Kerala Court November 2009 Judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. B. Rajashekharannair

Court: Kerala

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Question raised in the appeal filed by the Revenue is whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the C.I.T.(Appeal) deleting addition of Rs. 5,43,000/- and Rs. 4,04,000/- seized from the assessee during search made on 19.12.2002. We have heard Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee.2. The assessee was engaged in money lending and was also a partner of two tourist homes, one by name Manacaud Tourist Home and the other by name Manacaud Tourist Paradise, both in Trivandrum. During search, substantial amount of Rs. 22,13,480/- was recovered from the assessee. The assessee made a statement that Rs. 5,43,000/- was withdrawn from the Manacaud Tourist Home and Rs. 4,04,000/- was withdrawn from the Manacaud Tourist Paradise. However, simultaneous search was conducted in the premises of these two Tourist Homes and the department noticed that cash balance available in the books of accounts was ...

Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT978

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The first question raised by the assessee pertains to fate of tax on wireless transmission projectors marketed by the assessee. The assessee's claim is that the item is an electronic system taxable at the rate of 8% underitem55 of the First Schedule of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short 'the K.G.S.T. Act') or at least under the residuary entry of the First Schedule i.e., item No. 177 where the rate of tax is the same. On the other hand, the assessing officer completed the assessment treating the item as projector taxable at the rate of 12% under Item 32 of the First Schedule. Counsel produced leaflets showing the description of the project. It is seen from the same that the projector is manufactured by the Panasonic company and the petitioner is only the marketing agency. The projector is described as wireless transmission projector, which is used for projecting data from a computer on a screen in an enlarged form. The contention of counsel i...

T. Raja S/O Thankamony Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Bhavadasan, J.1. The accused in this case was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 302 and Section 397 IPC. He was found guilty and was accordingly convicted for both the offences and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) on default of payment of which, he had to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. So far as the offence under Section 397 IPC is concerned, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- on default of payment of which, he had to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. It was directed that the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The case of the prosecution, in short, is as follows:2. The deceased namely, Selvarani was staying with PW4. They were leading a family life, though not married. They had been residing so, for about three years pr...

Omana Thomas, Professional Asst. Vs. the University of Calicut,

Court: Kerala

Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. W.P.(C) No. 16367/2008 filed by the appellant in these appeals and W.P.(C) No. 37461/2007 filed by the 3rd respondent in W.A. No. 2125/2008 (1st respondent in W.A. No. 2146/2008) were disposed of by a common judgment dated 7.10.2008. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, these Writ Appeals are filed by the appellant, who was petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 16367/2008 and 2nd respondent in W.P.(C) No. 37461/2007. W.A. No. 2125/2008 arising out of W.P.(C) No. 16367/2008 is treated as the main case for the purpose of referring to the parties and exhibits.2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The 1st respondent University invited applications for appointment to the post of Professional Assistant Grade II on 4.8.2003. After completing the selection process, the rank list was published on 6.1.2005. The appellant belongs to Cheramar Christian Community, which is entitled to reservation set apart for Other Christians (OX). She was rank No. 279 in the rank list p...

Santhoshji S/O Late Kunju Pillai Vs. Executive Engineer, Keala State,

Court: Kerala

A.K. Basheer, J.1. When these two appeals which arise from a common judgment came up for admission, they were taken up for final hearing as agreed by learned Counsel on either side. Since the parties and the issue involved in them are common, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The bone contention in these two appeals is the transformer erected by the Kerala Electricity Board in the property which originally belonged to the common appellant. The appellant who has admittedly assigned the property in favour of respondent No. 1, objected to the request made by the latter to shift the said transformer from the middle of the property to the south east corner, contending that the transaction had not yet been completed and that he continues to be the owner.3. It is on record that the parties had locked horns earlier in OS No. 458 of 2003 which was a suit for injunction filed by the appellant against respondent No. 1. The suit was dismissed by the Munsiff Court and the appeal...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tbs Publishers and Distributors

Court: Kerala

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in the appeal filed by the Revenue is whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the C.I.T.(Appeal) cancelling the reassessment completed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act in the case of the respondent for the year 1996-1997. We have heard Senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. P. Balakrishnan, counsel appearing for the respondent.2. The assessee filed the return on 29.11.1996 disclosing the total income as nil. Return of income was processed under Section 143(1)(a) and intimation was sent on 20.1.1997. However, on 31.1.1997 itself the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148 proposing to reopen the assessment for the reason that the Assessing Officer was of the belief that taxable income has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The reason for reopening as recorded in the C.I.T.(Appeal)'s order is extracted hereunder:The return of income was filed on 29...

Ramaswamy Vs. Kamaraj Ponnuswamy

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT255

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioners are respondents in different petitions filed by the first respondent before the Kerala State Election Commission under Section 4 of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999, for short, the 'Act'.2. The first respondent sent a petition to the Commission on 2.2.2009 by registered post alleging that the writ petitioners committed defection. The Commission's office received that on 4.2.2009, well within the period of fifteen days prescribed in Rule 4A(2) of the Kerala Local Authorities (Disqualification of Defected Members) Rules, 2000, for short, the 'Rules'.3. Going by the files, the Commission's Secretary sent a letter by ordinary post on 16.2.2009 to the first respondent stating that the petition submitted through registered post could not be acted upon and that if the first respondent is desirous of filing petitions, he has to do so in terms of Civil Procedure Code either in person or through counsel. The first res...

Suharabi Vs. Special Tahsildar

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT15

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner applied for re-determination of compensation under Section 28A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. That was rejected as time-barred. Hence, this Writ Petition.2. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader.3. Petitioner applied on 20th November, 2004 relying on an award passed by the Court on 21st August, 2004. Section 28A(1) of the L.A. Act provides that the written application under that provision shall be made within three months from the date of the award of the Court. The word 'month' is not defined in the L.A. Act. Therefore, the definition of that term in Section 3(35) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applies. Hence, the month has to be reckoned according to the British Calendar. Therefore, the period of three months for the purpose of an application under Section 28A(1) has to be reckoned according to the British Calendar, applying Section 3(35) of the General Clauses Act. The award of court relied on by the...

Ramachandran Master Vs. Jyothilal

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT103

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge upholding the maintainability of the complaint filed by the first respondent against the appellant before the Lok Ayukta under Section 7(1) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, hereinafter called the 'Act'. We have heard senior counsel Sri O.V. Radhakrishnan appearing for the appellant and Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3. Even though notice was served on the first respondent, he has not entered appearance.2. On receipt of copy of the complaint from the Lok Ayukta, the appellant filed an application before the Lok Ayukta raising objection about maintainability of the complaint. Since Lok Ayukta did not hear on the maintainability, the appellant approached this Court with a Writ Petition for issue of a writ of mandamus to Lok Ayukta to consider the preliminary issue on the maintainability of the complaint before proceeding with the complaint. However, the learned single ...

Srilankan Airlines Ltd. and the Airport Manager Vs. the Permanent Lok ...

Court: Kerala

A.K. Basheer, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated August 5, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioners have filed this writ appeal contending, inter alia, that the learned Single Judge ought to have set aside Ext. P3 award passed by the permanent Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which led to the filing of the writ petition may be briefly noticed.3. Respondent No. 2, who was a passenger in one of the flights operated by the first appellant Airlines from Dubai to Thiruvananthapuram had booked two baggages in the course of his journey on September 9, 2005. One of the baggages weighing 42 Kgs. was found missing on his arrival at Thiruvananthapuram. To make a long story short, the baggage was never recovered and the appellants agreed to pay compensation to the passenger at the rate of 20 US Dollars per Kg. in accordance with Clause 22 of Schedule 2 of Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (for short 'the...