Kerala Court July 2003 Judgments
Sunny Joseph Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT247
M. Ramachandran, J. 1. By Ext.P6, the Secretary, Kuravilangad Grama Panchayat had informed the petitioner, who is the Secretary of Drivers' Union, that effective from 28.3.2003 parking of vehicles should be shifted to the Taxi Stand approved by the Regional Transport Authority. The indication is clear that the parking as at present carried out was not authorised. In most cordial manner, their co-operation had been requested for. The petitioner had however thought it fit to challenge the same in this Original Petition. By interim order dated 27.3.2003, in C.M.P. No. 18051 of 2003, the direction was stayed. The Panchayat has entered appearance. Additional respondent has got himself impleaded. According to the petitioner, the decision evidenced by Ext.P6 is irregular and illegal and not to be enforced.2. After hearing the parties, I am at once struck by the efforts made, which obviously is against public interest, and attempt for a retrograde. Apparently the Panchayat had faltered in one ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayakumari Vs. Devabalan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker363; I(2004)DMC667; 2003(3)KLT695
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. Suit was instituted by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and for consequential reliefs.2. Plaintiffs case can be briefly stated as follows: Plaintiffs, first defendant and Santhakumari are the children of fourth defendant. Plaint schedule property was obtained by Adichan Nadar, father of the fourth defendant, under partition deed of the year 1079. They are Hindu Nadars governed by Hindu Mitakshara Law. Second defendant is the husband of the first defendant. The property obtained by Adichan Nadar devolved on the fourth defendant and he was in possession of the same as Manager of the joint family. Plaintiffs obtained right over the properties of the joint family by their birth. On 13.3.1975 fourth defendant representing himself as the sole owner of the property, executed a gift deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of defendants 1 and 2. According to the plaintiffs, properties are co-parcenary prope...
Tag this Judgment!Vathsan Vs. Japahari
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-16-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC65; 2004CriLJ414; 2003(3)KLT972; [2004]51SCL48(Ker)
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. These cases come up before us on a reference by a learned Single Judge. The question referred is whether Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is attracted in respect of a cheque dishonoured on account of the closure of the account on which it was drawn, even prior to its drawal. The decisions of this Court reported in Joseph v. Philip Joseph, 2000 (2) KLJ 679 and Japahari v. Priya (1993 (2) KLT 141) indicate that the account on which the cheque was drawn shall be maintained by the drawer at the time of drawal of the cheque to attract the said provision. It has been further held that Section 138 of the Act will not be attracted if the cheque has been drawn after the closure of the account. But, when the matter came up before the learned Single Judge, a decision by the Bombay High Court reported in Shivendra v. M/s, Adineo (1996 Crl.L.J. 1816) was pointed out. In that decision it was held that it was imma...
Tag this Judgment!Alex V. Chacko Vs. Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-16-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC357; 2004ACJ1434; 2004(1)KLT914
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellant in this case questions Award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in W.C.C. No. 3 of 2001. The husband of the second respondent died during the course of employment. Appellant is a construction contractor. Deceased was working as a helper of the appellant and he fell down from the second floor of the building and succumbed to injuries on the next day. Dependants claimed compensation claiming that deceased was aged 35 years and was in receipt of Rs. 1,500 as wages per month. Commissioner fixed income at Rs. 2,000 and awarded compensation. The contention of the appellants are three. First of all deceased was not a workman entitled to compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as Act). Secondly it was contended that even if he is a workman, he claimed monthly income as Rs. 1,500 and fixing it as Rs. 2,000 is illegal. Thirdly it is contended that there was undue delay in filing application and some amount was paid at the time...
Tag this Judgment!Chief Project Manager Vs. Aji Kurian
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker206; 2003(3)KLT56
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J. 1. Whether the word 'the Government' used in Section 73A of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (10 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) would include the Central Government? If so whether the officers of the Railway also can claim benefit of the above Section treating them as officers of the Central Government while filing suits, appeals etc. on behalf of the Railways? These are the questions to be considered in this order. Section 73A was inserted by Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation (Amendment) Act, 2002 which provides that no court fee is payable on suits, appeals, revisions, etc. filed and presented on behalf of the Government before any court under the provisions of the Act. Section 73A of the Act is as follows:- '73A. Special provision regarding suits, appeals, revision etc. filed by or on behalf of the Government before the Court.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, where a suit, appeal, revis...
Tag this Judgment!Libi Vs. Devassy
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT685
A. Lekshmikutty, J. 1. The appellant is the petitioner in E.A. No. 296/2002 in E.P. No. 1086/2002 in R.C.P. 10/98 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda. E.A. No. 296/2002 is filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 97, 99, 100, 101 and 103 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a declaration to the effect that the order passed in RCP 10/98 is not binding on the petitioner in the E.A. for the reason that in the said proceedings she was not made a party and there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. An order for eviction was obtained by the 1st respondent in R.C.P. No. 10/1998. The petitioner was not a party to the rent control proceedings. Only respondents 2 and 3 herein were counter petitioners in the R.C.P. The disputed shop room was taken on lease by the father of the appellant late Sri. George and since his death about 15 years back, the tenancy right over the same devolved upon the appellant and other legal heirs of late George...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Ranjan Alias Nasam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ715
Krishnan Nair, J. 1. The unfortunate victim in this case is one Rajimol, aged 9 years, who was the daughter of P. W. 1, Omana. Rajimol was studying in the Vth standard in the K. M. U. P. School, Mallassery. On 1-12-1997, at 7 a.m. as usual, she left her house for attending the tuition class and after the tuition, she went to the school. She used to return home at 4.30 p.m. But, on that day, she did not return. P. W. 1 made enquiries about her missing daughter. When she met P. W. 2, a classmate of the deceased, she was told that P.W.2 along with Rajimol returned from the school as usual and when they reached in front of the Oil Mill at Vattakulanji junction, the deceased went towards east in the company of the accused through the colony road. At about 9.30 p.m. P. W. 1 and others went to the house of the accused and made enquiries about the deceased. The accused told them that he did not see her. At about 10.30 p.m., P. W. 1 went to Pathanamthitta Police Station and gave Ext. P 1 first ...
Tag this Judgment!Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT267; [2004]134STC143(Ker)
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Is Section 3(c) of the Kerala General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 2002, by which the rate of tax on the sale of paper has been raised from 4% to 8% with effect from December 31, 2001 unconstitutional? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this bunch of ten appeals and one Writ Petition. The learned single Judge having dismissed the petitions, the Writ Petitioners have filed these appeals. The Writ Petition viz., O.P. No. 7973 of 2003 has been posted along with the appeals under an order passed by the learned Single Judge.2. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to the facts in W.A. No. 178 of 2003. These may be briefly noticed.3. The appellant is a Public Limited Company. It is engaged in the manufacture of Paper and Paperboards. It has its registered office at Pallipalayam, P.O. Erode, in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is registered as a Dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.4. On December 31, 2001, the Kerala General S...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Chandra Balakrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Ker)353
1. Both the appeal and the reference are at the instance of the Revenue in respect of two different assessees. The Tribunal in the order impugned in ITA No. 97 of 1999 has followed its earlier decision which is the subject-matter of IT Ref. No. 9/2001. In IT Ref. No. 9/2001, the Tribunal has referred the Mowing question of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act).'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that it is true that the long-term capital gains arising on the sale of the property has to be taxed at the rate of 20 per cent as provided in Section 112(1)(a)(ii) of the IT Act and not at the rate of 60 per cent as provided in Section 113 of the IT Act ?'In ITA No. 97 of 1999, notice was ordered on the following two questions of law :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in the light of the finding that the capital gains arising on the sale of the property has been rightly...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Smt. Chandra Balakrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN235(Ker)
Both the appeal and the reference are at the instance of the revenue in respect of two different assessees. The Tribunal in the order impugned in I.T.A. No. 97 of 1999 has followed its earlier decision which is the subject-matter of I.T.R. No. 9/2001. In I.T.R. No. 9/2001 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'):'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that it is true that the long-term capital gains arising on the sale of the property has to be taxed at the rate of 20 per cent as provided in section 112(1)(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act and not at the rate of 60 per cent as provided in section 113 of the Income Tax Act ?'In I.T.A. No. 97 of 1999 notice was ordered on the following two questions of law :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in the light of the finding that the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »