Kerala Court January 2001 Judgments
Pokker Haji Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1878; 2001(76)ECC733
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This petition is moved by one Pokker Haji, father of P. Saidalavi, who has been detained in the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram under S. 3(1)(ii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA'). Though the order was challenged on many grounds, counsel for the petitioner confined the argument only to one ground which we will deal with later.2. This case presents the following facts. Air Customs Superintendent and officers on 11.9.1995 recovered foreign currency worth Rs. 1.03 crores from one of the baggages detained for examination at the baggage identification area of Karipur airport. Baggage was having Indian Airlines tag C.No. 5183887 and with seat No. 21C mentioned on its reverse side and the nametag with the name and address 'Moideenkutty, Othukkumgal, Manjeri, Malappuram'. Occupant of seat No. 21C Sri. V.P. Nazeer did not claim the baggage as his. Further investigation proved that the brief...
Tag this Judgment!Rani Vs. Sasidharan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC481
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. The defendants in O.S. 405 of 1988 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Thirunananthapuram are the appellants in this appeal. O.S. 405 of 1988 was filed by the plaintiff in the suit, the respondent in this appeal, for partition and delivery of one-half share in the plaint schedule property with profits. The defendants resisted the suit, denying the plaintiff's right to claim partition. The trial court overruled the defence contentions and passed a preliminary decree for partition. It awarded the plaintiff one-half share on the basis that he had equal right with defendant No. 1 in the plaint schedule property. It is this decree that is challenged in this appeal.2. The plaintiff married the first defendant on 26.4.1981. The second defendant in the suit is the mother of the first defendant. On 12.3.1981, above a month prior to the marriage, the second defendant, the mother, and DW.1, the father of defendant No. 1, executed a settlement deed, Ext. A1, ...
Tag this Judgment!Metalex Agencies Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2001
Reported in: [2001]123STC644(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This T.R.C. is filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam, in T.A. No. 34 of 1988. The assessee is the petitioner. The assessment year is 1971-72. The assessee is a dealer in hardwares, iron and steel. For the year 1971-72, the assessing authority rejected the accounts and completed the assessment fixing the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 1,56,87,795 and Rs. 90,57,850 as against Rs. 1,40,42,790 and Rs. 74,28,565 respectively. The enhancement was made on the basis of the income-tax assessment order dated March 27, 1995 alleging suppression.2. It appears that on February 6, 1972, a search was conducted by the income-tax department under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the business premises and in the residential premises of the assessee. Various documents were seized by the income-tax department. The income-tax assessment was also based on the search. The matter was taken before the Appellate Tribunal. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Motor Transport W.W.F. Board Vs. Government of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-30-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1320Ker
Disposition:Appeal allowedKurian Joseph, J.1. In the absence of a specific statutory provision to condone the delay, can an appellate authority be compelled to entertain an appeal filed beyond the prescribedperiod? When a right of appeal is provided, has the appellate authority got an inherent power or implied power to condone the delay in filing an appeal? Under the provisions of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'), can a time-barred appeal be directed to be entertained treating it as an application raising a doubt? These are the questions posed in this Writ Appeal. 2. The Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') is the appellant. The 4th respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the employer') filed the Writ Petition (O.P. 12982 of 2000) aggrieved by Ext. P5 order passed by the Government. By the said order, the Government rejected Ext. P3 appeal filed by the employer against the Final deter...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrasekharan Nair Vs. Kalliani Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-30-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Ker210
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. The 2nd plaintiff is O.S.No. 131/1966 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Nedumangad is the appellant. The suit was field for redemption of a mortgage dated 19th Chingam 1091 M.E. and for recovery of possession of the properties. A preliminary decree for redemption was passed on 15.7.1967 directing the plaintiffs to deposit mortgage amount of Rs.198/- and the value of improvements of Rs.3984.95 in favour of the first defendant.2. The 28th defendant claimed tenancy right in the property and the final decree application filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial court on 19.7.1971 holding that the 28th defendant has got fixity of tenure in the mortgaged property. The plaintiffs preferred A.S. No. 103/1972 before the Principal Sub Court, Trivandrum and the appellate court by judgment dt. 23.2.76 set aside the final judgment and decree and remanded the case to the trial court directing to consider Ext.P2 in the light of the decision of this Court report...
Tag this Judgment!General Manager, Personnel Wing, Canara Bank and ors. Vs. Priya Jayara ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-29-2001
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ1026Ker
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the General Manager, Personnel Wing, Canara Bank, Head Office, Bangalore, along with two other officials challenging an order of the learned single judge allowing a writ petition preferred by a widow for compassionate appointment in the service of the Canara Bank.2. This case presents the following facts: The petitioner, Priya Jayarajan, is the wife of late C.M. Jayarajan, a clerk working at Badagara branch of the Canara Bank. Jayarajan died in a road accident in the evening of May 4, 1998, leaving the widow and two minor children aged 7 and 3 years impecunious and destitute. The petitioner made application on June 9, 1998, for compassionate appointment in the service of the Canara Bank a premier banking institution where her husband had worked dutifully. The application was routed through the branch office where her husband was working. The application was recommended by the branch office, but rejected by the second responden...
Tag this Judgment!Subash Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)ALT(Cri)253; 2001CriLJ1945; 2001(77)ECC615
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. 1. The challenge is with regard to the conviction entered by the Special Court for trial of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act cases, Kollam for the offence under S. 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (in default rigorous imprisonment for three months)imposed therefor.2. The appellant, who was the 1st accused, was tried along with 4 other accused. The case against the 2nd accused was split up. After trial, accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5, who were the alleged persons in possession of ganja and available at the back seat of Autorickshaw driven by the appellant and who had escaped some time before the occurrence, were acquitted.3. The prosecution version was that on 29.7.1995 PW. 6 received telephonic information that ganja was being transported in an autorickshaw driven by the 1st accused from Vellarvattom to Chadayamangalam; that PW. 6, who was the Police Sub Inspector, accompanied by Po...
Tag this Judgment!Aboo Vs. District Collector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2674
M. Ramachandran, J.1. By order dated 3.1.2001, the District Collector, Kannur had ordered for arrest any detention of the petitioner, Sri. T.P. Aboo, finding that there was wilful default of payment of legitimate dues to the Government amounting to Rs. 7,78,384/-. The firm, Hill Produce Corporation, Valapattanam had defaulted in payment of sales tax dues and Mr. Aboo was one of the three partners of the firm. The liability is not disputed, but he had pleaded that he had no means to make the payments. Files disclose that similar proceedings have been initiated against another partner as well, and the third partner is no more.2. Sri. Mohamed Kutty, counsel for the petitioner, submits that there were procedural lapses, vitiating the order of arrest, and there were no preconditions existing, an envisaged under S. 65 of the Revenue Recovery Act, justifying the order. Sri. Aboo has been arrested and is in jail, and immediate release was sought for. 3. The petitioner had been ordered to be ar...
Tag this Judgment!Leny Saju Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
Reported in: [2001]123STC646(Ker)
M. Ramachandran, J.1. Petitioner had filed the applications for obtaining registration certificate under the Kerala General Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax Acts. The applications are said to be pending for over a year. Counsel submits that consequent to the directions, the security had been furnished and security bond also was made available. Subsequent demand was for production of solvency certificate. Being a unit which is exempted from sales tax, it is pointed out that the delay in issuing certificates for one reason after another is not at all justified and oblique motives are suspected.2. The respondents ought not have paved way for such aspersion being thrown against them. The registration, as pointed out, is a formality, and the officers should feel that they are public servants and not masters, who can act according to their likes and dislikes. A rational approach is always expected. In the aforesaid circumstances, I direct the respondent to show maximum co-operation to the nee...
Tag this Judgment!Kishore Kumar Alias Kishore Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2137
Rajendra Babu, J.1. Kishore Kumar (1st accused), Vijayan (2nd accused) and Benny (3rd accused) were tried before the IVth Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam, in SC 33/96 for offences Under Sections 341 and 302 read with. 34, IPC. The 1st accused was found guilty of an offence Under Section 302, IPC and was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence the 1st accused preferred Cri. A. 25/98. Accused 2 and 3 were found not guilty of all the offences and accordingly they were acquitted. The State challenged the above order of acquittal by preferring Cri. A. 480/99. As both the appeals arose from the same judgment, these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The Circle Inspector of Police, Piravam, filed a chargesheet against the accused, three in number, in Crime No. 288/94 of Mulanthuruthy Police Station for offences Under Section 341 and 302 read with 34, IPC. According to the prosecution ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »