Khataisons Vs. State of Kerala

- code of civil procedure, 1908.[c.a. no. 5/1908]. order 9, rule 4: [v.k. bali, cj, kurian koseph & k. balakrishnan nair, jj] restoration of petition for enhancement of maintenance dismissed for default held, application under order 9, rule 4 c.p.c., is not maintainable. reason being while exercising powers under section 7(2)(a) and entertaining maintenance petition under section 125 of cr.p.c., family court cannot be deemed or treated as civil court. proceedings for maintenance before the family court under section &(2)(a) is criminal in nature. [kunhimohammammed v nafeesa, 2003 (1) klt 364; 2004 cri lj 1000 (ker) overruled]. reference to full bench; held, single judge cannot refer the case to full bench. he can refer the case to division bench. power to refer to full bench is expressly reserved to division bench. merely because a single judge/division bench entertains another view or merely because another view is possible, the judgment shall not be distinguished. - in common parlance as well as in commercial sense, pile carpet is never treated as cloth or handloom cloth. for the above reasons, all the revisions fail and are, dismissed......carpets the assessee deals in, are not the pile carpets, but the pile carpet is one which has layers one upon another. layers in carpet weaving are unknown and, therefore, we reject the contention of learned counsel for the assessee that pile carpet means a carpet woven by wool, a pattern of which contains layers one upon another. pile carpets--in common parlance--are carpets, which have the smooth surface irrespective of the fact whether they are made of wool or any other material. therefore, we are of the view that the assessee deals in pile carpets.4. item 100b, first schedule to the act and item 142, first schedule to the act, telescope into each other. both relate to 'pile carpet'. the question for consideration is whether pile carpets, the assessee deals in, fall under item 100 b/142 of the first schedule or under item 3, third schedule. entry under item 3, third schedule is as follows :--'handloom cloth'.5. the appellate tribunal, by the impugned judgment, rejected the contention of the assessee saying that when a particular entry is provided by the statute, general entries are to be ignored. we fully agree with the approach of the appellate tribunal. when there is a particular entry to cover up a commodity, there is no need for the assessing officer to go into the general entries. pile carpets, the assessee deals in, do specifically fall under entry 100b/142 of the first schedule and, therefore, entry under item 3 of the third schedule will not attract. otherwise also, concept of handloom cloth is entirely different from that of pile carpet. in common parlance as well as in commercial sense, pile carpet is never treated as cloth or handloom cloth.for the above reasons, all the revisions fail and are, dismissed. order on c.m.p. no. 1893 of 1997 in t.r.c. no. 92 of 1997 dismissed.