Kerala Court December 2003 Judgments
Ajayakumar Vs. Damayanthi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT48
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The decree holders are the revision petitioners. The decree of prohibitory injunction which was granted by the lower appellate court and confirmed by this Court in appeal is to the following effect: 'That the defendants be hereby restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into plaint schedule properties and from taking usufructs from the plaint schedule property. That the defendants be hereby also restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs in their possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties'. Alleging that the above decree has been violated by the judgment debtors, the decree holders filed execution petition before the executing court as E.P.267/93 seeking arrest and detention of the judgment debtors in civil prison. -In the said E.P., E.A. No. 38/94 was filed by the decree holders for the deputation of ameen for the construction of a fencing around the decree schedule property after a measurement of the property ...
Tag this Judgment!Madhu Vs. State Election Commission
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT49
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.W.P.(C) No. 35632/031. The petitioners in this Writ Petition are the Councillors of the 3rd respondent Municipality. Feeling aggrieved by the steps taken by the 1st respondent State Election Commission to disqualify them, this Writ Petition is filed. The brief facts of the case are the following:-2. The 1st respondent issued Ext.P1 circular to all the Muncipalities calling for the following details:-(1) Whether the Ward Committees/Ward Sabhas have been formed as provided under Section 42/42A of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994.(2) The details of the meetings of the Ward Committees/Ward Sabhas, including the date of the last meeting.(3) Was there any default in convening the Ward Committees/Ward Sabhas consecutively for a period of six months.(4) Was any Councillor disqualified under Section 92(o).The said circular was followed by Ext.P1(a) communication, in which the 4th direction in Ext.P 1 was modified as referring to the disqualification under Section 91(o) ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaya Kumar Vs. Excise Commissioner
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT306
K.K. Denesan, J.1. Appellant is the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 24489 of 2003. He is the Proprietor of Elite Distilleries & Beverages Company which is running a compounding, blending and bottling unit on the strength of the licenses issued by the Excise Department.2. The Kerala Foreign Liquor (Compounding, Blending & Bottling) Rules, 1975 were amended by the Government of Kerala by notification issued as per G.O.(P) No. 45/2000/TD dated 21.3.2000 published in Kerala Gazelle Extra Ordinary dated 21.3.2000. Ext.P2 is the true copy of the said notification. The amended rules, titled as the Kerala Foreign Liquor (Compounding, Blending & Bottling) Rules, 2000 came into force on the 1st day of April, 2000. The change effected in the rules by the amendment, so far as this case is concerned, is that in Rule 10, in Sub-rule (7) for the words, letters, figures and brackets 'Rs. 200/- (Rupees two hundred only)' the words, letters, figures and brackets 'Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only)' have...
Tag this Judgment!Francis A., Conductor, Kerala State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Kerala S ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ789Ker
M. Ramachandran, J.1. The petitioner is an employee of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. He has been placed under suspension on April 25, 2002. Charge sheet has been issued, enquiry held and he was awarded the punishment of 'removal from service' on November 29, 2002. This has been confirmed by the appellate authority.2. The petitioner had thereafter approached the Kerala State Road Transport Appellate Tribunal by way of a revision and the revisional authority, by Exhibit P1 order, had set aside the punishment and remanded the case to the disciplinary authority with direction to dispose of the case in accordance with law, after affording full opportunity to adduce defence evidence and defence documents.3. Consequent to this order, respondent Corporation is bound to hold a fresh proceedings against the petitioner and they are at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law. The contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Ushakumar Vs. Seetharaman
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT428
A.K. Basheer, J.1. Can the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions (for short, the Ombudsman) keep a democratically elected Panchayat Committee under suspended animation and appoint a Receiver to administer it2. Such an extra-ordinary order passed by the Ombudsman is impugned in this Original Petition by the President of Sreemoolanagaram Grama Panchayat. Circumstances leading to the order have been stated in the Original Petition rather too elaborately. However, for the purpose of deciding the crucial question, only a brief reference to the essential facts is necessary.3. There have been complaints galore about excavation of earth, mud, clay etc. from agricultural lands in the State. It is used for manufacture of bricks and other allied products. Various organisations comprising of agriculturists, environmentalists etc. had been clamouring for appropriate action against the so called indiscriminate excavation of earth from paddy fields and other agricultural lands. The issue w...
Tag this Judgment!Balan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC749; AIR2004Ker129; 2004(1)KLT479
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in all these cases is regarding the rate of motor vehicles tax to be applied to contract carriages having All India tourist permit operating regular interstate service under the provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (for short 'the Act'). According to the petitioners, they are liable to pay tax only at the rate as provided under Section 3(1) read with entry 7 of the Schedule to the Act. The petitioners also relied on circulars issued by the Transport Commissioner in support of their stand. According to the respondents the petitioners have to pay tax for each entry of the vehicle in the State as provided under Section 3(5) proviso.2. The very question came up for consideration before this Court earlier in a batch of Writ Petitions O.P. No. 8528/2002 and connected cases. In that case the question arise as to whether the petitioners are entitled to pay tax for each month or minimum for a quarter as demanded by th...
Tag this Judgment!Parukutty Vs. K.S.R.T.C.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC134; 2004ACJ1858; 2004(1)KLT663
J.B. Koshy, J.1. All these appeals are filed against the common award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam in O.P.(MV) No. 35 of 1995 and connected cases. As a result of collision between autorickshaw, bearing No. KL.9/1837 and KSRTC bus, bearing No. KLX 4870 on 29.9.1992 at about 9.30 A.M. the driver of the autorickshaw and another passenger died and some of the passengers in the autorickshaw sustained severe injuries. The Tribunal attributed 70% negligence on the autorickshaw driver and 30% on the driver of the KSRTC bus. Dissatisfied with the finding of negligence and quantum of compensation three claimants filed M.F.A. Nos. 632, 665 and 674 of 1997. Since autorickshaw was insured, the Insurance company was directed to pay compensation to the extent of 70% awarded. The insurance company filed appeals in all the cases. We may first consider the contentions raised by the insurance company.2. The coverage of the autorickshaw involved in the accident by a valid insur...
Tag this Judgment!Haneefa Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2003
Reported in: [2005]272ITR230(Ker)
G. Sasidharan J.1. This is a petition filed by the 4th accused in Crime No. 102 of 2003, of Guruvayoor Police Station. The crime was registered against the petitioner and the other accused under sections 41(1)(d) and 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On March 20, 2003, the Circle Inspector of Police, Guruvayoor, intercepted an ambassador car in which accused Nos. 1 to 3 were travelling and seized Rs. 52 lakhs which was suspected to have been stolen. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 said that the money belonged to the petitioner and hence he was also made an accused in the crime.2. On conducting investigation it was found that the currency notes seized were not stolen property and police filed a report to that effect in the court of the Magistrate. According to the petitioner, the money seized is his business income. The Assistant Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Thrissur, filed C. M. P. No. 4056 of 2003 in the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chavakkad, stating that the...
Tag this Judgment!Surendran Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT407
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. When this appeal came up for admission, Sri. T.R. Ramachandran Nair entered appearance for respondent No. 4, Sri. S.P. Aravindakshan Pillai took notice for respondent No. 3 and the learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 and 2. The appeal itself was heard.2. The petitioner in O.P. 10627 of 2003 has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1.7.2003 dismissing the Original Petition filed by him. The appellant was elected as one of the members of the Board of Directors of the Trivandrum Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union ('TRCMPU' for short) in the election held on 31.8.2000. He was elected as the Chairman of the Board of Directors also. On 20.10.2000 the third respondent filed a petition before the second respondent for a declaration that the appellant is disqualified to continue as the. Board Member of TRCMPU alleging that the appellant had disqualification to contest the election due to default as he...
Tag this Judgment!Kurian Abraham (P) Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner (Assmt) Ii
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT498; [2004]137STC237(Ker)
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Is the Circular dated May 28,1998 issued by the Department of Revenue (Taxes) clarifying that 'field latex and centrifuged latex are one and the same commodity' binding on the Revenue? This is the primary question that arises for consideration in these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The facts as given in O.P. No. 12376 of 2003 may be briefly noticed.2. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It buys raw rubber including latex. It processes latex and produces centrifuged latex and crumb rubber. By this process, the water content of raw latex is reduced.3. In the present case, the dispute relates to the levy of purchase and sales tax for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. The assessments for the year 1997-98 under the State and the Central Statutes were finalised vide orders dated May 14,2001 and May 31, 2001 respectively. Copies of these orders are on record...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »