Kerala Court January 2002 Judgments
Thomas Vs. Vijayakumari
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT(Cri)358; I(2003)BC309; 2002CriLJ3108
ORDERG. Sasidharan, J.1. This petition is filed by the accused in C.C. 805 on the file of the JudicialMagistrate of the First Class-I, Pathanamthitta. The above case was taken on file onthe basis of a complaint given by the first respondent stating that the petitioner committedthe offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'theAct'). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a witness schedule was filedby the petitioner showing the name of the fist respondent also as one of the witnessesto be examined. The grievance of the petitioner is that the court refused to issuesummons to the complainant, the first respondent for being examined. This petition isfiled for giving direction to the Magistrate to permit the petitioner to examine thecomplainant, the first respondent as a witness.2. The question whether the accused in a case in which the allegation is that hecommitted the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajith Kumar Vs. Regional Transport Authority
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-2002
Reported in: II(2002)ACC115; AIR2002Ker178
R. Rajendra Babu, J. O.P. 17712/2001 1. Petitioner K.T. Sureshan applied for four months temporary permit on the route Chaliam-Providence College a city permit as notified by the RTA, Kozhikode in the vacancy of stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KL2 9659, having a valid regular permit till 16.6.2000. The permit holder had not renewed the permit and hence there was vacancy for conducting service as a substitute one. Another operator also had applied for four months temporary permit on the above route. Both the applications were rejected by the RTA, Kozhikode as per Ext. P1 proceedings dated 6.2.2001 holding hat as per SRO 891/2000 the number of stage carriages in Kozhikode city had been limited to 400 and the above number of regular permits had already been exhausted. The petitioner filed this Original Petition challenging Ext. P3 notification, i.e. SRO891/2000 issued by the Government under Section 71(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') limiting the number ...
Tag this Judgment!Sureshan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC62
R. Rajendra Babu, J. O.P. No. 17712/2001 : 1. Petitioner K.T. Sureshan applied for four months temporary permit on the route Chaliam-Providence College a city permit as notified by the RTA, Kozhikode in the vacancy of stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KLZ 9659, having a valid regular permit till 16th June, 2000. The permit holder had not renewed the permit and hence there was vacancy for conducting service as a substitute one. Another operator also had applied for four months temporary permit on the above route. Both the applicationswere rejected by the RTA, Kozhikode as per Ext. P1 proceedings, dated 6th February 2001 holding that as per S.R.0.891/2000 the number of stage carriages in Kozhikode city had been limited to 400 and the above number of regular permits had already been exhausted. The petitioner filed this Original Petition challenging Ext. P-3 notification, i.e., S.R.O. 891/2000 issued by the Government under Section 71(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ...
Tag this Judgment!Satyapalan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT(Cri)335; 2002(82)ECC783
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. A novel question arises in this case and that is whether in a case where additionalevidence is recorded under Section 391(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an N.D.P.S.Act case, the accused can seek the benefit of Section 41 of the N.D.P.S. (Amendment)Act, 2001 (Act 9 of 2001). The said provision gives the benefit of reduced sentenceavailable under the amended provisions with retrospective effect to the accused whosecases are still under trail; but denies that benefit to the accused in cases which arepending before the appellate court.2. The challenge in the appeal is with regard to the conviction entered against theappellant as accused in S.C. No. 78/2000 of the Special Court for the Trial of theN.D.P.S. Act Cases, Vadakara, for the offence punishable under Section 21 of the N.D.P.S.Act and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh (indefault, simple imprisonment for six months) imposed therefor.3. The prosecution case tha...
Tag this Judgment!Raveendran Nadar Vs. Kerala Water Authority
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR263]
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court seriously aggrieved by the omission ofthe respondents to grant him the second higher grade on completion of total 18 yearsof service in the Water Authority.2. The petitioner joined the service of the Water Authority as First GradeDraughtsman on 28.2.1983. On completion of 10 years service, he was granted thefirst higher grade on 28.2.1993. Later he was recruited through the P.S.C. in theinservice quota and was appointed as Assistant Engineer on 28.8.1993. He completedtotal 18 years service in the Water Authority on 28.2.2001. The point to be decided iswhether he is eligible for counting his entire service for the purpose of getting the nexthigher grade in the scale of pay applicable to the Assistant Executive Engineer. Ext. P1contains the relevant order governing the grant of second higher grade. The entrypost is defined in paragraph 11 of Ext. P1 as the post to which an employee is initiallyappointed in Government Ser...
Tag this Judgment!Baby Vs. Addl. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: [2002]126STC368(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner. Appellant herein approached this court seeking the following relief:'Declare as unconstitutional and void and quash or set aside the words and part of Ex. P4 notification 'within the state' after the words 'poultry framers' in column 2 and the words 'within the State' after the words 'turnover of sale of poultry reared by them in their own farm' in column 3 of the notification, by the issue of an appropriate writ, direction or order.'A writ of certiorari was also prayed for to quash Ext. P5 notice dated 16.11.2000 issued by the Sales Tax Officer, II Circle, Alappuzha. Learned Single Judge found no infirmity in the notice. Declaration prayed for was also rejected. Aggrieved by the same this appeal has been preferred. Writ Petitioner is carrying on business of running poultry farm by rearing chicken and selling chicken, both live and meat. Petitioner is having his poultry farm under the name Malar Poultry Farm at D...
Tag this Judgment!Ashraf Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT(Cri)417; 2002CriLJ1456
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The challenge in the appeal is with regard to the conviction entered against theappellant, who was the accused in S.C. No. 198/2000 of the Special Court for the trialof the NDPS Act Cases, Vadakara, for the offence under Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPSAct and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and fine or Rs. 10,000/- (indefault, simple imprisonment for 9 months) imposed therefor.2. The prosecution case that at about 3.10 p.m. on 23.9.199 PW.1, who was theSub Inspector of Koylandy Police Station, in the course of his patrol, found the accusedstanding near the Koilandy Girls High School Junction; that on seeing the police party,the accused tried to run away; that he was chased and apprehended and that theaccused then revealed the contents of the bag held by him as ganja when it wasopened on instructions from PW.1, found acceptance by the trial court as it wascorroborated by PW.2, who is an independent witness, and also by the contents ofExt.P1 sei...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner (Law), Commercial Taxes Vs. Krishna Plastics
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: [2002]128STC39(Ker)
K.K. Denesan, J.1. This tax revision case is directed against the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal holding that the assessing authority is not justified in estimating the purchase turnover by best judgment assessment on the ground that the assessee who is a manufacturer and trader of fibre glass boats failed to maintain manufacturing account.2. The relevant assessment year is 1990-91. The assessing authority on the premise that there was suppression of account completed the assessment by addition of fifty per cent in the purchase turnover. The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed by the Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner who on his part reduced the addition to 5 per cent. Dissatisfied, in spite of the reduction, the respondent-assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee succeeded before the Tribunal. Aggrieved, the Revenue has filed this revision case.3. We have heard the learned Government Pleader for the Revenue and the learned counsel ...
Tag this Judgment!Palayan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4454; 2002(83)ECC869
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The appellant was undergoing sentence imposed in S.C. 73/99 by the Special Court for trial for N.D.P.S. cases, Thodupuzha at the time when this appeal was filed challenging the conviction under S. 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act and the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine Rs. 10,000/- (in default R.I. for one year) imposed therefor. He was subsequently released on bail pursuant to the order of this Court passed in Crl.A. 318/01 on 8.2.2001.2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is gross violation of the provisions contained in Sections 42(2), 50, 52, 55 and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act and that the accused, in the circumstances, is entitled to get an acquittal. It was also pointed out by him that there was no sufficient evidence to find that the accused was in possession of 2 kg. of ganja carried in a big shopper bag while he was standing at the veranda of AVM Anna Malai Vessels shop at Munnar at about 11 p.m. on 23.11.97 a...
Tag this Judgment!P.i. Varghese and Sons Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: [2002]126STC217(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. Revision petitioner is the assessee. The assessment year is 1988-89. The assessee is a dealer in arecanut. The assessment relating to the petitioner for the year 1988-89 was completed by the Sales Tax Officer (R), Special Circle (Produce), Mattancherry, accepting the trade results. Turnover tax was also levied on the petitioner as no declaration as required under Government Notification S.R.O. No. 717/88 was produced in support of the claim for exemption. As per S.R.O. No. 717/88 turnover tax is exempted on all purchases except purchase previous to the last purchase. Since, admittedly, the petitioner is not the penultimate purchaser, levy of turnover tax is clearly illegal.2. The petitioner has been assessed to tax on the turnover of arecanut, they being the last purchaser. It was contended that the assessment order itself is a clear proof to show that the petitioner is not the penultimate purchaser and that they are only the last purchaser within the State. But ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »