Kerala Court April 2011 Judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Heera Construction Co. Pvt. Lt ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. Respondent assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in real estate business i.e. construction and sale of commercial and residential apartments and buildings. A search was conducted by the Income Tax Department in the business premises and in the residence of Directors of the Company under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). Pursuant to the search, the Assessing Officer proposed to make block assessment under Section 158 BC of the Act and as the first step, the assessee was called upon to furnish return of disclosed income in Form No.2B. Even though assessee filed return disclosing undisclosed income of Rs.79,10,187/- the assessee did not remit the tax thereon, which was Rs.48,41,034/- prior to or along with filing of returns. The Assessing Officer proceeded to make assessment by making substantial addition to the returned income and the total income assessed was Rs.1,32,89,530/-. However, in appeal, the Commissio...

A.Vincent, Green Land Travel Service Vs. the Branch Manager, Bank of B ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP.494/03 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint stands dismissed. It is the case of the complainant that he had deposited a DD for Rs.16,419/- with the opposite party/bank on 2.4.02 in his account and the same is seen not credited. The amount is mentioned in the counterfoil of the paying slip received on depositing the DD. When the complainant noticed that the amount is not credited he sent a letter on 7.7.03 to the opposite parties. The opposite parties/bank has contended that in fact it was not the DD for Rs.16,419/- that was deposited on the particular date. He complainant had deposited a cheque for Rs.43,977/- on 2.4.02 as per pay-in-slip No.68428. The same was credited in his account. The rest of the contentions are false and denied. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DWs 1 and 2, Exts.P1 to P3 and D1 to D6. The Forum has dismissed the complaint as it was found that the docu...

Jnanaguruvammal Vs. the Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

COMMON JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant in Appeal-518/2010 is the complainant and the appellants in A.630/10 are the opposite parties/insurance company in CC.121/09 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The complaint filed claiming own damage expenses of Rs.2.lakhs and personal accident coverage of Rs.2.lakhs was disposed of by the Forum allowing Rs.1,50,000/- towards own damage claim with interest at 9% from the date of the complaint and cost of Rs.1000/-. The personal accident claim was not entertained on the ground that the jurisdiction in this regard is with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appellant/complainant in Appeal-518/10 has disputed the order of the Forum rejecting the own damage claim. The Appeal-630/10 is filed by the opposite parties contending that the own damage claim cannot be allowed as the driver of the vehicle was not having a proper and valid driving license. 2. The case of the complainant who is the wife of the deceased RC owner cum...

Department of Posts, Reptd. by the Chief Postmaster General Vs. K. Rav ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR, MEMBER 1. The order dated 30.4.09 of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP.458/99 is being assailed in this appeal by the third opposite party. As per the impugned order, opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severely liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25,000/- with cost of Rs.2,000/- within 2 months, failing which the amount shall carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of default till date of payment. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that in response to a newspaper advertisement for the post of Manager in South Indian Federation of Fishermen Societies he had applied for the said post and that the society sent a telegram to the complainant directing him to appear for an interview on 8.5.99. As the complainant was not in receipt of any intimation, he contacted the society and came to know that a telegram was already sent to him on 5.5.98 itself. The complainants case is that when he contacted the Alamcode Post Office, he was informed ...

Mannady Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Krishna Kumar, Managing Committee ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(2)ILR(Ker)619; 2011(2)KLJ745; 2011(2)KHC361

Ramachandran Nair, J. The connected Writ Appeals are filed against common judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing four writ petitions filed challenging the notification and follow up action taken by the appellant-Bank for appointment of an Attender, a Salesman and one Peon in the appellant-Bank. We have heard Senior counsel Sri. K. Ramakumar appearing for the appellant-Bank and counsel appearing for the contesting respondent and the Government Pleader for the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. 2. Of the four writ petitions filed, one was filed by none other than a member of the managing committee of the appellant-Bank and one each by members of the Bank and the fourth one by an applicant who has applied for the post of Attender and Salesman. The allegations raised before the learned Single Judge were that the Bank was running on heavy loss and the accumulated loss as on the date of inviting application for the impugned appointments was Rs.36 lakhs and, therefore, the just...

Santha Vs. State of Kerala, Rep.by Public

Court: Kerala

Can a person be directed to undergo imprisonment in civil jail, under Section 446 of the Code, before exhausting steps to recover the penalty? Mainly, this question arises in this appeal, filed under Section 449 of the Code. 2. Appellant was a surety for the accused and he executed a bond for appearance of accused under Section 441 of the Code, with the bond amount Rs.25,000/- before the Additional Sessions Court. The accused did not appear in court, and hence, notice was issued to appellant and the other surety. Despite giving notice, appellant did not appear in court, and hence she was directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as penalty. It was also ordered by lower court that if such amount is not paid, she will undergo civil imprisonment for six months. The said order is under challenge in this appeal, under Section 449 of the Code. 3. Learned counsel for appellant, Sri. Manu Tom submitted that petitioner is an illiterate woman, who happened to stand as surety for the accused and when she got n...

The Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank and Another Vs. P.C. Abdul La ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP.238/04 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikkode. The appellants are under orders to close the loan amount with respect to the complainant and return of the documents deposited by the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.500/-. 2. The matter is with respect to the alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties/bank authorities in not properly accounting the amounts remitted towards the loan dues of Rs.1,30,000/- availed on 20/2/1995. According to the complainant the repayment period of the loan was for a period of 156 months (13 years) with the monthly instalment of Rs.1,800/- and interest at the rate of Rs.15.5%/floating rate. According to the complainant he has remitted the monthly instalment in time and in full. The opposite parties are demanding more amounts. 3. On the other hand, the opposite parties have contended that the period of repayment was 180 mo...

Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kseb, Meenangadi.P.O, Wayanad ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in CC.74/08 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The appellants are under orders to confine the back assessment of 2 years preceding the date of issue of the bill. 2. The matter is with respect to back assessment made in April 2008 for the period from September 1996. 3. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, OPW1, Exts.A1 to A8 and B1. 4. The only dispute is with respect to the entitlement of the opposite parties to issue bill back assessing from April 1996. The bill has been issued only on 30/9/2008. The Forum relying on Sec.56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003, cancelled the above and directed the opposite parties/appellants to issue a fresh bill confining the period for 2 years preceding the date of issue of the bill. We find that absolutely there is no illegality in the order of the Forum. Hence the order of the Forum is sustained and appeal is dismissed. Office will forward the LCR along with a co...