Kerala Court December 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M/S. Sampanna Kuries (P) Ltd., Rep. by Chairman C.A. Francis, Trichur ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
RamachandranNair, J. This is an appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the Single Bench order of the Tribunal declining to interfere with the order issued by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act directing revision of assessment for the purpose of withdrawing claim of bad debt allowed in the original assessment under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. We have heard Senior counsel Dr. Mohammedkutty appearing for the appellant and Standing Counsel for the respondent. 2. The appellant is engaged in kurry business and the assessment involved is for the year 1995-96. The assessee returned a net income of Rs.1,00,550/- after claiming deduction of Rs.3,69,550/- towards bad debt written off. Though the Assessing Officer allowed the claim, the Commissioner of Income Tax perused the records and noticed that the bad debt did not represent debts which had become irrecoverable or written off as bad debt in the accounts for the previous year relevant ...
The Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram and Ot ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
Manjula Chellur, Aq. C.J. W.P.(C) No.36443/2007(S) 1. The petitioner is the Postal Department in all the petitions. Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 6 were petitioners in O.A.No.858 of 2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam (for short 'CAT') and respondents 1 and 2 herein were the applicants before the CAT and respondents 3 and 4 were private respondents 4 and 5 in the Original Applications. 2. The applicants before CAT were working as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master, Arattupuzha and Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer, Puthanchira respectively under the postal division of Irinjalakkuda. When the second respondent therein notified examination for promotion/recruitment to the cadre of Postman/Mail Guard, respondents 1 and 2 herein had applied and appeared for the examination. On seeing the recruitment process in the notification issued, after verifying vacancy position to the above said posts and the date of examination, the applicants had applied for communication of the mar...
P.V. Shajahan, Proprietor Vs. M/S. Calicut Engineering
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER This appeal is filed by the complainant in CC 175/04 before the CDRF, Kannur who is aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint vide order dated: 31.8.10 of the Forum below. 2. The complainant had approached the Forum stating that he was running a cinema theater and that on 10.12.2003 he had entrusted the generator head of his diesel generator for repairs to the opposite party and that on 11.12.2003 the same was repaired and returned to the complainant by the opposite party. It is stated that he had paid Rs.1,210/- towards repair charges. It is the specific allegation of the complainant that the repaired head of the generator became defective and that the complainant noticed a crack on the head and he entrusted the same to another repairer due to urgency and that the second repairer informed the complainant that the crack occurred in the head of the generator was due to the deficiency on the part of the opposite party while inserting the valve guide ...
Smt. Syamala Vs. Dr. D. Vijaya Devi and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU :PRESIDENT The complainant is the mother of the deceased Shaji aged 28 who allegedly died on account of the carelessness and negligence of the doctors of the MedicalCollege Hospital, Thiruvananthpauram. The recitals of the complainant is as follows:- On 3.3.2001 Mr.shaji had sustained a fracture of the right humerus as a result of fall at the temple at Sreekariyam and was taken to the MedicalCollege Hospitalwherein his arm was bandaged and was placed in observation. He was discharged on the next day on 4.3.01. He went to the house of the 2nd opposite party the Professor in the department of Orthopaedics, Medical college hospital (mentioned hereafter as MCH) and as per his direction attended the out patient treatment of the hospital on 9.3.01. As directed by the 2nd opposite party he was admitted as an inpatient. As directed by 2nd opposite party and the junior doctors of OP2 certain articles for surgery were purchased. At 8PM he was taken to the operation the...
The CochIn Malabar Estates and Industries Limited, CochIn Vs. Union of ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The appellant-assessee is a plantation company engaged in rubber cultivation. Crop obtained from rubber trees in the form of latex is converted in the factory in to centrifuged latex, and the sale of the same by the assessee is as a value added agricultural product. Besides field latex generated from assessee's own plantation, the assessee is also buying latex from small planters convert into centrifuged latex and sell the same. Following the practice for several years, for the assessment year 1996-97 also, the assessee returned 100% of income from their plantation obtained on sale after conversion of field latex into centrifuged latex for assessment under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act and no part was offered for assessment under the Central Income Tax Act. So far as the payment of agricultural income tax is concerned, assessment was completed based on the income returned and the order has become final. Even though no income from sale of ce...
Mohammed HussaIn Vs. the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
Pius C. Kuriakose, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition complaining that at the behest of respondents 4 and 5, the 3rd respondent Sub Inspector of Police, Ponkunnam has unduly intervened in a civil dispute which was decided in favour of the petitioner by a competent civil court under Ext.P1 judgment of this Court and by compelling the petitioner to give his endorsement to Ext.P4 statement which was recorded in the petitioner register maintained in the police station. The action of the 3rd respondent, it is alleged amounts to sheer harassment. 2. On considering this writ petition for admission we directed Sri. M.K. Aboobacker, the learned Senior Government Pleader who took notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 to harassment. Sri. M.K. Aboobacker submitted that the complaint was received from respondents 4 and 5 by the 1st respondent. The complaint was to the effect that the petitioner and his mother, the 6th respondent were threatening the petitioner with bodily injury and...
K.K. Aboobacker and Others Vs. Shahanas Sidhique and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The revision petitioners/opposite parties 5, 6 and 8 in CC.763/06. The revision is filed over the order of IA.540A/09 as per which the contention as to the maintainability and jurisdiction was dismissed. 2. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that the Forum has no jurisdiction as the transaction has taken place at Cochin and also that the amount was received in the personal capacity of the second opposite party and not in the name of the firm. 3. It is seen from the order that the complainant has disputed the above facts. It is the case of the complainant that the amount was received from at Thrissur. It is also seen that some of the opposite parties are residing within the jurisdiction of Thrissur CDRF. Hence, we find that the above aspects are matters of evidence. Hence there is no scope for admitting the revision petition. The Forum is directed to consider the contention of the opposite parties afresh while disposing of the matter on...
Shri. E.N. Vasu, (Died) and Others Vs. Dr. Charles Kujar and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 10th June 2005 passed by CDRF, Kottayam in OP.No.66/05. The complaint therein was filed alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 in treating the complainants son at the second and third opposite party hospitals. The opposite parties 1 to 3 were served with notice in OP.No.66/05. The third opposite party remained absent and he was declared ex-parte. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed preliminary written version raising the contention that the complaint is bared by limitation and so the complaint in OP.66/05 is not maintainable. Thereafter, the power of attorney holder of the complainant filed an affidavit dated 16th May 2005 requesting for condonation of delay in preferring the complaint in OP.66/05. It was alleged that the complainant is 88 year old person suffering from various old age problems; that the complainants wife is unable to move out...
The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board and Another Vs. Dilish N ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-17-2011
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in CC 234/10 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The penal bill issued by the opposite parties stands set aside. The opposite parties have not filed any version before the Forum nor has contested the matter. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the opposite parties pay a sum of Rs.8000/- towards costs to the complainant or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. On payment of cost, the Forum will permit the opposite parties to contest the matter. The Forum will issue notice to the complainant. The matter stands posted before the Forum below on 23.1.2012. The office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum below urgently....
Manager, Gulf Gate Hair Fixing Center, Kasaragod Vs. Manoj Jacob
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-17-2011
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.277/10 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragod. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- with 10% interest and Rs.2000/- as costs. 2. The appellants was ex-parte before the Forum. 3. It is submitted that the opposite party could not contest the matter as the notice was received by one of the employees of the company and he left the company and joined the rival company. 4. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the opposite parties/appellants pay a sum of Rs.8000/- towards costs to the complainant or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. On payment of cost, the Forum will permit the opposite parties to contest the matter. The Forum will issue notice to the complainant. The matter stands posted before the Forum below on 23.1.2012. Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum below urgently....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »