Kerala Court May 2002 Judgments
Anty Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-28-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ299
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The challenge in the revision is with regard to the conviction entered against the appellant as accused in C. C. 54/1997 for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 379 of the I.P.C. for which the sentence of R.I. for two years and R. I. for one year were imposed under Sections 457 and 380 of the I.P.C. No separate sentence was given for the offence under Section 379 of the I. P.C.2. The grievance of the petitioner projected in the revision memo is that the above sentences are not made concurrent with the sentences imposed in previous other cases namely C.C. 62/97, 65/97 and 160/97 initiated by the Kodungalloor Police as also C.C. 2/97, 5/97, 7/92 and R/97 initiated by the Trinjalakuda Police. This is sought to be achieved by invoking Sections 427 and 433 of the Cr. P. C.3. In the nature of the prayer contained in the revision memo and in view of the concurrent findings of two Courts below it does not appear necessary to go into the justificati...
Tag this Judgment!Syed SirajuddIn Vs. Intelligence Officer, Squad No. Iv, Agricultural I ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-28-2002
Reported in: [2003]129STC151(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. These original petitions are filed challenging the constitutional validity of Section 30-C of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KGST Act'). O.P. No. 98 of 1996 is treated as the main case.2. There are three petitioners in the original petition. First petitioner is M/s. Gajanan Agencies, second petitioner is H. Sathish Kamath and the third petitioner is H. Anantha Kamath. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner is a partnership firm consisting of seven partners of whom Sathish Kamath is the managing partner. The firm carries on business in purchase and sales of rubber sheets. The business was commenced in 1987, The purchases are made from cultivators and growers of rubber as well as from plantations and the sales are made locally to various dealers. The first petitioner is a registered dealer in rubber under the KGST Act, 1963 and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.3. The turnover of rubber is taxable at the poin...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Sooraj Vs. Excise Inspector and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-28-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4744
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. Before the Court of Sessions, Palakkad which was dealing with sessions case 86/1999 involving the offence under Sections 56 and 57-A(iii) of the Abkari Act, the present petitioner who was the 4th accused made a plea for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. He contended that according to the case of the complainant the offence was committed only by accused Nos. 1 to 3 and that the petitioner's name was mentioned only as the owner of the vehicle and also in his capacity as brother of the first accused.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the relationship with the first accused nor the fact that he is the owner of the vehicle in which the contraband was transported would cast any legal liability or culpability on him and that in the circumstances the learned Sessions Judge was bound to grant the discharge sought for.3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to him the owner of the vehicle has some liabi...
Tag this Judgment!Annamma Jose Vs. Kerala Financial Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-27-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC289
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against them as per Exts. P1 and P2. Ext P1 is dated 10.2.1999. They claimed that these recovery proceedings were initiated against them as they were guarantors in respect of the loan granted by the Ist respondent to a company of which they were also Directors. It is an admitted fact by the respondent that revenue recovery steps were initiated against the petitioners in their capacity as guarantors. The petitioners submitted that the guarantee deed was executed in the year 1986, to be more specific on 20th February, 1986. There was default in repayment of the loan by the company. This resulted in Ext. P4 notice produced along with CMP No. 54218/99 calling upon the guarantors including the petitioners to clear off the amount and threatening the revenue recovery action in case of failure to remit the amount. It is based on that notice, further action is now being purs...
Tag this Judgment!Suma Mohan Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-27-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR516]; (2002)IIILLJ696Ker
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this Original Petition claiming appointment for the 2nd petitioner under the dying-in-harness scheme in the first respondent Union Bank of India. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case are the following: 2. The first petitioner's husband late M.K. Mohanan Pillai was a Clerk/Cashier in the Kottayam Branch of the Union Bank of India. He died in harness on 28.1.1996. The second petitioner is the eldest daughter of late M.K. Mohanan Pillai. The deceased employee left behind another daughter also. The first petitioner and two daughters were the dependants of the said employee. He died of Myloid Leukemia which is an acute form of blood cancer. The petitioners submit that all their earnings were spent for his treatment. Loans were also availed of for the said purpose. Ext. P1 is the scheme governing appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme in the Union Bank of India. The second petitioner had completed eighteen years ...
Tag this Judgment!Paul Vs. Regional Transport Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-27-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4501
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. Petitioners are stage carriage operators operating their respective stage carriages on the route Kodungallur-Guruvayur. On 30.9.1999 the transport employees were on strike and hence the vehicles could not be operated on the route. The second respondent, the S.I. of Police, Guruvayur, prepared Ext. P3 series check reports and served copies on the petitioners, wherein the petitioners were directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad on 15.10.1999 to face the offences set out in the report. The alleged offence committed by the petitioners was that on 30.9.1999 they did not operate their respective stage carriages and thereby violated the permit conditions. Hence, the petitioners filed this Original Petition for quashing Ext. P3 series check reports.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that due to the strike of the transport employees ...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Vs. Regional Transport Authority
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT216
R. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. One K.P. Babu, a resident of Periyankavala, filed O.P. 34977/01 to quash Exts.P4 and P5 orders passed by the STAT in MVAA 863/01 and 865/01 respectively. The 5th respondent therein, Smt. Rani George, was operating a stage carriage on the route Kuzhitholu-Changanacherry as ordinary service. She filed an application for conversion of its as LSOS and the RTA, Idukki, rejected the application holding that the above conversion shall affect the facilities enjoyed by the students and short distance passengers. Aggrieved by the above order, Smt. Rani George filed an appeal before the STAT as MVAA 863/01. The STAT allowed the appeal and directed the RTA to grant conversion as LSOS by ExLP4 order.2. The 4th respondent Sri. George Thomas was operating his stage carriage on the route Champakappara-Changanacherry as ordinary service. His application for conversion as LSOS was rejected by the RTA, Idukki, holding that it shall affect the facilities enjoyed by the students and...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Baiju Vs. the Joint Regional Transport Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-27-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Ker26
ORDERR. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. Petitioner, the owner of a 1993 model Bajaj Tempo Initially classified as an Omni Bus and later changed as a contract carriage, applied before the registering authority for conversion of the above vehicle as a Goods Carriage (delivery van). The above application was rejected by the registering authority and the order was challenged before this Court in O.P. 35749/01. This Court set aside the above order and directed the registering authority to reconsider the application for conversion afresh. The registering authority considered the same and by Ext. P9 order dt. 2-1-02 again rejected the prayer. The above Ext. P9 order rejecting the prayer for conversion of the vehicle as a goods carriage is under challenge in this O.P. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. The only question for consideration is whether a vehicle registered as a passenger vehicle can be allowed to be converted as a goods carriage. The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Molasseriyil Usha Vs. Molasseriyil Kunhimon
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)16; 2003CriLJ291; II(2003)DMC145
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The wife, petitioner in M. C. No. 97 of 1990 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur is aggrieved that the direction contained in the judgment passed in the said case that she should be paid maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per mensem by the respondent herein was upset by the Sessions Court, Thalassery in Cri. R. P. No. 112 of 1992.2. In the aforesaid petition before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur the present petitioner had claimed maintenance for herself at the rate of Rs. 400/-per mensem besides maintenance for her two children who were petitioners 2 and 3 therein at the rate of Rs. 300/- per mensem and after trial the trial Court found it proper to grant maintenance to them at the rate of Rs. 200/- and Rs. 100/- respectively. The Sessions Court, in revision, upheld the finding regarding payment of maintenance to the children, but reversed the direction for payment of maintenance to the wife.3. Mr. K. Rama...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›