; [2009]177TAXMAN481(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Heard counsel for the appellant and standing counsel for the respondent. The only question raised for decision is whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining addition of cash credits under Section 68 of the I.T. Act. The Loan creditors shown in the accounts are admittedly close relatives of the assessee.2. The case of the assessee before the Tribunal as well as before this Court in this appeal is that some of the loan creditors have confirmed transaction by appearing before the assessing officer, and so much so, loan credit stands proved and therefore addition is not justified under Section 68 of the Act. We notice from the Tribunal's order that Tribunal rejected the claim because except giving confirmation letters, none of the loan creditors proved their source before the assessing officer. In fact no effort is seen made to establish that the loans are advanced by close relatives to the assessee. We are in complete agreement with the finding of the Tr...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Abad Fisheries Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ313

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 allowing the appeal filed by the assessee for the year 1993-94. Assessee among other things was engaged in export of sea-food during the previous year. Under the Liberalised Exchange Rate Management System (LERMS) introduced by the Reserved Bank of India, assessee was allowed to retain 60% of the foreign exchange earning in a deposit with the RBI to be either utilised for import of goods or to be converted into Indian rupee at the close of the accounting year. The deposit under LERMS earned the assessee difference in foreign exchange at the time of encashment and also interest paid by the RBI in foreign exchange. The interest paid by RBI in foreign exchange was equivalent to Rs. 7,22,183/-. The assessee treated this as part of business income and claimed deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act. However, the Asses...

United Film Exhibitors Vs. Cit

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2009]316ITR432(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Heard Sri K.R. Sudhakaran Pillai, counsel appearing for the assessee-appellant and Standing counsel appearing for the Income-tax department. The only question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming disallowance of Rs. 5,40,000 towards electricity charges paid by the assessee for the theatre building leased out to another party. It is clear from the Tribunals order that under the original lease agreement made on 12-12-1984, liability to pay electricity charges is on the lessee and the assessee was getting rent net of electricity charges. However, counsel for the assessee contended that during the previous year relevant for the assessment year there was change of terms of agreement through correspondence between assessee and the lessee whereunder assessee agreed to reimburse electricity charges paid by the lessee, the amount being Rs. 5,40,000. We find from the order of the Tribunal that assessee originally returned entire rental income of...

The Sri Lankan Airlines Ltd. Vs. K.M. Ajith Kumar and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the 2nd opposite party Sri Lankan Airlines Limited who along with the 1st opposite party travel agent has been imposed with the liability to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.32,000/- and cost of Rs.1000/- in OP.702/02 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he obtained 6 tickets on 26.7.2000 from the 1st opposite party travel agent for journey on 2.8.2000 from Thiruvananthapuram to Colombo. These tickets were assigned OK status and on reaching the airport on the day of travel the complainant was told that the tickets are not having OK status. Thereafter they had to go to Chennai to get confirmation on payment of a sum of Rs.1230/- as additional charges per ticket. Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- has been claimed. 3. 1st opposite party travel agent admitted that the OK tickets were issued by an employee of the 1st opposite party by name Sunil. According to them he is the relative of the complain...

C.P. Mujeeb Vs. Royal Hospital Pvt. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ530

M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4577/2008 instituted O.S. 61/2006 before Sub Court, Kozhikode for specific performance of an agreement for sale executed by respondent/second defendant as Director of first respondent/first defendant Company M/s. Royal Hospital Private Limited to sell the plaint schedule property in favour of the petitioner. Defendants in the written statement contended that though an agreement was executed, petitioner did not perform his part of the contract within die time provided and the time provided in the agreement is the essence of the contract and therefore petitioner is not entitled to a decree for specific performance of the agreement. An application for appointment of a Commission was filed by the petitioner. A Commissioner was appointed. When the Commissioner inspected the plaint schedule property, the inspection was obstructed by third parties. They filed a statement before the Commissioner asserting their independent right in the property...

Moideenkutty Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ3402; 2008(2)KLJ741

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Can a defaulter be sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. for nonpayment of maintenance? Does the expression 'imprisonment' in Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. take within its sweep rigorous imprisonment also? These are the questions of law that are raised in this R.P.F.C.2. To the crucial and vital facts first: the petitioner who is undergoing imprisonment now had suffered an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to pay maintenance to the claimants. He did not pay such amounts and this obliged the Family Court to initiate proceedings against him under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. The amount remained unpaid. By the impugned order passed under Section 128 Cr.P.C., for the default committed in payment of maintenance for the period of twelve months the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twelve months. The amount earned as wages was diluted to be paid to the claimants.3. The learned Counsel assails the impugned order on...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kerala Chemicals and Proteins Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2009]176TAXMAN195(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. These appeals tiled by the revenue arise from the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench disposing of the assessee's appeals for the assessment years 1993-94 to 1997-98.2. We have heard the Senior Counsel Sri P.K.R. Menon appearing for the appellant and the Senior Counsel Sri P. Balachandran appearing for the respondent.3. The common issue raised for all the years is whether the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') in respect of the 'third series' of plant put up for production of ossein. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer conducted an inspection of the new plant for which Section 80-IA relief was claimed and he found that the plant is not a distinct and separate industrial unit inasmuch as certain common facilities are used for the new plant like conveyor system for raw materials, storage tanks etc. So far as storage tank for new plant is c...

Sree Usha N. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ127

Antony Dominic, J.1. The petitioners herein were appointed in leave vacancies as Junior Lecturers and Lecturers in St. Thomas College, Ranni, Pathanamthitta District. In these writ petitions they are claiming the benefit of Section 62(2)(b) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, which provides preference in the matter of future appointment in the College.2. Briefly stated facts of the cases are, the petitioner in WP(C) No. 12784/2004 was appointed as Junior Lecturer in Chemistry by Ext. P1 order dated 23-2-1983 in a leave vacancy. By Ext. P2 order, appointment for the period from 24-02-1983 to 09-01-1984 was approved by the Kerala University, under which the College was then functioning. Subsequently, by Ext. P3 order, the petitioner was again appointed as a Junior Lecturer in a leave vacancy for the period from 13-03-1984 to 20-12-1988 and this, again, was approved by the University as per Ext. P4. While so, by Ext. P5 she was appointed as Lecturer in a leave vacancy for the peri...