Kerala Court February 2010 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Abdul Gafoor

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLJ661

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in the appeal filed by the revenue is whether the Tribunal is justified in allowing deduction of loss claimed by the assessee by way of discount in bidding kuries against business income. We have heard standing counsel appearing for the appellant and counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee.2. The assessee is engaged in business in iron and steel. During the previous year, the assessee bid various kuries to raise funds which led to loss to him. The loss arising in the bidding of kuries at discounted price was claimed as deduction in the computation of business income under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The assessing officer held that loss not being interest on borrowed funds is not an allowable deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act.3. Even though the first appellate authority rejected the claim, in second appeal, the Tribunal allowed it by holding that but for the amount raised from chitty, the assessee would have had ...

The Secretary, Kseb, Thiruvananthapuram and Another Vs. K.H. Ummar

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/KSEB in OP No. 448/02 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellants are under orders to pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/-. The bill issued for Rs. 16,158/- stands set aside. The above amount is ordered to be refunded with interest at 24% and also to pay costs of Rs. 750/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that he is an electrician as well as the office bearer of powrasamithy at the locality. As the powrasamithy used to question the illegal actions of the KSEB through various media, the staff of the KSEB was in inimical terms with him. He was consuming only an average of 100 units of electricity bimonthly and was paying bills regularly. As the petitioner found that the electric meter in his house is not working, on 05-05-2002 he reported the matter to the KSEB by recording the same in the complaint book. On 04-07-2002 also meter reading was taken by the opposite party. On 16-07-2002 a news item appeared in the M...

Sasi Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT661

C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is against Ext.P6 notice issued under Section 66(3) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). Through the said notice, the 1st respondent had intimated the petitioner about proposal to revise Ext.P5 permission already granted under Section 8(b) read with Rule 11(2)(i) of the KVAT Act and Rules. The petitioner is running a Granite crushing industrial unit and he is a registered dealer under the provisions of the KVAT Act. The petitioner opted for compounding under Section 8(b) of the Act and application submitted in this regard in Form- 1D evidenced from Ext.Pl was allowed as per Ext.P5 proceedings issued in Form-4DA, fixing compounded tax payable for the year 2009-10 as Rs. 25,250/- which includes tax amount of Rs. 25,000/- and cess of Rs. 250/-. The said amount was permitted to be remitted in quarterly installments of Rs. 6,313/- each. In Ext.P6 notice it is mentioned that on a subsequent verification of records and on e...

P. Sankarankutty Nair Vs. the Branch Manager, State Bank of Travancore ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from this order passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in the file of C.C.No.578/06 dated 30.01.2009. The appellant is the complainant who prefers this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below. In short, the complainant is a bank account holder of the opposite parties bank and account number is 57031169550. He deposited Rs.300/- in the bank on 11.11.05. On 11.11.06 it was seen that Rs.104/- was credited to his account and also Rs.4/- on 31.05.06. He deposited an amount of Rs.500/- on 06.09.2006. The total amount to be found was Rs.908/- but this amount as shown as Rs.500/-. An amount of Rs.408 was debited by the opposite parties bank. On 12.12.05the Manager of the bank intimated that the minimum cash balance is Rs.250/- in his account. The account book has no cheque book facility. So the respondent bank is bound to credit the amount of Rs.408/- to his account. The complainants send an application to the Manager T.P.Rajagopal...

Arun Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT960

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The matter concerns the request for correction of date of birth of the petitioner in the school records. By Ext.P5 communication it was informed by the Central Board of Secondary Education that in the light of Rule 69.2(iv) of the Examination Bye-laws the request cannot be entertained, as it is not within two years of the date of declaration of results of Class X Examination. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same is not correct in the light of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1948/2008 and connected cases and that of a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 14854/2009.2. The petitioner is now studying for the final year B.A. Degree course in Mar Ivanios College, Thiruvananthapuram. He passed 10th standard under the Central Board of Secondary Education in April, 2005 from the third respondent's school and Ext.P1 is the true copy of the mark list. The petitioner was born 26.4.1989. In support of the same, true copy ...

Thirumali Kumar Vs. State

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT579

ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The petitioner, Thirumali Kumar, who is an accused in C.C. Nos. 2168 of 2004 and in C.P. No. 24 of 2009, on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class I, Ernakulam, seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, respectively in B.A. Nos. 7819 of 2009, 7837 of 2009 and 7818 of 2009.2. The crimes were registered in the year 2004. The offences alleged against the petitioner (first accused) in C.C. No. 2168 of 2004 are under Sections 454 and 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that the accused persons committed theft of gold ornaments from the house of the de facto complainant on 12.12.1996. In C.C. No. 2169 of 2004, the petitioner is the second accused. The offences alleged against the accused therein are under Sections 454, 461 and 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that the accused persons committed theft of gold ornaments and other articles from th...

Mr. K.A. George S/O. Iype and ors. Vs. the Udumbannoor Grama Panchayat

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. Petitioners, who are owners of poultry farms, have been issued notices by the 1st respondent Panchayat requiring them to close down the poultry farms within 48 hours. Among the contentions raised in these writ petitions filed against the aforesaid notices, it is stated that the applications made by the petitioners for licence are pending consideration of the Panchayat and therefore, the impugned notices are premature.2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat has obtained instructions. According to him, notices were issued in pursuance to the interim orders passed by this Court in W.P.(C). 17919/2009 and connected cases. However, a reading of the order itself show that though the Panchayat has been directed to take action, they were also directed to consider the applications made for issuance of licence. Therefore, it was for the Panchayat to consider the licence applications made by the petitioners and communicate the decision so taken, before not...

Manager, M/S. M.V. Bros., Ernakulam South, Kochi Vs. V. Sureshkumar

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT No representation for both sides. Dismissed for default....

Hafsath Beevi Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT746

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner challenges the directions issued by the official respondents to desist from holding out any offer to cure illness etc, by conducting prayers. At the stage of admission, the following interim order was issued.Notice and interim stay. It is made clear that the order of stay will only enable the petitioner to hold prayers in her house. She shall not undertake to treat any person for illness on the strength of this order.2. Having heard learned Counsel for parties, the following emerge. Firstly, in terms of Article 19 of the Constitution, the petitioner has a right to pray and to perpetuate her ideas as to religion, even by being part of a peaceful assembly, and to move freely for such purpose. Secondly, the State and its officers are entitled to reasonably restrict such activity if it tends to offend security, public orders, decency, morality and sovereignty and integrity of India. This includes reasonable restrictions on the basis of publi...

Anwar. M. Easa Vs. District Collector

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT747

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioners say that land tax is not being collected from them on grounds referable to the pendency of revenue recovery proceedings. The collection of revenue is income for the State. There is no inhibition in the law relating to revenue recovery prohibiting collection of land tax in the name of the Thandaper holder and also issuance of receipts to the person who pays land tax as the receipt of land tax and the issuance of receipt will, in no way, hinder the revenue recovery proceedings. The question of the Government getting the title over the property would be only if it purchases the property in revenue auction. If the sale under the Revenue Recovery Act, following attachment, is in favour of a third party, the transfer of title will go accordingly. The mere attachment will not result in an encumbrance which would necessarily deprive the State of its right to collect land revenue. Under such circumstances, there is no reason why land revenue sha...