Kerala Court February 2012 Judgments

M/S. Sree Avittom Thirunal Hospital Health Education Society, Medical ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Appeal is filed against order of the Tribunal confirming the assessment completed for the year 2005-2006. We have heard counsel for the appellant and also Standing Counsel for the respondent. 2. After hearing both sides and after going through the orders impugned, we do not find any substantial question of law arising from the assessment sustained by the Tribunal. It is seen that assessee's claim for exemption as a charitable institution is allowed. In fact on a total net income estimated at Rs.1,26,86,204/-, after giving deductions at Rs.1,04,89,936/-, the Assessing Officer has accepted application of 50% expenditure under Section 11(1)(a) at Rs.16,57,210/-. Besides this, 75% of the income was allowed to be carried over to subsequent years i.e. Rs.68,88,591/- under Section 11(2) of the Act. In the result, the net surplus income assessed as not used for charitable purpose or permissible to be carried forward for subsequent years is Rs.19,44,135/-. It is seen th...

T.S. Grover Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

1. Annexure O, complaint dated October 04, 2002 submitted the second respondent, the Regional Drugs Inspector, Ernakulam before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam for offences punishable under Sec. 18(a) of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 (for short, "the DPC" Order) r/w Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short, "the Act") and the proceedings taken thereon are sought to be quashed, by accused Nos. 1 to 5 and 8 to 10 invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code"), they having failed in their attempt to get a discharge under Sec. 245(2) of the Code. 2. The case against petitioners and others is that they, without good and sufficient reasons withheld supply of medicine as per orders dated 22-03-2000, 29-05-2000, 08-06-2000 and 14-06-2000 placed by the third respondent, their stockist. M/s.  lnfar India Limited is the manufacturer of the medicine in question and M/s.  Martin and Harris L...

The Manager, State Bank of Travancore Vs. K.T. Devassia

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/SBT in CC.118/11 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 20000/- as compensation and costs apart from complying with the directions to furnish certified copy and also to publish in a leading daily etc. 2. We find it is admitted that the title deed submitted as security by the complainant has been lost in the custody of the opposite party. 3. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 to 3; Exts.A1 to A5. 4. We find and in view of the fact the original title deed entrusted with the opposite party has been lost the direction to pay a sum of Rs.20000/- towards compensation and costs can not be said to be excessive, especially in view of the fact that persons intending to purchase the property will not be willing if original title deed is not available. We find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum. Hence the appeal is dismissed in limine...

Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Palachira, Varkala and Others ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER It is aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated: 30.3.09 of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP No. 78/02 that this appeal is filed by the opposite parties calling for the interference of this commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. 2. The complainants had approached the Forum stating that the 1st complainant was a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No. 5969 and that on 11.07.2001 the spot biller of the opposite parties informed the complainant that the meter installed in the premises of the complainant was faulty and that the bill for 07/01 was assessed on the basis of the average consumption which was continued in 09/01 also. It was their case that though they had informed about the fault of the meter to the opposite parties in 07/01 itself, the meter was not replaced and that on 8.12.2001, an official of the KSEB came to the complainants house and disconnected the supply stating that there...

E.R. Vijayakumar Vs. P.V. Jayaprakash and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the 1st opposite party private bus operator in CC.934/07 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- each to the 5 petitioners and cost of Rs.250/- each. 2. The opposite parties/appellants were ex-parte before the Forum. 3. The matter is with respect to the non stopping of the bus at the bus stop. 4. It is seen that the appellant had appeared in person and conducted the case before the Forum. It is stated by the appellant that the posting date was omitted to be noted and hence he could not represent the matter on the date of hearing. 5. In the circumstances and in view of the fact that the matter has been disposed of without hearing the opposite party the same is set aside on condition that the appellant pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost to the complainant altogether or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. On payment of cost the Forum will permit ...

Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd. Vs. Abdul Kareem and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the 3rd opposite party in CC.161/10 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The opposite parties including the appellant are under orders to return the vehicle documents, duplicate key and un used cheque leaves to the complainant and also to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs. 2. It is the case of the appellant that appellant has only refinanced the finance agreements made by opposite parties 1 and 2 another finance company and hence the appellant is not in possession of the documents etc. The 3rd opposite party/appellant was ex-parte before the Forum. The appellant has sought for an opportunity to contest the matter. In the circumstance the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the appellant pay a sum of Rs.3000/- towards cost 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 3rd opposite party to contest the matte...

N. Abdul Hai and Others Vs. K. Nandakumar

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(2)ILR(Ker)715; 2012(2)KLT949

Ramakrishna Pillai, J. Tenant's revision. 2. The respondent sought eviction of the revision petitioner from the tenanted premises under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'), alleging as follows: The mother of the respondent, who was the owner of the petition schedule building, leased out the same to the revision petitioner in September, 1968, on a monthly rent of Rs.1,350/- for conducting a boarding and lodging business, on condition that the building should not be sub let to others. This was after getting vacant possession of the building from one Govindan Nair, who was the previous tenant. It was found that the revision petitioner had sub let various rooms of the building to other lessees without the consent of the respondent's mother. Payment of rent was also defaulted. Respondent got the petition scheduled building alloted to his share in the family partition. He needed the building...

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam Vs. M/S. Extra Weave, Alappuz ...

Court: Kerala

JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The sole question raised in the connected appeals filed by the Revenue against the very same assessee is whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing deduction of canvassing commission paid in the determination of export turnover for the purpose of deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act (hereafter referred to as the Act for short). 2. The assessee is a 100% export oriented unit engaged in manufacturing and export of coir products by using synthetic materials as well. Being a 100% EOU the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B on the profit earned on export. However, since the assessee has DTA sales, the eligible export profit for deduction has to be worked out in terms of Section 10B(4) of the Act, which provides for working out proportionate profit on export turnover from the total profit. There is no dispute on the total profit or on the total turnover and the only dispute is what is export turnover that qualifies for deduct...

Kuraisha Sadiq Vs. M. Abdul Kalam and Others

Court: Kerala

1. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is whether the notice issued under clause(b) of proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not served on the accused and if the second notice issued after the expiry of 15 days from the date of intimation regarding the dishonor of the cheque can be treated as a valid notice? In other words, whether the second notice can be treated as a continuation of first notice? 2. The appellant is the complainant in S.T.No.364 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thiruvananthapuram. She has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the first respondent/accused before the lower court. The learned Magistrate by the impugned judgment dated August 22, 2005 found that the complaint was time barred and dismissed the same and acquitted the accused. The complainant has now come up in appeal ...

M/S. T.C.M. Ltd Represented by Its Managing Director Joseph Varghese V ...

Court: Kerala

1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the orders of the Tribunal with a delay of 206 days. We have heard Advocate Sri. P. Balakrishnan, appearing for the assessee. 2. At the time of hearing the petition for condonation of delay, we considered the case on merit as well. The first issue raised is: is expenditure claimed for Rights-issue incurred in the previous year relevant for assessment year, but did not result in actual Rights-issue. According to the assessee, since minimum subscription was not received proposal was given up. Assessee’s case is that it is an abortive capital expenditure which should be allowed as revenue expenditure. However, the Tribunal, following the decision of the Supreme Court in – Brooke Bond Ltd v. CIT – 225 ITR 798) rejected the claim. We do not think, the question can further arise for decision by the High Court when it is decided by the Tribunal based on law settled by the decision of the Supreme Court. ...