Kerala Court February 2012 Judgments
C.P. Abdurahiman Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Heard the counsel for the appellant and also the Standing Counsel for Revenue. 2. The question raised only relates to the addition of unexplained cash credits found in the accounts of the assessee. Assessee is a partner in jewellery business. During search in the business premises of the assessee, it was noticed that only small portion of the sales are accounted. While the finding of the Audit is that unaccounted sales proceeds are introduced in the accounts the assessee took a defence that two brothers gifted 5.5. lakhs and 5 lakhs each. However, the assessee could not establish the credit worthiness, genuineness and capacity of the donors. Consequently the unexplained cash credits were treated as unaccounted income and assets in the hands of the assessee. On appeal by the assessee the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Division Bench in Sandeep Kumar v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2007) 293 ITR 294 and decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner...
Tag this Judgment!Jameela Beevi Vs. Basheer and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
Harun – UI-Rashid, J. 1. Plaintiff is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.105/1986 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Irinjalakuda. Suit was filed for setting aside Ext.A2 sale dated 9.12.1974, partition and separate possession of 1/6th share and for share of profits and costs. The trial court dismissed the suit with costs. Parties hereinafter are referred to as the plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in the suit. 2. Plaintiff is claiming share in the plaint schedule property as one of the legal heirs of Bavunni. Bavunni died on 31.3.1982. Defendants 1 to 4 are the other children of Bavunni and the 5th defendant is the wife of Bavunni. The 6th defendant is the brother of Bavunni. 3. The 6th defendant in the written statement contended that right of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property was assigned to him and he purchased the same for value and in good faith. Ext.A2 is the sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of t...
Tag this Judgment!Cardamom County Parks and Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. K.A. Ansari and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
Challenge in the revision is against the order of acquittal rendered in favour of the accused/1st respondent in C.C.No.630/06 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III. Kottayam. The de facto complainant, a company represented by its Director is the revision petitioner. The accused was prosecuted for offences under Sections 406, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), on a report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottayam West Police Station. After trial, the learned Magistrate, holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences ordered his acquittal. Propriety, legality and correctness of that order is assailed in this revision. 2. Short facts necessary for disposal of this revision can be summed up thus: The accused was the Restaurant Manager of a “Kappi Club” operated by the petitioner company. He was also entrusted with the work of making payments to vendors for purchases made in...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Ravindran Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
Ramachandran Nair, J 1. Heard senior counsel Sri.T.M.Sreedharan appearing for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for Revenue. 2. The question raised pertains to levy of penalty u/s 158BFA(2) of the I.T. Act, that is confirmed by the Tribunal. The appellant/assessee was subject to search and notices were sent to him to file return of undisclosed income. Pursuant to the notice assessee filed return in Form No.2B declaring undisclosed income of Rs.3 lakhs. However, apart from this declared undisclosed income, the assessing officer made an addition of Rs.4,15,000/-. Even though the assessee made specific plea that out of Rs.4,15,000/- Rs.3 lakhs represents gift received from Non Resident Indians, Assessee not only failed to prove it but did not even pursue the contest against assessment, after disposal of the first appeal against the assessee. The Assessing Officer therefore levied penalty on the entire differential amount of Rs.4,15,000/- which is equal to the tax payable. Eve...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. P.V. Majeed, Managing Partner, Palakkad District Vs. the State of ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
1. The matter arises under the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Rules 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') and the action taken by the Custodian under the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Ordinance 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ordinance'). 2. It is the petitioner's case that Kaliappara Estate is a partnership firm in which he is the Managing Partner. The firm owns an estate having a total extent of 541 acres of land on perpetual lease from the Diwan of Cochin. A notification dated 19/9/2000 is published by the 3rd respondent under Ordinance No.8 of 2000 whereby an extent of 28 hectares of land comprised and forming part of the aforesaid 541 acres of land is notified as Ecologically Fragile Land (hereinafter referred as EFL). The petitioner filed an application under Section 19(3)(b...
Tag this Judgment!Raji Santhosh and Another Vs. M/S United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Repd. ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the complainants in CC.366/09 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. The first complainant is the owner of the car bearing registration NO.KL 41 A 348 and insured with the opposite parties. The case of the complainants is that on 21.5.08 one Fathima Suhara requested the second complainant, husband of the first respondent driving the vehicle for a lift to the bus stand and on the way to the bus stand the second complainant visited the rented house occupied by the staff of his establishment and entered the toilet in the bed room. By this time, Fathima Suhara locked him in the bathroom from out side and went away with his mobile phone, money and the key of the car. It was found that she had stolen the car. He subsequently informed the Police. On the way while Fathima Suhara was driving the car it was involved in an accident and the car got damaged extensively. M/s Fathim Suhara was arrested in the theft...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Gracykutty Vs. Biju John, Kollantayyath Veedu and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT It is the case of the appellant that her husband is running a proprietary firm as Thyvilayil Travel. The contract carriages involved in the matter is registered in the name of the appellant. The appellant is not a party in CC.34/10 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta over which the appeal is filed. Opposite party/Manager Thyvilayil Travels is under orders to refund the advance amount of Rs.200/- with Rs.9,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs and if the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the amount will carry interest at 9% from the date of the order. 2. The appellant has alleged that there is no post of Manager in the above travels and DW1 is the son of the appellant and that he is attempting to interfere in the business of the appellant and that the appellant and her husband are planning to wind up the business and to sell the vehicles and lead a retired life peacefully. It is also contended that the allegations in the com...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. T.K. Jayarajan, Chief Surgeon Vs. C. Abdul Vahid
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellants are the opposite parties in OP.145/03 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikkode. The appellants/opposite parties 1 and 2 the hospital and the doctor are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1.lakh and cost of Rs.300/-. The case of the complainant is that on 22.8.02 while he was working on the Die at his industry accidentally his left hand was caught in the die and 3 of his left hand fingers ie ring finger, middle finger and index finger got severed. The left hand little finger and thumb also sustained minor injuries. He was immediately taken to the opposite partys hospital. The 3 fingers were cut off as if by a sharp knife. The severed parts of the fingers were collected by the workers and the same was also brought to the hospital within 15 minutes of the accident. The 2nd opposite party, Surgeon was requested by the complainant and others that his hand should be restored to the normal condition. The 2nd opposite party was also told that there are ...
Tag this Judgment!Branch Manager, Shriram City Union Finance Limited Vs. T.M. Abdulla Ku ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER The opposite party in CC No135/10 on the file of the CDRF, Kasargod is the appellant herein who is aggrieved by the order allowing the complaint and directing the opposite party to return the amount of Rs.2,860/- and to handover the loan termination letter and spare key with a cost of Rs.3,000/-. 2. The complainant availed a loan of Rs.37,000/- from the opposite parties and in turn 36 post dated cheque leaves for Rs.1,430/- each were given to the opposite parties towards the repayment of the loan amount for a period from on 7.1.07 to 7.1.2010. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties did not hand over the documents as promised and on repeated requests only notary attested RC book was given to the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite parties to close the loan account on 12.12.09. The opposite parties demanded Rs.3,860/- for two dishonored cheques. The opposite parties illegally demanded Rs.2,860/- towards loan termination and hyp...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Honda Siel Cars(India) Ltd. and Another Vs. M. Unnikrishna Menon
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/manufacturer and dealer in CC.189/05 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellants are under orders to rectify the defects of the car free of costs and in case the defect cannot be rectified to replace the vehicle with a new one and to pay cost of Rs.2000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased the Honda City Car on 3.12.04 for a sum of Rs.7,29,633/-. According to him due to the defective break system the car met with an accident on 3.2.05 as the vehicle stopped only after dragging for 20 meters when the car was running at a speed of 60 to 70 KMs. The vehicle entrusted with the opposite party was returned after repairs on 25.2.05. Even thereafter the car could be stopped after applying sudden break only after dragging about 20 meters. It is alleged that the problem is a manufacturing defect. The complainant has sought for replacement of the car or return of the purchase price as well as com...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »