Kerala Court July 2003 Judgments
Veega Holidays and Parks (P) Ltd. Vs. Kunnathunad Grama Panchayat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker168; 2003(3)KLT442
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. Is the appellant company, which is running an 'Amusement Park' liable to pay 'Entertainment Tax' to the respondent-Panchayat? Is the appellant's 'Park' liable to be closed on account of the failure to deposit the amount of tax as demanded by the respondents? These two questions represent the core of the controversy in this bunch of 23 appeals. The learned Single Judge has answered both the questions against the appellant. Thus, the 21 Writ Petitions filed by the appellant to challenge the demand for more than Rs. Nine Crores have been dismissed. On the other hand the petition filed by the respondent - Panchayat for closure of the facility has been allowed. The petition filed by the appellant to challenge the order for closure has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the common judgment, the appellant has filed these appeals. The respondents in the appeals have put in appearance at the stage of the preliminary hearing. In the normal course, the admission of the appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Eldho Vs. Alias
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT170
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal has been placed before us on a reference made by R. Bhaskaran, J. since an interesting question of law on the scope and ambit of Section 4(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') has come up for consideration. 2. The question that is posed for consideration is whether Section 4(2) of the Act would debar a defendant in a suit for injunction from disputing the possession of the plaintiff. Learned Judge of this Court, Manoharan, J., at an interlocutory stage in C.R.P. No. 2179 of 1993 arising out of the present suit held that as per Section 4(2) of the Act first defendant is not entitled to rely on the said Section to support his case that he is in possession of the property. 3. Before we deal with the question raised in this case, we will refer to certain facts. Plaint schedule property measuring 1 acre and 46 cents of land comprised in survey number 614/4A was purchased by the plaintiff as per document No. 1378/85 ...
Tag this Judgment!Dev Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker11; 2003(3)KLT201
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. This petition is filed by the plaintiff appellant under Sections 151 and 152 of the C.P.C. seeking correction of the judgment and decree passed by this Court dated 13.9.2002 in A.S. 156/1994 by deleting the direction to the District Collector to recover the court fee payable by the appellant since he is not liable to pay court fee and he has no means to pay the same.2. The petitioner filed the above suit in O.S.67/88 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cherthala as indigent person against the State claiming damages of Rs. 10 lakhs. That suit was dismissed by the lower court by decree and judgment dated 30.7.1991. The above appeal in A.S. 156/94 is also preferred by the petitioner against that decree and judgment as indigent person. The appeal was dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 13.9.2002 confirming the decree and judgment passed by the lower court. In the judgment this Court directed the Registry to send a copy of the judgment and decree to the...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Vs. Sub Inspector of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT718
G. Sasidharan, J.1. This is a petition filed by accused 6 and 7 in Crime 318 of 2002 of Vadakkencherry Police Station for quashing the proceedings initiated against them pursuant to Annexure-A1 F.I.R. and Annexure-A2 report in the above crime. The allegation is that on 21.9.2002 one Rajesh was going in a maruthi car along with Sudha Rajan, Raju and Kavya and the Sub Inspector of Police, Vadakkencherry Police Station and party intercepted the vehicle and searched the vehicle and then it was found that they were going to Coimbatore. The allegation is that they were going in the maruthi car to Coimbatore for prostitution. Those who were in the car were arrested by the Sub Inspector of Police and were taken to Vadakkencherry Police Station. Crime 318 of 2002 was registered against the persons who were there in the maruthi car alleging commission of offences under Sections 3, 4, 5(1)(c), 6, 7 and 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Annexure-A1 is the copy of the F.I.R. Petition...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Narayanan Nambiar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT186; (2008)11VST380(Ker)
1. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act'). The State is the revision petitioner in all the four cases. The same assessee is the respondent in all the cases. The assessment years concerned are 1989-90 to 1992-93. The short question that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether 'disposable syringe' is a drug as contended by the assessee or 'plastic product' as contended by the revenue. This question has arisen only in the context of the rate of tax on 'disposable syringe'. If the contention of the revenue is accepted the assessee is liable to pay a higher rate of tax (2% more) for all these years.2. We have heard the learned Government Pleader for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to refer to the entries as it stood at the relevant time. Though there is some change in the respective item numbers and in the rate of tax the wordings of t...
Tag this Judgment!Siddique Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT(Cri)493; I(2004)DMC316; 2003(3)KLT278
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Is a police officer entitled to investigate an offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code when the complaint is filed by an enumerated person before the Magistrate and the Magistrate in turn makes a reference under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to him? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the question is answered in the decision reported in Prasad v. Circle Inspector of Police, 1998 (2) KLT 442, the same requires reconsideration.2. The fact scenario is simple. A wife complained to the learned Magistrate that her husband is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code. The police officer took up investigation and after completion of the investigation filed a charge sheet before the Magistrate. The Magistrate took cognizance of the crime on the basis of the police report filed by the...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Vs. Corporation of Cochin
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT1
M. Ramachandran, J.1. In view of the nature of the contentions, that have been raised in these Writ Petitions, they are disposed of by a common judgment.2. M/s. Murali Purushothaman, Paulson Thomas and Philip J. Vettickattu had appeared On behalf of the petitioners. Sri. N.N. Sugunapalan and Sri. Premchand had represented the Corporation of Kochi.3. The facts could be stated as herein below:The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 21382/2003 had been given permission, in 1988, for putting up a bunk shop on the side of a road within the Corporation area. This was with a specific condition that she would be obliged to remove the bunk, without any sort of claims, on demand by the Corporation. The petitioner had put up the bunk at her costs and had been in occupation thereof ever since and is attending to job works of typewriting. However, the licence fee and ground rent were accepted thereafter only up to 1998. Thereafter the Corporation had been refusing to receive the ground rent and no licence is...
Tag this Judgment!Baiju Kumar Vs. D.E.O.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT240
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. 1. These two cases have been filed by the very same petitioner to enforce his right under Rule 51B of Chap.XIVA of the K.E.R. So, they are heard and disposed of by a common Judgment.O.P. No. 14830/99-M 2. The petitioner's mother Smt. S. Christi Bai was working as H.S.A. (Malayalam) in the school managed by the 2nd respondent from 3.8.1970 onwards. She died on 18.5.1989 while in service. At the time of her death, she had completed 19 years of service. The petitioner's date of birth is 30.5.1978 and at the time of his mother's death, he was only a minor aged about 11 years. He attained majority on 30.5.1996. Thereafter, on 30.11.1998, the petitioner submitted an application for appointment under Rule 51B of Chap.XIVA of the K.E.R. on finding that a vacancy of Peon has arisen in the school on 30.9.1998. Ext.P1 is the application submitted by him in the prescribed format. Thereafter, he moved the Director of Public Instructions seeking appropriate reliefs. Still la...
Tag this Judgment!Surendran Vs. Mavelikkara Primary Co-operative A. and R.D. Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT156
M. Ramachandran, J.1. After 27 years of service, the petitioner had retired as Sub Registrar from Government on 30.6.2000. By Ext. P1 proceedings, the Accountant General had fixed the retirement benefits, including Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (for short DCRG). The gratuity payment order has also been issued, but he had not been paid the DCRG so far. Finding that there is inordinate delay, the petitioner had filed O.P. No. 22285/02 and there was a direction for finalisation of the issue within a prescribed time. It was after this that Ext. P7 dated 28.01.2003 came to be issued by the District Registrar (General), Alappuzha addressing the first respondent - Co-operative Bank, a copy of which was endorsed to the petitioner.2. Reference had been made therein to a letter issued by the Bank to the office of the District Registrar whereunder the Bank had requested that before issuing the No Liability Certificate to the petitioner steps may be taken to settle the accounts of the said person ...
Tag this Judgment!Niyamavedi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker81
1. The Apex Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1 : (AIR 1994 SC 853) held that the principle of 'finality of litigation' held that the principle of 'finality of litigation' cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. The Apex Court held that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Property grabbers, tax evaders, bank loan dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the Court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. The Court reminded that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court and can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. We are constrained to apply the above mentioned principle to the instant cases since we are convinced that the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »