Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2003]129TAXMAN335(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.M.The scope and ambit of section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as amended by the Finance Act. 1995 arise for consideration in these appeals. All these writ appeals arise from a common judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 30610 of 2002 and connected cases. The petitioners in the writ petitions are the appellants. All the appellants are either co-operative societies or co-operative banks registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. Being aggrieved by a communication of the nature of Ext.P2 in O.P. No. 30610 of 2002 received from the Income Tax Authority having jurisdiction over the petitioners calling for information such as a list of persons, who have made term/recurring deposits of Rs. 50,000 and above as on date along with their complete postal addresses, etc. they have filed the writ petitions. In the notice it is stated that the information is required in connection with the investigation of the appellants c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : III(2003)BC241; 2003(2)KLT613
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. Is the plea of limitation available to the accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this Revision Petition, which has been referred to a Division Bench. A few facts may be noticed. 2. On May 31, 1991, the petitioner-accused had given a cheque for an amount of Rs. 75,000/- to the 1st respondent-complainant. It was presented to the Bank. It was returned with the remarks - 'funds insufficient'. The position was conveyed to the 1st respondent by a letter dated June 6, 1991. On June 17, 1991, the 1st respondent issued a notice to the petitioner. It was accepted by him. However, the amount was not paid. Thus, the 1st respondent filed the complaint against the petitioner in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam. 3. After trial, the court vide its judgment dated April 26, 1995, held that the petitioner-accused was guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(2)KLT270
R. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. The petitioner - the third defendant in ARC. 392/2002 pending before the 1st respondent - the arbitrator, filed this Original Petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari or an order quashing the above proceedings in ARC 392/2002 and for a declaration that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to proceed with the above arbitration proceedings.2. The petitioner obtained a loan from the 2nd respondent, Bank, the Peoples Urban Co-operative Bank No. 51, Tripunithura, and defaulted in repaying the same. The Bank filed ARC 392/2002 before the first respondent for realisation of an amount of Rs. 21,00,916.50 under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner raised a contention before the first respondent that the first respondent had no jurisdiction to decide the above matter and the Debt Recovery Tribunal alone had jurisdiction to adjudicate the above claim. As no orders have been passed by the first respondent regarding the above question of jur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2003]131STC538(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. The first four appeals arise from the common judgment in O.P. Nos. 35719 of 2001, 4430 of 1999-B, 34182 and 34092 of 2001 of the learned single Judge Reported in [2002] 128 STC 216. W.A. No. 1089 of 2002 arises from the separate judgment in O.P. No. 31415 of 1999 following the common judgment in the writ petitions which are the subject-matter of the first four appeals. Though the appellants in all these appeals are different persons, the question involved in all these appeals is one with regard to the eligibility for exemption from payment of sales tax under the Notification S.R.O. No. 1729 of 1993 in respect of their product styled as 'mineral water' and later called as 'packaged drinking water'. Therefore, all these writ appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners in the writ petitions are the appellants. They are either proprietary concerns, or partnership firms or private limited companies. However, all the appellants are small-scal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(2)KLT943
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J. 1. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff before the Court below and he is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Munsiff on an application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17. The suit as instituted initially was one for injunction simpliciter. On the allegation that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants perpetrated trespass and therefore the proposed amendments were necessitated and the application for amendments was filed. The contention of the respondents/defendants was based on the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 introduced by the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 2002 under which the amendments will not be allowed after the commencement of the trial unless 'the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial'. The learned Munsiff had accepted this contention since he did not find any averment in the affidavit in support of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004CriLJ187; 2003(2)KLT929
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. Whether a Magistrate is competent to order further investigation after taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of police report filed under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) and after appearance of the accused in pursuance of the summons issued? That is the only question to be decided in this Criminal Revision Petition.2. A learned Single Judge of this Court (Mr. T.M. Hassan Pillai, J.) decided the above question in the negative in Natarajan v. Sasidharan (2002 (1) KLT 499). Reliance was placed by the learned Judge on the judgment of the Apex Court in Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration) (AIR 1997 SC 639). When this Revision Petition came up for hearing before the same Judge, a subsequent decision pronounced by another learned Single (Mr. G. Sasidharan, J.) in Joisy v. Sub Inspector of Police (2002 (3) KLT 172) was cited. In the above judgment relying the decision of the Apex Court in Sri Bhag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(2)KLT1009
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The main challenge in all these Writ Petitions is regarding the validity of the provisions of Sub-sections (2), (2A) and (2B) of Section 5 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short the 'Act') inserted by the Finance Act, 1998 (Act 14 of 1998) published in the KGEx.No.1221 dated 29.7.1998 with effect from 1.4.1998. The said sub-sections read as follows:'(2). Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in respect of manufactured goods other than tea, which are sold under a trade mark or brand name, the sale by the brand name holder or the trade mark holder within the Stale shall be the first sale for the purpose of this Act.(2A). Where a dealer liable to tax under Sub-section (1), sells any goods to a trade mark or brand name holder for sale under a trade mark or brand name, no such dealer shall be liable to pay tax under the said sub-section, if he produces before the assessing authority a declaration in the prescribed form from that trade mark or brand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(2)KLT606
R. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. The petitioner, the Trissur District Co-operative Bank Employees Union represented by its Secretary, filed this O.P. for directing the 2nd respondent, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, to consider Ext.P9 representation and to cancel Exts.P7 and P8 resolutions taken by the 4th respondent, the Administrator, Trissur District Cooperative Bank, and also for directing respondents 1to 6 not to grant and disburse the loan amount sanctioned as per Exts.P7, P8 and P11to the 7th respondent, Priyadarshini Co-operative Hospital Ltd. No. R 756. 2. The allegations in the petition briefly are as follows: The 5th respondent, the Trissur District Co-operative Bank was under the administration of the Administrator with effect from 4.5.2002. The 7th respondent Priyadarshini Co-operative Hospital Ltd. No.R756 was a co-operative society registered as a Hospital Society in 1986. The objectives of the above society could not be achieved even after 16 years and the above society ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(3)KLT908
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The Electoral Officer of the Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission issued notification dated 19th August, 2002 (Ext.Pl in O.P. 27295/02) for holding election to the Managing Committee to the Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Limited (MATSYAFED). As per the notification, 15 members were to be elected, viz., 13 members from the general seat, one member from SC/ST and one lady member. Election was scheduled to be held on 18th September, 2002. Nominations had to be filed on 5th September, 2002 and its scrutiny was scheduled on 6th September, 2002. The Returning Officer, MATSYAFED, accepted the nomination papers and rejected some of the nomination papers on the ground that the societies represented by those persons who filed the nominations were defaulters or in default to the apex society-the MATSYAFED. The President of the Pulluvila Fisherman Development Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd. No. F(T) 28 Sri. Lordan filed nomination a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(2)KLT806
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The Electoral Officer of the Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission issued notification dated 19.8.2002 (Ext. Pi in O.P. 27295/02) for holding election to the Managing Committee to the Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Ltd. (MATSYAFED). As per the notification, 15 members were to be elected, viz., 13 members from the general seat, one member from SC/ST, and one lady member. Election was scheduled to be held on 18.9.2002. Nominations had to be filed on 5.9.2002 and its scrutiny was scheduled on 6.9.2002. The Returning Officer, MATSYAFED, accepted the nomination papers and rejected some of the nomination papers on the ground that the societies represented by those persons who filed the nominations were defaulters or in default to the apex society - the MATSYAFED. The President of the Pulluvila Fisherman Development Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd., No. F(T) 28, Sri Lordan filed nomination as the nominee of the above society and ...
Tag this Judgment!