Kerala Court May 2009 Judgments

Olam Exports (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2009]184TAXMAN373(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the questions raised pertain to computation of deduction for export profit under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act. The assessee having its industry in a backward area was entitled to deduction under Section 80IB of the Income-tax Act. However, by virtue of Section 80IB(13), read with Section 80IA(9) of the Act the assessee will not be entitled to claim deductions both under Section 80IB and under Section 80HHC of the Act. Tribunal following their Full Bench decision upheld the disallowance under Section 80IB(13) of the Act, but granted deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. Even though senior counsel appearing for the assessee contended that deduction under Section 80HHC is a full code by itself and no exclusion would be made while computing eligible deduction, we notice that Section 80IB and under Section 80HHC come under Chapter VI-A and by virtue of specific exclusion under Section 80IB(13) of the Act the assess...

Fertilizers and Chemical Vs. Kumarana S/O. Vallan and

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2009Ker182

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. What, if any, is the court fee payable on an application for review of judgment in re an award by Court under the Land Acquisition Act?Facts:On its requisition, lands were acquired for the petitioners' purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short, the 'LA Act'. Compensation payable on that account, to certain persons under awards of the Collector, were sought to be re-determined under Sub-section 2 of Section 28A of that Act. On applications under Section 28A(3), those matters were referred for the determination of the Court. The references were answered by the Court, enhancing the compensation. Petitioners applied for review of the judgments resulting in those awards but insisted that no court fee is payable on those applications for review. The court below over-ruled that, sustaining the objections by its office. Such common decision in different matters is under challenge in this bunch of writ petitions.Reasoning in the impugned order:An ...

Far East Trading Establishment Vs. the Intelligence Officer and the St ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)25VST147(Ker)

ORDERK. M. Joseph, J.1. Common question arises in these Writ Petitions and they are disposed of by a common Judgment.2. Petitioners call in question the constitutionality of Section 44(10) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Petitioners have been visited with orders imposing penalty under Section 44(8) of the Act. It is, at once, necessary to extract the aforesaid provisions:44. Power to order production of accounts and powers of entry, inspection etc. -(8) If any Officer, while inspecting any place of business under Sub-section (2) or searching any place under Sub-section(3) finds therein any goods not accounted for by the dealer in his accounts and other records required under Section 40 to be kept and maintained by him such Officer may, after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, by order, direct the payment of a penalty, not exceeding fifty per cent of the value of the goods not accounted for, as may be fixed by such Of...

In Re: Saji

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ410

ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Heard Sri. Ramkumar Nambiar, learned Amicus Curiae and learned senior Government Pleader Sri.T.G. Sunil.2. Accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the person, in relation to whom this order is being passed, was found to have committed that act, but was acquitted on the ground of unsoundness of mind. With such finding and judgment in terms of Section 334 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it was ordered that he be detained in safe custody in the Mental Health Centre, until ordered to be delivered to any relative or friend. Thereafter., his mother applied to the court below that he be delivered to her care and custody, That is refused on the ground that it having had issued an order for his detention in safe custody in the Mental Health Centre in terms of Clause 'a' of Sub-section 1 of Section 335, the court could not further issue an order under Clause 'b' of that subsection that he...

Geevarghese K. Paul Vs. Commissioner of Land Revenue and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ357

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 notice of sale of the immovable property belonging to him as proceeded against by the third respondent, stating that the acquisition of the property by the petitioner is hit by Section 44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and also by Section 26(A) of the KGST Act.2. The sequence of events is that, the father of the petitioner was an ' assessee' before the Sales Tax authorities. The assessment proceedings in respect of the year 1996-97 and 1997-98 were pending and the accounts of the assessee (father of the petitioner) were called for, by issuing form No. 50 notice on 18.05.2000. Subsequently, notices were issued on 06.07.2000, 09.08.2000, 23.08.2000, 02.09.2000 and 19.09.2000 as well. The father of the petitioner sought for time on 10.10.2000. The notice issued on 28.09.2000 was answered by the assessee as per the reply dated 16.12.2000 and the assessment orders as borne by Exts. P2 and P3 were passed on 22.12.2000.3. T...

The Regional Engineer, Kerala State Housing Board, Panampilly Nagar, C ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in the fileNo.1140/99 dated 9.1.01. The appellants are the opposite parties in the OP prefers this appeal. 2. The brief of the case is that the opposite parties allowed a plot No.4 to the complainant in the housing scheme which was named Asok Nagar housing colony at Ayyanthole, Thrissur. The prayer of the complainant is seeking for a direction to execute the sale deed of his allotment and the scheme for which he entered into the Hire purchase agreement and was taken to possession and enjoyment. The opposite party contended that the hire purchase agreement had been executed on 10.1.1978 with Housing Board and as per the terms of agreement he was also affected the entire payment and therefore appellants have no authority to withheld execution of the sale deed in respect of the respondents allotment on making demand for further payments towards the cost of the land and the cost of the construct...

Assistant Executive Engineer, P.H. Sub Division Kerala Water Authority ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP:96/03 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The Forum has setaside the bill issued for a sum of Rs.13,045/- and directed the opposite parties to refund the above amount with interest at 12% from 13..5..2003 till the date of judgment and there after at 6% interest till the refund of the whole amount. The complainant is also allowed to realize Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- towards cost. 2. The case of the complainant is that he is a consumer of the opposite party/Water Authority and was paying the water charge in advance and has paid the water charges up to April 2003. The opposite parties have issued additional bill demanding Rs.13,045/- for the period from 5..6..1998 to 4..6..2002 vide bill dated:17..1..2003. The genuineness of the above bill was challenged. It is also contended that the bill is barred by limitation. 3. The opposite parties/appellants had contended that the additional bill ...

Sathjith V.H., Sooryahari and ors. Vs. Shaju S., Advocate,

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ420

V. Ramkumar, J.1. The petitioners, in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are six members of the Paravoor Sreenarayana Vilasom Samajam, Kollam, which is the 4th respondent in this writ petition. The said Samajam is a charitable society registered under the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Literacy, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955. The petitioners, as members of the said Samajam, challenge Ext.P4 common order dated 6.5.2009 passed by the Vacation Judge, Kollam in charge of the Sub Judge, Kollam. Petitioners also seek a declaration that respondents 2 and 3 are statutorily prohibited from being appointed in the management and administration of an aided school by name S.N.V. Girls High School run by the said Samajam.2. The Samajam referred to above is running the aforesaid aided Girls High School by name S.N.V. Girls High School and an auditorium by name S.N.V. Samajam Auditorium. The affairs of the said Samajam are being run as per a S...

Pakeer Muhammed Firoskhan Vs. the Asst. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(167)LC253(Kerala)

ORDERK.P. Balachandran, J.1. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.47/97 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. He was convicted for offence under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act and was sentenced thereunder to undergo R.I. for a term of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further term of three months with right of set off under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C.2. In appeal filed by him as Crl. Appeal No. 333/99 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, the Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction of the appellant, but modified the sentence reducing the substantive sentence of imprisonment to six months. It is assailing the said conviction and sentence that this Crl. R.P. is filed.3. It is contended before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though conviction also is assailed in the revision what he actually assails as against the conviction is that the c...

Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs. State Trading ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)26VST350(Ker)

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to be issued to the first respondent to furnish form 25 in respect of the transactions covered by the bills produced as exhibits P2 and P3 series, pertaining to the sale of black pepper for the years 1986-87 and 1987-88.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is not the last seller or purchaser coming within the meaning of the term stipulated under the statute and that it is entitled to have form 25 declaration from the first respondent, contending that it was the first respondent who exported the black pepper to the foreign buyers, though it is based on the terms of exhibit P1 contract. The case put forward by the first respondent (the State Trading Corporation) is that it can never be regarded as the last purchaser. It is submitted that, though exhibit P1 contract was executed between the petitioner and the first respondent, the materials were sold directly by the petitioner to ...