Kerala Court January 2001 Judgments
P.P. Baby, Archana Traders Vs. Additional Sales Tax Officer I and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: [2001]122STC502(Ker)
M. Ramachandran, J.1. By S.R.O. No. 291/2000, in exercise of powers under Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, the Government had brought about amendments to S.R.O. No. 1090/99. For the purpose of the present original petition, as found from exhibit P4 the provisions to be considered among the changes brought as respects item No. 14 of the First Schedule is extracted hereinbelow :'(b) against serial number 14, for the entries in columns (2), (3) and (4) the following entries shall respectively be substituted, namely :(i) Hatcheries within StateTurnover of sale of poultry and their chicks hatched and reared by them within the State and meat obtained therefrom.Nil(ii)Poultry farmers within the StateTurnover of sale of poultry reared by them in their own farm within the State, whether hatched by them or not, and the meat obtained therefrom.(Emphasis* supplied)Nil.'2. The relief prayed for in the original petition is to declare as unconstitutional the words and part of the...
Tag this Judgment!Abdu Rai Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1527
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. 1. The appellant herein stands convicted by the Special Court for trial of NDPS Act cases, Kozhikode, for the offence punishable Under Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (in default, rigorous imprisonment for one year).2. Sri James Mathew, who appeared for the appellant as State Brief, has submitted, at the outset, that the appellant has already suffered the full term imposed by the trial Court and that: he would, nevertheless, argue the case on the merits.3. The learned counsel highlighted three aspects. According to him, (1) the conviction has to fail for non-compliance with the mandatory provision of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. (2) There is violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and as such, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. (3) There is no satisfactory evidence to find that the accused has been properly identified.4. The contention based on...
Tag this Judgment!Nafeesu Vs. Competent Authority
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(132)ELT271(Ker)
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. Saidalavi is a COFEPOSA detenu, who has been evading custody ever since the order of detention was passed on 28-3-1985. He had two wives. The petitioners 2 to 5 in O.P. No. 11973/93 are the children born through the 1st wife and the petitioners in O.P. No. 12910/93 are his children born through the 2nd wife.2. Invoking powers under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange (Manipulators Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (for short 'SAFEMA'), Ext. P3 notice was issued directing the petitioners to show cause why certain properties comprised in Sy. No. 179/9 etc. of Cherimundam Village, Tirur Taluk having a total extent of about 2 acres should not be declared to be illegally acquired property liable to be forfeited to the Central Government. The Petitioners then filed Ext. P4 explanation which was considered by the competent authority under the aforesaid Act. Ext. P5 order was then issued holding under Section 7 of the Act, that the right, title and interest of the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Rajamma Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1572
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The appellants are accused Nos. 2 and 3 in S.C. No. 111/96 tried by the Additional Special Court for trial of NDPS Act Cases, Kottayam.2. The prosecution alleged that based on prior information. House No. 431 in Ward No. 16 of Kottayam Municipality, which is within the area of Muttambalam Village, owned by the 3rd accused and occupied by accused Nos. 1 and 2 as building tenants was searched at about 4.30 p.m. on 10.10.1996 and 135 grams of dry ganja made into 201 small packets concealed inside a wooden box which was kept near the northern wooden screen of the southern room of the said house was seized.3. The learned Special Judge on appraisal of the evidence adduced by PWs. 1 to 5, DW.1 and Exts. P1 to P7 and with reference to M.Os. 1 to 17 series, found that though the attempt on the part of the accused to show that the first accused was residing in the house of DW. 1 did not inspire confidence of the court; there was nothing to show that the 1st accused was ...
Tag this Judgment!Girish Kumar, K.E. Vs. Sales Tax Appellate Assistant Commissioner and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-17-2001
Reported in: [2001]122STC546(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1 This T.R.C. is filed against the order of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode, in T.A. No. 31 of 1999. When the matter came up for admission today, at the agreement of parties, we heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents.2. After reading the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, we are of the view that the matter should be reconsidered by the Appellate Tribunal. In paragraph 5 of the Tribunal's order, it has extracted the findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In paragraph 6, it is stated as follows :The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has considered all aspects of the case in the right perspective. The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is speaking in all material particulars. We agree with the findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.According to us, this kind of disposal is not proper. Section 39 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 196...
Tag this Judgment!Kunjoonjamma Daniel Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ1436; [2001(89)FLR1108]; (2001)IILLJ778Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellants herein are the dependents of deceased Mathai Daniel. He was a retired worker of the Electricity Board. After his retirement he was entrusted to do petty works. He was a petty contractor for definite items of work. While doing maintenance of an electric post, on May 29, 1991, the electric post was broken and he fell down and sustained fatal injuries. Dependents of the deceased claimed workmen's compensation. The fact that while doing the electric line maintenance work he fell down and sustained fatal injuries is not disputed. The stand taken by the Electricity Board before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner was that he was not a workman as defined under the Workmen's Compensation Act as he was an independent contractor. Ext. D-1 is the quotation for the work he was doing. Ext. D-2 is the work order awarding contract to the deceased to do the maintenance for 400 meters of line. He has to do it personally by himself under the supervision of the Electricity...
Tag this Judgment!Valsamma Vs. Satheesh Kumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)ALD(Cri)763; 2001(1)ALT(Cri)218; 2001CriLJ1574
ORDERR. Rajendra Babu, J.1. This revision at the instance of the accused in C.C. 348/97 before the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate's Court, Kanjirappally, is challenging the order in C.M.P. 6156/2000 allowing the complainant to be examined further under S. 311 Cr.P.C.2. The respondent/complainant filed the complaint alleging the commission of an offence under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the allegations in the complaint, the revision petitioner had issued a cheque for Rs. 30,000/- and the same was dishonoured when presented for encashment and though the accused accepted the notice demanding the repayment of the amount, he did not reply or pay off the amount and hence the complaint was filed. But when the complainant was examined as PW. 1, he imposed that the amount given to the accused was Rs. 16,000/-. The accused raised a contention that the transaction between the parties was for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- and that amount was repaid and that he had not issued ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Musthafa Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-2001
Reported in: [2002]256ITR538(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. This tax revision case is filed challenging the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode, in T. A. No. 54 of 1995. A fair hearing and following principles of natural justice are the hall marks of a quasi-judicial body. It is a case where the petitioner filed a return for the assessment year 1985-86, for a total turnover of Rs. 1,41,892.20. According to him, the entire turnover was not taxable. But on the basis that there was an inspection on March 5, 1986, and recovery of certain materials, the assessing authority did not accept his return. Notice was issued to the assessee as to why the assessment should not based on the proposed assessment. The assessee filed a detailed objection, which is produced as annexure D. According to us, this contained objection against relying on the materials seized as well as the quantum of tax to be imposed. The Assessing Officer disposed of the objection in one sentence stating that, 'the cont...
Tag this Judgment!Biju Thomas Vs. Devaki Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-11-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)ALT(Cri)201; 2001CriLJ790
ORDERR. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The first respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioner as S.T. 1489/99 before the Judl. 1st Class Magistrate's Court-II, Perinthalmanna alleging the commission of offence under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner accepted the summons and entered appearance through counsel and filed an application for adjournment on 26.2.2000. The above application was allowed and the case was adjourned to 12.4.2000. On that day also the petitioner applied and the application was allowed and the case was adjourned to 24.5.2000 as the last chance. On 24.5.2000 also the accused applied, and the application was rejected and non-bailable warrants was issued against the petitioner and the case posted to 30.6.2000. On that day the accused was absent and there was no application, but the complainant filed Annexure 2 petition under S. 257 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to withdraw the complaint. Without passing an order on the above petition, it...
Tag this Judgment!Ganapathy Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-11-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)ALT(Cri)227
ORDERR. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The 2nd respondent herein filed a petition before the Taluk Sabha Office, Chittur alleging that the petitioner herein was creating nuisance by the construction of a latrine, pit very close to the well situated in the nearby compound belonging to the respondent and the water in the well had been polluted rendering it unfit for drinking purposes. The Tahsildar, Chittur, being the head of the Taluk Sabha, directed the petitioner to remove the latrine pit and as he refused to comply with the above direction, a report was sent to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Palakkad for initiating proceedings under S. 133 Cr.P.C. and accordingly the Sub Divisional Magistrate initiated proceedings in M.C. 97/96 and a preliminary order was issued against the petitioner directing him to remove the latrine pit at a distance of 15 metres away from the well so that pollution of the water in the well could be prevented. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner preferred Crl.R.P. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »