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. Prima Agro Ltd., Kochi Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-12-2011
RamachandranNair, J. Question raised in the appeal filed by the assessee is whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming assessment declining to carry over inabsorbed loss computed by the Assessing Officer for the year 2005-06. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and have gone through the orders of the Tribunal. 3. The assessee, a limited company, posted income tax return for the assessment year 2005-06 through registered post on the last date provided for filing the return i.e. 31/10/2005. Admittedly, the return so filed through registered post on the last day for filing return was received by the Assessing Officer on 02/11/2005. Even though the return was not filed in time under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) disentitling the assessee the benefit of carry forward of unabsorbed loss, by virtue of Section 139(3) read with Section 80 of the Act, the Assessing Officer treated the return as one filed under S...
Johny Nelloor Vs. Jose thettayil
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-12-2011
1. Election to the 075 Angamaly Assembly was held on 13.4.2011. The petitioner was a candidate sponsored by the UDF and the respondent was a candidate sponsored by the by the LDF. Counter took place on 13.5.2011. Respondent secured 61500 votes, whereas the petitioner could poll only 54330. Hence, the respondent, who obtained the largest number of votes, was declared duly elected. 2. In this petition, the petitioner challenges the election of the respondent mainly on three grounds. They are (i) the respondent was holding an office of profit under the State government and therefore he was disqualified under Article 191 of the Constitution of India from contesting the election, (ii) there is gross violation of S.38 of the Representation of the People Act , 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Act’ ) and the Conduct of Election Rules in preparing the list of candidates and (iii) in the election campaign the respondent used a poster showing him standing before the newly put up KSR...
M/S. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and Another Vs. M/S Assoc ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-12-2011
SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER These appeals are filed by the opposite party and the complainant respectively against the order dated 25.3.2011 of CDRF, Palakkad in CC.92/2009. By the impugned order the opposite party is under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,58,750/- with compensation of Rs.20000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. The amounts are directed to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the opposite party is also directed to pay interest at 9% per annum from the date of the order till realization. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that the firm has availed 2 policies from the opposite party; one for the building and the other for plant and machinery and stock totaling to a sum of Rs.55lakhs. It is his case that though the policy covered fire peril and that the fire that occurred on 5..8..08 had completely destroyed the property and though the complainant investigated the loss through a PWD Engineer and was as...
Veena Vinod Vs. Asst. Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Wa ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-12-2011
SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER This appeal is filed by the complainant in OP 1051/03 before the CDRF Thrissur who is aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint vide order dated 2.9.10 by the Forum below. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that her husband was running a service centre by name Hare Krishna Service Centre under PMRY scheme and that she was regularly remitting the electricity charges to the opposite parties. It is her case that the 1st opposite party issued a bill for Rs.16,091/- on 15.11.03 and on 20.11.03 another bill was issued for Rs.3,535/- and she was asked not to remit the bill dated 15.11.03 for Rs.16,091/-. The complainant had remitted the amount of Rs.3,535/- and she was shocked to get a bill for Rs.1,63,281/- on 1.12.03. But was asked to pay Rs.97,197/- only after deducting Rs.61,084/-, the amount already remitted by her. It is her case that she was not able to pay the said amount. Since she had already remitted the bills issued to her. All...
Muhammed Insak, Plywood Centre Vs. Rajesh
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-12-2011
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The application is filed to condone the delay of 358 days in filing the appeal. In the affidavit filed in support of the application it is mentioned that the deponents shop was closed and locked in November 2010. The order is dated 23.10.2010. According to him as the shop was closed he was not aware of the order and came to know of the same only when a policeman came with a warrant issued by the Forum. 2. The respondent/complainant was present in person. He has filed an objection pointing out that the applicant/opposite party had contested the matter and was represented by a counsel and that the applicant was aware of the order dated 23.10.2010. It is alleged that the statement that he was not aware of the order is false. It is also submitted that the respondent/complainant is a person suffering from disability of 60% affected by polio on both legs. 3. We find that the applicant/opposite party had filed version before the Forum and contested the...
Mini Venugopal Vs. the State of Kerala, Represented by the Secretary t ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
Vinod Chandran, J. The appellant, the petitioner in the writ petition is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order of the 2nd respondent denying exemption from State Eligibility Test (SET) for being considered to the post of Higher Secondary School teacher. The prayer of the petitioner was rejected by the learned single Judge on the ground that the classification made by the Government granting exemption from SET only to teachers who have completed ten years of approved teaching service at the High School level in the General Education Subordinate Service, for being considered to the post of Higher Secondary School teachers in Government Schools is perfectly valid. The appellant however would impugn the judgment of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the said classification violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The appellant claims that the appellant’s total service as High School Assistant in the Aided School and the Government School, latter under the General Educat...
K.R. Sasidharan Nair Vs. Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies and O ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
1. Promotion given to the petitioners in O.P. No. 12170 of 1998 to the post of Sr. Supervisors is under challenge in O.P. No. 18048 of 1997, stating that they are not qualified in terms of Rule 186(i)(ii) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and that the same is contrary to Ext.P4 (Special Rules) framed by the Bank. Ext.P4 (Special Rules) in O.P. No. 18048 of 1997 is sought to be set aside by the petitioners in O.P. No. 12170 of 1998, stating that the same is contrary to the mandate of Rule 186 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and hence not enforceable. 2. The petitioner in O.P. 18048 of 1997, pursuant to Ext. P2 notification, was selected and appointed as Junior Clerk in the service of the respondent Bank, as per Ext. P1 appointment order dated 09.01.1986. The petitioner is a Graduate with HDC and hence qualified for the post. The probation was declared on 20.04.1987 and he was later promoted as Jr. Supervisor w.e.f. 01.03.1990 as per Ext.P3. The case of the petitioner...
M/S. N.P. Thomas Vs. Represented Kerala and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with appellant's challenge against the constitutional validity of Section 17B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter called as the Act for short). 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, and have also gone through the judgment of the learned single Judge. 3. The Appellant is a registered dealer under the Act engaged in purchase and sale of cement within the State. Cement was an item taxable at the point of first sale under the First Schedule to the Act. However, when Finance Bill, 2004 was introduced "cement" along with another 20 items were proposed to be shifted from the First Schedule to the Fifth Schedule to the Act, which provides for two point levy of tax on the said commodities. By virtue of notification issued along with Finance Bill 2004, all dealers ...
Fertilisers and Chemicals Travoncore Limited Vs. K.A. Ayyappan Pillai, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
1. Ext.P5 Award passed by the 7th respondent/Industrial Tribunal is under challenge at the instance of the Management. 2. Respondents 1 to 6 were admittedly the workers of a Society, functioning in the name and style as Udyogamandal Labour Contract Co-operative Society, (a Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act/Rules), engaged for the purpose of branding/stenciling gunny bags purchased by the petitioner Company (which is a Govt. of India Enterprise) from elsewhere for packing various fertilizers. Such engagement of the workers was by entering into a contract with the Society, who appointed the workers, who were being paid, supervised and controlled by the Contractor Society. It is stated that there is no employer-employee’ relationship between the petitioner and the said workers/respondents at any point of time. 3. While so, in tune with the administrative requirements/exigencies, the petitioner decided to put an end to the practice of manual branding and ...
M/S. Supersonic Industrial Complex Vs. the Assistant Commissioner and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
1. Denial of the claim for refund, in respect of exemption from the liability to pay purchase tax with retrospective effect is the point involved. 2. The petitioner, an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent, is a dealer engaged in the business connected with the commodity ‘rubber’. By virtue of the relevant provisions of law, tax was payable on purchase turnover of rubber and the petitioner was remitting the same accordingly, in connection with the manufacture of centrifuged latex and crumb rubber. 3. While so, the Government, in exercise of the power conferred under Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (KGST Act in short) issued Ext.P2 notification bearing SRO No.695/2003, finding it necessary in the public interest so to do and exempted the manufacturers of centrifuged latex and crumb rubber from payment of tax under the KGST Act, 1963 on the purchase turnover of rubber in any form used for the manufacture of centrifuged latex and crumb rubber. It ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »