Kerala Court April 2009 Judgments

P.P. George and Sons Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ331

K. Surendra Mohan, J.1. As per G.O(MS)4/92/PD dated 6-2-1992 the Government of Kerala announced a concessioanl power tariff and electricity duty to industries, as a measure of incentive. The concessional tariff was applicable only to units that started production between 1-1-1992 and 31-12-1996. Though the petitioner did not start commercial production before 31-12-1996, he claims the benefit of the concessional tariff alleging that he had started commercial production in June 1996, using a diesel generator set installed by him, On the above basis, he challenges the denial of the concessional rate of electricity tariff to him.2. The petitioner is running a printing press unit at Angamaly, which is registered as a small scale industrial unit. The unit had applied for electrical connection and as per Ext. P4 proceedings, the executive engineer K.S.E. Board sanctioned the work on an estimate of Rs. 1,16,640/- on 19-6-1995. Thereafter, the concerned Minister had directed the grant of elect...

Transformers and Electricals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009[14]STR737; [2009]22STT96

Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Heard counsel for the appellant and standing counsel appearing for the respondent. Appeals are against the orders of the Tribunal upholding levy of service tax on Engineering and other services rendered by the respondent under the charging entry 'Consulting Engineers Service'. Respondent is engaged in manufacture and installation and commissioning of transformers. The contract is obviously a divisible one, one for manufacture of the product and the other for rendering services in the form of installation and commissioning. We are of the view that Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the design and engineering services received answer the description of fee for rendering services as Consulting Engineers. We therefore dismiss the appeals. We take note of the finding of the Tribunal that no excise duty is payable on the charges on which service charge is levied....

K. George Vs. Thankamma Varghese and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ367

ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The landlord is the petitioner is this revision petition under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. He applied for eviction on the ground under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 read with Clause (IV) of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 own occupation after reconstruction. The Rent Control Court allowed the application and ordered eviction. The Appellate authority reversed the decision of the Rent Control Court, allowed the appeal preferred by the tenant and dismissed the RCP.2. In this revision under Section 20 the landlord impugns the judgment of the Appellate Authority to the extent the same is against him. We have heard the submissions of Sri. T. Krishnan Unni, senior counsel and Sri. Jacob P. Alex, counsel appearing along with him on behalf of the revision petitioner landlord and also those of Sri. M. Narendrakumar, counsel for the contesting respondents, viz., respondents, 1,3,4 and 6 to 8 in the rent control petition. The facts as pleaded by the parties before the R...

Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. B. Indira Devi

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2009]185TAXMAN96(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Heard senior counsel Sri. P.K.R. Menon, appearing for the appellant and Sri. Arun Raj, counsel appearing for the respondent. Even though counsel for the respondent submitted that another counsel from Madras is to argue the case, we do not propose to adjourn the case because having regard to the nature of order passed by the Tribunal, there is no scope for deciding the matter on merits by this Court. We therefore proceed to dispose of the case after preliminary hearing of both sides.2. These appeals are filed by the revenue against the remand order issued by the Tribunal which is common for all the assessment years 1991-92 to 1998-99. The assessee's share in a building complex is leased out to a company, beneficiaries of which are her relatives, on a rent which is less than market rates or fair rent. Therefore in the Income-tax assessment the Assessing Officer estimated annual value and assessed the same as income under Section 23(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act...

M.P. Agencies Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2010)28VST44(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 62 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, hereinafter called 'the Act' against annexure 5 order issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 94 of the Act, clarifying rate of tax on the products distributed by the appellant by name 'Ujala Supreme' and 'Ujala Stiff and Shine'. The products are manufactured by M/s. Jyothy Laboratories, and the appellant is the wholesale distributor of the products in Kerala. While Ujala Supreme is a fabric whitener, Ujala Stiff and Shine is a liquid fabric stiffner. The product samples produced by the appellant in bottles contain the description of the products as follows:Ujala Supreme : Fabric whitener-For supreme whiteness of clothes.Ujala Stiff and Shine : Liquid fabric whitener for crisp and shining clothes.2. When the appellant applied for clarification before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on the rate of tax applicable to the above two products, the Commissio...

The Managing Director, Kerala State Co-operative Consumer Federation V ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC.84/07 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.5500/- with a compensation of Rs.1000/- and cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. 2. The matter related to the supply of gas by the Consumer fed. The case of the complainant is that the price of the gas was enhanced several times and hence she terminated the service of the appellant and entrusted the gas cylinders and regulator to the appellant and requested to return the deposit amount Rs.6020/-. There was no response. 3. The opposite parties have admitted only collection of a sum of Rs.5750/-. It is contended herein by the counsel for the appellant that the gas cylinder and regulator was not returned. 4. We find that no documentary has been produced by the complainant or by the opposite party. The appellant seeks to adduce evidence to substantiate their case that the cylinder and regulator was not returned and that the...

The Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. T. Sreekantan and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ317; (2009)IVLLJ809Ker

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. For the purpose of convenience of reference W.P.(C) 24901 of 2007 filed by the Employer/Management (which is the first case) is taken as the main case, where the interference made by the second respondent as per Ext.P7 Award, substituting the punishment of Dismissal by Discharge with superannuation benefits, even after arriving at a finding that the disciplinary authority was definitely justified in imposing major punishment (paragraph No. 10 of the Award) is subjected to challenge. W.P (C) No. 35711 of 2007 is filed by the worker, challenging the very same Award, in so far as the second respondent has upheld the validity of the Enquiry and arrived at a finding that the misconduct stated as committed by the worker stanas proved.2. The worker was serving the employer-Bank as a Typist-Clerk and on 13.02.2003, he committed some serious misconducts as detailed in Ext, PI charge memo. The charges levelled against the worker were that he behaved in a riotous, dis...

Ambika Rajan Vs. Basheera Beevi and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2009Ker151; 2009(2)KLJ300

K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The question of law involved in this Writ Petition is whether the decree holder in a suit for realisation of money is entitled to get refund of the court fee paid on the plaint, under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, when the dispute between the parties In the Execution Petition is settled before the Lok Adalat.2. The petitioner fled the suit against the respondents for realisation of Rs. 1,71,000/with interest on Rs. 1,50,000/-. The suit was decreed on 30.10.2001 The petitioner filed Execution Petition for realisation of the decree amount from the respondents by attachment and safe of their properties and by arrest and detention of the second judgment debtor in civil prison. The respondents entered appearance in the Execution Petition and filed objections. The parties submitted before the executing court that there was a possibility of settlement. Therefore, the Execution Petition was referred to the Lok Adalat organised by the Chirayinkeezh ...

Dr. R.P. Patel Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)225CTR(Ker)378; [2009]182TAXMAN305(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. These connected appeals filed by die assessee arise from the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal disposing of assessee's appeals for the assessment years 1991-92 to 1998-99. The assessee is a renowned Homoeo doctor engaged in medical practice at Kottayam. Besides income from profession, the assessee is engaged in sale of medicines and books. Admittedly assessee was not maintaining books of account for his professional income and income was returned on estimation basis. Search was conducted in the professional-cum-residential premises of the assessee on 30-12-1994. During the course of search substantial amount of cash, Indira Vikas Patras (IVP) valued at substantial amount and promissory notes were recovered. From the locker maintained by the assessee in the State Bank of India, Jawahar Nagar, Baroda, the Department seized IVPs of face value Rs. 67.60 lakhs out of which IVPs of Rs. 90,000 was found to be purchased by the assessee's son and bal...

Rajesh Krishnan, Secretary Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ720Ker

S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The petitioner is a Co-operative Society engaged in the business of running a hospital. They are aggrieved by Exhibit P-9 order of the respondent - Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Kottayam, by which it was held that the petitioner's hospital is liable to be covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and the Scheme framed thereunder. According to the petitioner, being a Co-operative Society employing less than 50 employees, the petitioner is eligible for exemption from the provisions of the Act, by virtue of Section 16(1)(a) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, by which Co-operative Societies employing less than 50 employees are exempted from the purview of the Act. The petitioner's contention is that. Exhibit P-9 order has been passed considering the trainees engaged by the petitioner in their establishment also as employees, who do not come within the definition of 'employee' under Section 2(f) ...