Kerala Court May 2000 Judgments
A. Ramachandran Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-31-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Ker51
Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether the Kerala State Electricity Board is bound to give reconnection or new connection under the Electricity (Supply) Act read with Regulations relating to Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy in respect of premises where there were arrears of electricity charges by the previous consumer.2. Appellant purchased an extent of 28cents of land along with a factory building inSy. No. 91/6 of Chengamanad Village in apublic auction conducted by the Kerala Financial Corporation on 26-6-1990. Previously factory building was owned by one P. Krishnakutty, who availed of loan from the Kerala Financial Corporation for starting the unit by name Jeesha Enterprises. The unit was a consumer of the Board bearing consumer No. 3180. Large amounts were due to the Board by way of electricity charges. Since the amount was not paid by the consumer electric connection was disconnected by the Board on 28-12-1989. Board h...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Karunakaran Nair Vs. the Tahsildar, Changanacherry and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-30-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ker359
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. Petitioner has constructed a community hall having a plinth area of 415.25 sq. metres at Nedumkunnam. Construction of the same was completed in the year 1994 as can be seen from the certificate issued by the Executive Officer, Nedumkunnam Panchayat (Special Grade). Petitioner did not file a return as required under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafterreferred to as 'the Act'). However, the assessing authority assessed the building and demanded tax by Ext. P2 demandnotice dated 30-9-1996. Since the building was completed and taxable event for charging building tax as per Section 5(1) of the Act was after 10-2-1992 assessment was made on the basis of plinth area at the rate mentioned in the schedule existing on the date of taxable event, that is completion of the construction of the building, He paid the same. Later, Ext. P3 was issued under Section 15(3) of the Act. Ext. P3 reads as follows :'Whereas it is found that the demand already made to you on 30-9-199...
Tag this Judgment!Key Foods Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-29-2000
Reported in: [2000]120STC95(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner is questioning exhibit P9 order passed by the Intelligence Officer, Commercial Taxes, Mattanchery, imposing penalty of Rs. 1,40,000 on the petitioner for non-payment of entry tax being twice the amount of entry tax payable by him. According to the petitioner, it has purchased a Ford motor car from Pondicherry and used' the same in Pondicherry and after 15 months it registered the vehicle in Kerala. Since re-registration is after 15 months, no entry tax need be paid by it. It is further pointed out that exhibit P9 order was passed by the Intelligence Officer, Commercial Taxes, who has no jurisdiction to pass orders of penalty. Under S.R.O. No. 1210/94, only Sales Tax Officers who are authorised can exercise the powers of the assessing authority. Petitioner contends that the order is without any jurisdiction. Therefore, without filing a statutory appeal, he has filed this writ petition.2. The learned Government Pleader submitted that petitioner has no business...
Tag this Judgment!JortIn Antony and ors. Vs. Padmanabha Dasa Marthanda Varma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-25-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ker369
Balasubramanyan, J. 1. The plaintiffs in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property are the petitioners. The plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance on 4-10-1995. Defendants 1 to 8 appeared and filed written statements. Defendant No. 9 did not appear to contest. The contesting defendants in their written statements denied the claim of the plaintiffs. The trial Court settled the issues on 17-10-1996. The plaintiffs sought to serve interrogatories on defendants 1 to 8. Though that application was opposed, ultimately the same was allowed by the trial Court. Attempts made by defendants 1 to 5 in one set and defendants 6 to 8 in another to have that order set aside did not succeed. What according to them were answers to the interrogatories were furnished by the defendants. There was a complaint by the plaintiffs that the answers to the interrogatories were not complete and seeking the stricking out of the defence in terms of Rule 21 of Order XI of ...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmarajan Vs. Narayanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-25-2000
Reported in: I(2001)DMC73
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 and 9 in a partition suit are the appellants in this case. Plaintiff-lst respondent herein sought for partition of the plaint schedule property by dividing it into three equal shares among himself and defendants 1 and 2 and sought separate possession for one-third of the schedule property. That suit was contested by the appellants on the ground that they are also. entitled to a share as they are children born to the mother of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 in her second marriage. The property ought to have been divided into four among plaintiff, defendants 1, 2 and their mother Choyichi. But the Trial Court found that the property was acquired by Chathukutty, father of plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. On his death in 1943 Choyichi did have only right of maintenance. It is the admitted case that Choyichi remarried Sami. It was in that wedlock that defendants 3 to 9 were born. On remarriage the right to maintenance from out of the proper...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishnan Vs. E.S.i. Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-25-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ119; (2000)IILLJ1554Ker
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The scope of Section 46 read with Section 51-B and Section 2(15-A) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') arises for consideration in this case. 2. The appellant has been employed as a Security Guard in the Sitaram Textiles Ltd. Punkunnam, Trichur. He was an insured employee under the Act. He sustained an employment injury on December 15, 1987 due to an accidental fall in a pit causing fracture to his right ankle. According to him, due to the injury sustained it is not possible for him to work as a Security Guard though he is continuing in employment due to the magnanimity of the employer. On June 8, 1988 the appellant was referred to the Medical Board for assessing his loss of earning capacity. The Board initially fixed his loss of earning capacity at 6% on a provisional basis for a period of one year and later, the loss of earning capacity was fixed at 2% on a permanent basis. Aggrieved by the fixation of the loss of earn...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Ayurvedic Pharmaceuticals Vs. Sales Tax Officer-i and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-24-2000
Reported in: [2000]120STC93(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. In all these original petitions the interpretation of Notification S.R.O. No, 499/90 is involved which gave exemption in respect of tax payable under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 by new industrial units under the small-scale industries and existing industrial units which effects diversification/expansion/modernisation on the turnover of sale of goods manufactured and sold by such units and on the turnover of goods taxable at the point of last purchase in the State and used by such units in the manufacture of goods subject to certain conditions. The exemption will be given only for three years from the date of completion certified by the General Manager, District Industries Centres of such diversification/expan-sion/modernisation. It is specifically mentioned that the aggregate exemption mentioned above shall not exceed the amount equal to the value of the new plant and machinery owned by the unit which are used for diversification/ expansion/modernisation.2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Jolly Babu and ors. Vs. Chief Secretary, State of Kerala, Thiruva ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-23-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ker334
ORDERM.R. Hariharan, J.1. The question arising for decision in the revision is whether the death of the petitioners' predecessor in consequence of alleged medical negligence can be taken as 'accident' for the purpose of Section 74 (1) (viii) of the Kerala Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 which enables exemption in the matter of payment of Court-fees. The Court below has found in the preliminary order deciding issue No. 2 that it is not an accident and that Court-fee should be paid ad valorem.2. I have heard both sides.3. For effective consideration of the question, it is useful to quote Section 74 (1) (viii) which is an exception to Section 22 of the Kerala Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, here.'74. Special provision regarding suits by registered trade under member of Scheduled Castes etc.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Act, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), admit the plaint in respect of the fo...
Tag this Judgment!Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Aluminium Industri ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-23-2000
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas522(Ker)
K. Narayana Kurup, J.1. The second respondent in the writ petition, viz., Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation; is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single judge allowing the writ petition and granting an injunction restraining the appellant/Corporation and the second respondent herein--the State Bank of Travancore, hereinafter referred to as the 'bank' from invoking and making payment under the bank guarantee No. 26 of 1992 without the consent of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR).2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows : The appellant/Corporation entered into an export contract on March 22, 1992, for supply of Bison and Lynx ACSR (Aluminium Conductor Steel Reinforced) and steel earthwire to Zimbabwe (S. A) Electricity Supply Authority (ZESA) for an approximate value of Rs. 20 crores. The appellant/Corporation in turn assigned...
Tag this Judgment!P.T. Sugunan and ors. Vs. P.P. Ambujakshan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-22-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ker355
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order returning their application for carbon copy of the order in I.A. No. 1267 of 2000 in an unnumbered suit filed during vacation now pending on the file of the Munsifs Court, Kannur.2. Petitioners moved I.A. No. 1267 of 2000 and notice was ordered in the said I.A. Petitioners applied for carbon copy of the said order. That application is in terms of Rule 239(3) of the Civil Rules of Practice. The said Rule provides that such copy shall be issued to the party on his making an application for an urgent copy under Rule 246 accompanied by the copying charges required by Rule 248. Rule 246 provides that preparation of all copies of documents applied for as far as possible shall be undertaken in accordance with the serial order of the application except when the Judge makes an order for precedence as regards any particular application. To give a copy urgently the Judge concerned shall make an order for pre...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »