Kerala Court March 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mohamood Haji Vs. Devootty Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT248
ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises from R.C.P.No. 128 of 1997 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Vadakara. The petitioners are the tenants and the respondents are the landlords.2. The landlords filed R.C.P.No. 128 of 1997 praying for eviction of the tenants under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Rent Control Court dismissed the petition rejecting the claim of the landlords under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. Against the order of the Rent Control Court, the landlords filed R.C.A.No. 55 of 1999 in the Court of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode. The Appellate Authority as per its judgment dated 7th July, 2001 confirmed the finding of the Rent Control Court in respect of the claim under Section 11(4)(iii), but ordered eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the tenants...
Binu Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT207
K.K. Denesan, J.1. Petitioner was appointed temporarily as Clerk-Typist in the office of the Commissioner for Government Examinations in the Education Department and he worked as such for the period from 9.1.1998 to 1.4.1998. During the above period he was paid remuneration by way of daily wages. He is a physically handicapped person. 2. Placing reliance on Ext.P3 G.O. dated 14.7.1998, petitioner claimed that he was eligible for appointment under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. He made a further claim on the basis of Ext.P5 G.O. dated 17.5.1999 for reappointment and continuance in service. 3. In paragraph 3 of the aforesaid G.O., Government ordered that the benefit granted to the physically handicapped persons as per G.O. (P) No. 32/98/P&ARD; dated 28.9.1998 will be extended to the physically handicapped employees who were in service during the period from 1.1.1998 to 14.8.1998 also, subject t...
Antony Vs. Chandni Chits (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT1095
ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. This unnumbered Miscellaneous First Appeal has been sent to the Bench at the request of the learned counsel for the appellants in view of the objection raised by the Registry that the court fee paid by the appellant is insufficient. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned Additional Advocate General.2. This appeal is filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act against the judgment dated 2.3.2001 of a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.C. No. 2 of 1994 in C.P. No. 57 of 1989. As per Section 21 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 the court fee payable under the Act shall be determined or computed in accordance with the provisions of Chaps.VI and IX and Schedules I and II of the said Act. As per Article 3(iii)(A)(2)(b) of Schedule II to the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, the court fee payable on a memorandum of appeal presented to the High Court under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1...
Neelakandan Nair Vs. Parameswara Kurup
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT943
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J. 1. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff before the Court below and he is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Munsiff on an application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17. The suit as instituted initially was one for injunction simpliciter. On the allegation that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants perpetrated trespass and therefore the proposed amendments were necessitated and the application for amendments was filed. The contention of the respondents/defendants was based on the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 introduced by the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 2002 under which the amendments will not be allowed after the commencement of the trial unless 'the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial'. The learned Munsiff had accepted this contention since he did not find any averment in the affidavit in support of th...
Kamala Vs. Drug Inspector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3672; 2003(2)KLT876
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. Scope, manner and extent of power of the Court under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in taking cognizance of an offence after the period of limitation are the issues to be decided in this case. Petitioners are accused 1 to 4 in S.T. No. 697 of 2000, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sulthan Bathery. The first respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, alleging that petitioners committed offence punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act. Annexure 1 is the copy of the complaint. The allegation in the complaint is that petitioners 1 to 3 are partners of the fourth petitioner firm and are manufacturers of drugs. On 22.1.1996, the first respondent drew sample of the drug called Macknil batch No. ME 31 from M/s. Meenangadi Pharmacy and the same was despatched to Government Analyst Drug Testing Laboratory, Trivandrum. On analysis, it is informed that the sample is not of standard quality, as p...
Tom Alex Vs. Thodupuzha General Marketing Society Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC282; 2003(2)KLT899
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner was the accused in C.C. No. 109 of 1999, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha, in a private complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case was called on 22.12.2000. On that day, the complainant or his counsel was not present. Therefore, accused was acquitted under Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 256 of the Cr. P.C. reads as follows:'256. Non-appearance or death of complainant:- (1) If the summons has been issued on complaint and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day: Provided that where the complainant is represented by a pleader or by the officer conducting the prosecution or w...
Shaji Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ187; 2003(2)KLT929
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. Whether a Magistrate is competent to order further investigation after taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of police report filed under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) and after appearance of the accused in pursuance of the summons issued? That is the only question to be decided in this Criminal Revision Petition.2. A learned Single Judge of this Court (Mr. T.M. Hassan Pillai, J.) decided the above question in the negative in Natarajan v. Sasidharan (2002 (1) KLT 499). Reliance was placed by the learned Judge on the judgment of the Apex Court in Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration) (AIR 1997 SC 639). When this Revision Petition came up for hearing before the same Judge, a subsequent decision pronounced by another learned Single (Mr. G. Sasidharan, J.) in Joisy v. Sub Inspector of Police (2002 (3) KLT 172) was cited. In the above judgment relying the decision of the Apex Court in Sri Bhag...
Shafi Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3612; 2003(2)KLT920
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J. 1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Bakel Police registered a case against seven identified persons and fifteen unidentified persons, alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners who were also arrayed as accused were absconding. Therefore, the case against them was split up. The accused who appeared before Court were acquitted after trial. Now it is the case of the petitioners that there is a finding against unlawful assembly. No appeal or revision has been filed against the acquittal of the other accused. Therefore, it is their contention that the case against them should be quashed.3. The Apex Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) held as follows:'.. .....It is well established that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hintannia Plastics (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Ker)385; [2004]267ITR114(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. The following questions of law are referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, for short 'the Tribunal', under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for short 'the Act', for the decision of this Court at the instance of the Revenue :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, 'the cost of generator sets was not to be included while considering the investment in plant and machinery for the purpose of Section 80HHA of the IT Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 80HHA of the IT Act ?'2. The brief facts necessary for the purpose of this case is as follows :The respondent-assessee in both these cases are one and the same. It is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of PVC pipes. The assessment years concerned are 1992-93 and 1991-92, respectively. In the assessment for the aforesaid years the assessee claimed the status of a small-scale industria...
Cit Vs. Hintannia Plastics (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN473(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. The following questions of law are referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the decision of this court at the instance of the revenue :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the cost of generator sets was not to be included while considering the investment in plant and machinery for the purpose of section 80HHA of the Income Tax Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of section 80HHA of the Income Tax Act ?'2. The brief facts necessary for the purpose of this case is as follows :The respondent-assessees in both these cases are one and the same. It is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of PVC pipes. The assessment years concerned are 1992-93 and 1991-92 respectively. In the assessment for the aforesaid years th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »