Kerala Court June 2001 Judgments
Jayaraj Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT(Cri)193
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The challenge in this appeal is with regard to the conviction entered by the Special Court for trial of N.D.P.S. Act cases (Sessions Judge), Thodupuzha for the offences under Ss. 20(b)(i) and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and tem sentence of (i) rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.10,000/- (in default rigorous imprisonment for three months) and (ii) rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (in default rigorous imprisonment for one year) respectively imposed for the said two offences.2. It was the prosecution case that based on information that trafficking in narcotic drugs was going on in buses that ply between Kumili and Kottayam, PW-4 Circle Inspector of Excise Narcotic Enforcement Squad, Adimali and his party made check of transport vehicles operating in the route on 6.3.1996 in the course of which at about 1.15 p.m. a K.S.R.T bus bearing Regn. No. KL 15/1314, of which PW-1 was the Bus Conducto...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala and anr. Vs. I.T.C. Limited and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-2001
Reported in: [2002]127STC409(Ker)
K.K. Usha, C.J.1.These appeals arise out of a common judgment in O.P. Nos. 5278 and 5716 of 1994 (Hallmark Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1998] 108 STC 539).2. The challenge in the original petitions was against the provisions of the Kerala Finance Act, 1994 to the extent it had amended Kerala Tax on Luxuries in Hotels and Lodging Houses Act, 1976. A new definition clause, namely, Section 2(ee) for the term 'luxury' was introduced and Section 4A was added as an additional charging provision. Other consequential amendments were made in the Act as well as in the Rules. The amended provisions made cigarettes liable to luxury tax at the rate of 5 per cent on the value of the commodity charged, received or receivable at the point of supply. Section 4A further postulates that though the tax was payable by the person who uses or consumes the same it has to be collected by the stockists.3. O.P. Nos. 5278 and 5716 of 1994 were filed by I.T.C. Limited and Hallmark Tobacco Co. Ltd. respecti...
Tag this Judgment!Saroja Vs. Janardhanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-15-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3111; II(2001)DMC528
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The revision petitioners are another and child, who were affected by a decision of the Sessions Judge, Palakkad reversing the finding in M.C. No.43/91 passed by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, palakkad. As per the order of the said Magistrate, the husband's application for cancellation of an earlier order for maintenance was dismissed; but the impact of the order of the Sessions Judge is that the maintenance granted in M.C. No.27/81 is rendered unenforceable albeit with prospective effect.2. More details: M.C. No. 27/81 was filed by the present revision petitioners before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Palakkad seeking maintenance for the wife and child. The court allowed maintenance to them at the rate of Rs. 180/- and Rs. 100/- per menses respectively. O.P. No. 39/80 had been filed by the respondent herein seeking dissolution of marriage in the Sub Court, Palakkad and in I.A.No.3265/80 order for permanent alimony had been sought ...
Tag this Judgment!Jose Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-15-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4902
G. Sivarajan, J.1. Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 5 in Crime No. 215 of 2000 of the Sreekandapuram Police Station for offences Punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 452, 324, 326, 427 read with S. 149 IPC under S. 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. According to the petitioners this crime case is registered as a counter case to Crime No. 214 of the same police station which is registered against respondents 4 to 7 on the basis of a complaint preferred by the first petitioner for offences under Ss. 341, 323, 324, 354, 506(1) r/w/ S. 34 IPC.2. The 4th respondent, it is stated, had expected an agreement on 4.11.1998 with one Jameela, D/o Hamsa, Meethalakath, Nediyanga and one M.M. Mathai, S/o Mathai, Nediyanga for excavation and removal of granite boulders from the properties belonging to them for a total consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- for a period of 5 years. It is stated that the said properties are situated very close to the resi...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Produce and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-15-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR17(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. The petitioners in O.P. No. 6942 of 1987 (see : [1992]196ITR293(Ker) ), are the appellants. The first appellant is a partnership firm. The second appellant is one of the partners of the first appellant-firm. The third appellant is the manager and power of attorney holder of the first appellant-firm. 2. The matter arises under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The first appellant firm was mainly engaged in the business of purchase and sale of copra inside and outside the State. For the assessment year 1983-84, the relevant accounting period ended on March 31, 1983, the firm filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 1,04,951. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment on a total income of Rs. 2,64,090 by making an addition of Rs. 1,47,888 to the returned income. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the firm filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Calicut. The appeal was dismissed and the assessment was co...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Produce Vs. Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-15-2001
Reported in: [2001]118TAXMAN558(Ker)
Sivarajan, J. The petitioners in O.P. No. 6942 of 1987 are the appellants. The first appellant is a partnership firm. The second appellant is one of the partners of the first appellant-firm. Third appellant is the manager and power of attorney holder of the first appellant-firm.2. The matter arises under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The 1st appellant-firm was mainly engaged in the business of purchase and sale of copra inside and outside the state. For the assessment year 1983-84, the relevant accounting period ended 31-3-1983, the firm filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 1,04,951. The Income Tax Officer completed the assessment on a total income of Rs. 2,64,090 by making an addition of Rs. 1,47,888 to the returned income. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the firm filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Calicut. The appeal was dismissed and the assessment was confirmed. The firm filed a second appeal before the Tribunal, Cochin B...
Tag this Judgment!Pottekkadu Suresh and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-15-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3791
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No. 72/99 on the file of the Special Judge (NDPS Act. cases), Vadakara. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tirur conducted a raid on 6-1-1997 in toddy shop with Licence No. 14/96-97 and arrested three persons from the toddy shop. Petitioners were arrested from the room where toddy was stored. Allegation was that based on the assumption that they were employees of the shop a case was registered under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and Sections. 336 and 272 of the Indian Penal Code and Crime No. 8/87 was registered. The chemical anaylsls report received on 11-5-1999 disclosed that toddy contained diazepham. The licensee of the toddy shop is arrayed as fourth accused and a final charge under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was filed against the four accused and all the four accused were released on bail. According to the petitioners, they ate not employees of the above shop and they hav...
Tag this Judgment!Erikkil Thavatha Basheer Vs. Poopurambath Kaithal Khadeeja
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Ker346
Lekshmikutty, J. 1. Against the judgment in O.S. No. 106 of 1989 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Badagara this appeal is filed by the plaintiff, The appellant as plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. As per the plaint averment, the appellant and respondent executed Ext. A-1 agreement dated 16-1-1989 whereby the respondent agreed to sell the plaint schedule property in favour of the appellant at the rate of Rs. 10,250/- per cent. The total extent of the property is 16.75 cents. On the date of agreement, the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as advance. The time stipulated for the payment of the balance sale consideration was six months from the date of agreement and the respondent should execute the sale deed on receipt of the balance consideration. The appellant approached the respondent and her father for getting the sale deed executed and he was always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration even before the ex...
Tag this Judgment!Augustine P.L. Vs. Secretary, Labour and Rehabilitation Department
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-2001
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ51Ker
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the Judgment of a learned single Judge in O.P. No. 7672 of 1999. Petitioner is the appellant. The Original Petition was filed for a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to proceed with Ext. P1 petition submitted by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act and for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order to quash Ext. P2 letter issued by the second respondent.2. According to the petitioner, he was working under the third respondent-Menon and Pai, Advocates, Kochi- 18 as Stenographer since 1957 continuously without any interruption. On February 28, 1998, the third respondent-Firm orally informed the petitioner that he need not be continued from March, 1998 onwards. No written order, notice or communication has been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner continued his work till April 21, 1998. According to the petitioner, the third respondent firm is an industry coming within t...
Tag this Judgment!Uco Bank Vs. Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-13-2001
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas533(Ker)
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Petitioner is a Bank. The petitioner instituted a suit before the Sub Court, Alappuzha. A decree was passed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner moved for execution. During the pendency of the execution, a Tribunal was constituted in terms of the Recovery of debt due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 on 4.11.1996. On and from the day of such constitution, no civil court will have power to try any suit or proceedings, other than appeals, in respect of a specified amount. S. 31 of the Act provides that every such suit or proceedings pending before any court immediately before the date of establishment of the Tribunal shall stand transferred if the cause of action of such suit or proceedings would have been such that it would not lie before the court, if filed after the establishment of the Tribunal. The cause of action of the suit which is now executed by the petitioner bank for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, was admittedly less than the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »