Kerala Court September 2009 Judgments

Joseph Vs. Giji Varghese and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ502

C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.1. The appellant herein is the claimant before the Tribunal. The appellant's brother Pappachan alias Thomas sustained fatal injuries when a Jeep knocked down him on the public road, on 2.11.1995. The deceased succumbed to the injuries after 33 days of the accident. The deceased was an unmarried man, Other' sibling of the deceased were impleaded as respondents 4 to 8 before the Tribunal, According to the appellant/claimant the deceased was an Agriculturist earning monthly income of Rs. 2500/-. The deceased was aged 54 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal found that neither the claimant nor the other sibling are dependents of the deceased, and hence they are not entitled for any compensation under the head of dependency. The Tribunal found that the appellant/claimant as well as respondents 4 to 8 are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 26,500/-. But considering the provisions under Section 140 of the M.V. Act an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded. The clai...

Appollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009[16]STR689

1. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6 order issued by the 2nd respondent whereby claim for refund of Service Tax paid in relation to goods manufactured and exported by the petitioner was rejected, for the reason that the 2nd respondent is not having jurisdiction to entertain such claims, since the exporter is M/s. Appollo Tyres Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana and the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner under whom the exporter's office falls is the authority having jurisdiction. According to the 2nd respondent his office has no jurisdiction to sanction the claim as per the provisions contained in the relevant notification. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Ext.P1 is the relevant notification and it provides that the claim for exemption by the manufacturer-exporter shall be submitted before the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of the Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the factory of ...

Art Leasing Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2010]187TAXMAN29(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised is whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts claimed by the appellant-assessee for the assessment years 1997-98 to 2000-01. We have heard Sri T.M. Sreedharan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant.2. The appellant-assessee is a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) registered with Reserve Bank of India. As a measure of control, the RBI has issued guidelines to NBFCs to create provision for bad and doubtful debts. According to the assessee, the assessee created the provisions for bad and doubtful debts in terms of the guidelines issued by the RBI in exercise of the powers conferred on the Bank under Section 45JA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (for short 'the RBI Act'). However, in the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that the appellant/assessee has claimed deduction of the entire provision created for bad and doubtful debts...

Bhaskar and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2010]187TAXMAN163(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The connected appeals are filed by the assessee challenging the orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, wherein the denial of status claimed by the assessee as a 'firm' by the Assessing Officer is confirmed by the Tribunal for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Standing Counsel Sri Jose Joseph, who took notice on admission.2. The assessee was being assessed as a registered firm until the assessment year 1992-93. From 1-4-1993 onwards, major amendments were introduced in Chapter XVI of the Income-tax Act dispensing with registration of firms for the purpose of assessment under the Act. Newly substituted provisions of Section 184 introduced with effect from 1-4-1993 is extracted hereinbelow for easy reference:184. Assessment as a firm.- (1) A firm shall be assessed as a firm for the purposes of this Act, if-(i) the partnership is evidenced by an instrument; and(ii) the ind...

A.K.Shajahan Vs. the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd.

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 20.9.04 in OP.No.362/04 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint was filed by the appellant herein as complainant against the respondent as opposite party whereby the Forum dismissed the complaint. 2. It is the case of the complainant that his Fiat Uno Car bearing Registration No.KL-01-S-313 which was insured with the opposite party for a period from 6.7.2000 to 5.7.01 for a sum of Rs.4.43 lakhs met with an accident on 21.3.01 and damaged extensively. Permit was to use it as a contract carriage. The complainant was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and he submitted claim form to the opposite party. As the opposite party offered to settle the claim on salvage basis, the complainant gave the consent letter to the opposite party to settle the claim for Rs.1,75,000/- under salvage loss basis. The complainant had obtained a driving license from RTO, Mumbai for driving heavy motor veh...

Niyas Ahammed Vs. the Manager, Muthoot Conventional Gold Loan Polayath ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.23/07 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The matter relates to the dispute with respect to the interest charged on pledged ornaments. The Forum has dismissed the complaint holding that for the case of pledging only create relationship of creditor and debtor and hence the case is not maintainable. 2. Both sides have admitted that the position highlighted by the Forum is incorrect. It is settled law that the consumer disputes redressal agencies under the Consumer Protection Act has got jurisdiction in the above matters. In the result order the Forum is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Forum. Forum is directed to adjudicate the matter on merits. The case stands posted before the Forum on 2.11.09. Office is directed to forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently. ...

T.K. Vasudevan Achary Vs. the General Manager Kerala State Financial E ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER The above appeal is preferred against the order dated 9.7.04 in OP 69/03 of CDRF, Kollam wherein and whereby the complaint stands dismissed. 2. The case of the complainant before the Forum was that he was a subscriber of Chitty No.8/94 of the opposite parties as chital No.9 for a sala of Rs.50000/- and that he had taken a loan of Rs.25,000/- based on the chitty amount. It is his case that though the chitty was prized on the 13th instalment and as he could not procure the sureties as demanded by the opposite parties, the amount was asked to be put in deposit and inspite of the said request the opposite parties failed in doing so and that at the same time he was asked to pay huge amount on the loan without any basis. Alleging deficiency in service the complainant was filed praying for directions to pay sum of Rs.71,981.29/- with interest at 18% per annum from 15.2.02 with compensation and cost. 3. The opposite parties contested the matter by filing version...

Sudheer T. Vs. M.V. Susheela and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ369

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The point that arises for decision in this case, is the applicability of the principle 'he who decides must hear/he who hears must decide' to Governmental decisions. This Writ Appeal was referred to the Full Bench by the Division Bench entertaining the doubt, whether the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in K.P. Subair Haji v. Secretary to Government 2007 (4) K.H.C. 62, lays down the correct position, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in A. Sahjeevi v. State of Madras : AIR 1970 SC 1102, which was quoted with approval in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab : AIR 1974 SC 2192.2. Before considering the above legal question, we will presently refer to the skeletal facts of the case. The subject matter of the case is concerning the right to manage an Aided Upper Primary School. The appellant was the fourth respondent in the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent herein. The Writ Petition was filed, challenging Ext.P8 order of the Governm...

Usha Thayyil Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ433

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The point that arises for decision in these Writ Petitions is, whether a teacher who has relinquished his/her claim for promotion to the post of Headmaster can stake his/her claim, when another vacancy in that post arises subsequently. The answer to the above question will depend on the construction, placed on the Note to Rule 44(1) of the Kerala Education Rules (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Rules').W.P.(C) No. 37060 of 2007:2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The petitioner, Usha Thayyil, was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant (for short, 'UPSA') in the fourth respondent's aided Upper Primary School on 6.7.1989. The fifth respondent, Smt. P.C. Sheela was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant in the said school on 7.7.1989. As per Rule 45B(1) of the Rules, a pass in Account Test (Lower) conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission is an obligatory qualification for promotion as Headmaster of Lower Primary and Upper Primar...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Travancore Titanium Products Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2010]187TAXMAN81(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. These appeals are filed by the revenue against common order of the Tribunal pertaining to the income-tax assessments of the respondent company for the years 1991-92 to 1997-98 and 1999-2000 to 2002-03. The respondent is a State Government undertaking with 80 per cent of the shares held by the Kerala Government. The respondent company located in Trivandrum is engaged in manufacture and sale of Titanium Dioxide. Being a Government company, it is under the control of the Government and its Board of Directors is also constituted with the Government nominees including Government Secretaries. The company is located in the extensive land leased from the Government on a paltry lease rent. Besides this, the Government is rendering a lot of services and incentives by way of reduction of sales tax for marketing the products of the company whenever there is slump in the market. In consideration of the services rendered by the Government, the State Government issued Gov...