Kerala Court August 2003 Judgments
Somanathan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT1148
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. These two unnumbered Writ Petitions are placed before us on a reference made by K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. to determine the amount of court fee to be paid when more than one petitioner join together and file a single petition. G. Somarajan and 7 others filed a Writ Petition on 26.5.2003 before this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India remitting a court fee of Rs. 800/-. A separate direction petition was also filed by them along with the Writ Petition by paying a court fee of Rs. 50/-. Registry pointed out the deficiency of the court fee. Counsel insisted that separate court fee be not levied from each of petitioners for the direction petition. The Registry then made the following note:'In the direction petition there are 8 petitioners, but only one court fee is paid. CF payable is Rs. 50/- per petitioner'.Incidental is the issue which arises for consideration in the Writ Petition filed by Varghese Joseph and 5 others. On a request made by the...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Cyriac Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: [2004]135STC375(Ker)
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Is a person who purchases a car for his own use from a place outside Kerala entitled to the reduction in the amount of 'entry tax' to the extent of the sales tax already paid in that State This question arises in the context of Section 4(2) of the 'Kerala Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1994'. A division Bench of this Court had answered this question in favour of the purchaser. However, another Bench of this Court had some reservation and considered it appropriate that a Full Bench should hear the matter. Thus, these two appeals have been placed before this Bench.2. It may be noticed at the outset that Section 4(2) was repealed in the year 1997. However, it was on the statute book at the relevant time. Thus, we are examining the issue. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to the facts in W.A. No. 113 of 1999. These may be briefly noticed.3. On October 1, 1994 the appellant purchased a Maruti 1000 from M/s. Solar Automobiles, Manga...
Tag this Judgment!Jameela Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ859
ORDERN. Krishnan Nair, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Kollam in S.C. No. 686/2000. The appellant and another were charged with the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act. After the trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence and convicted them. The first accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 21/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The second accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of 45 days. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the second accused is seriously challenged in this appeal.2. The prosecution allegation is that on 29-7-1999, the first accused was found in possession of 1 Kg. 850 gms. o...
Tag this Judgment!Balan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3427; I(2004)DMC827; 2003(3)KLT472
ORDERJawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Is an applicant seeking bail bound to approach the Court of Sessions before he can move the High Court? Should the High Court refuse to entertain a petition under Section 438 or 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code directly unless 'exceptional circumstances' are shown? This is the core of the controversy in this case. The sequence of events leading to this 'reference' to the Division Bench may be briefly noticed.2. A petition for the grant of anticipatory bail viz. Cr.M.C. No. 3265/2003 was filed by Usman. The applicant apprehended arrest in a case registered under Sections 498A and 306 I.P.C. Similarly, there was another application viz., Crl.M.C. No. 3391/2003. This had been filed under Section 439. The applicant had been arrested on the allegation that he was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. Both the applications were decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated May 3, 2003. On a considera...
Tag this Judgment!Mac-n-hom Systems Vs. P.S. Varrier
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker91; 2003(3)KLT1179
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order in Original Petition (Indigent) No.8 of 2001 of Sub Court, Tirur. O.P.8/01 was preferred under Order 33, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to institute the suit as indigent person. Suit was instituted for a decree for realisation of an amount of Rs. 36,65,129/- as damages from the respondent. Court fee payable was Rs. 2,06,560/-. Petitioner stated that he does not have sufficient means to pay the court fee. Consequently permission was sought for to file the suit as an indigent person. Respondent filed counter statement contending that the application is not proper, that the petitioner is not an indigent person and that the suit is barred by the Law of Limitation.2. Question regarding the maintainability of the application under Order 33, Rule 2 and as to whether the application is barred by Law of Limitation was considered as a preliminary issue. Court below found that petitioner has substantiall...
Tag this Judgment!Seena B. Kumar Vs. Asst. Executive Engineer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-11-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker68; 2003(3)KLT987
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. When the Kerala Financial Corporation exercising their power under Section 29 auctioned an industrial premises named M/s. Arjun Associates, the appellant/writ petitioner was the successful bidder. The bid was confirmed in her favour and the property was conveyed to her. Later she applied for electric connection in that premises. The K.S.E. Board there upon demanded the arrears of electricity charges payable by the former consumer. It was because of the arrears the electricity supply had been disconnected from the premises earlier. This demand in Ext. P4 was challenged in O.P. 10658/98. The challenge failed. Therefore this Writ Appeal. 2. It is contended by the appellant that the electric supply is given not to the premises but for the use of the owner of the premises. The appellant is the present owner of the premises. She had obtained it in an auction conducted by the Kerala Financial Corporation. Therefore she is in no way liable for the dues payable by the f...
Tag this Judgment!Sasidhara Panicker Vs. Paul Daniel and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-11-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker70
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. This appeal is filed by the 2nd defendant in a suit for compensation. The case of the plaintiffs is that on 10-8-1984 an elephant, by name 'Baburaj', owned by defendants 1 to 4 and hired by 6th defendant became unruly and entered into the plaintiffs' land and committed several mischieves by felling 20 yielding coconut trees, destroying 4 coconut saplings, 3 yielding arecanut trees, 5 plantain and 5 paras of paddy. The plaintiffs therefore claimed compensation for felling trees Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 250/- towards the valueof paddy.2. Among the defendants, 2nd defendant alone contested the suit. He claimed that he is the owner of the elephant and defendants 1, 3 and 4 have no right or liability. His case is that on the basis of an agreement between the plaintiffs and the 5th defendant, the mahout of the elephant, certain unyielding coconut trees were arranged to be felled by the elephant and while so, a lady who came there opened her coloured umbrella and the elephant b...
Tag this Judgment!Yedunath Vs. Vadakara Municipality
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT684
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The contention raised by the appellants/tenants is whether they shall be mulcted with a liability to pay the property tax to the Municipality.2. It is contended by the appellants, relying on Rule 37 of the Taxation and Finance Rules framed under the old Municipalities Act, that tenant can be asked to pay tax only for one year, in case of failure of the landlord to pay the tax.3. As per Section 237 of the new Municipalities Act, any property tax due on any building shall be a charge thereon. Necessarily, it will be a charge on any of the income flowing from that property. Rent is an income generated out of the use of the building. So the tenant shall have to pay, based on the statutory charge created under Section 237 of the Municipalities Act, Municipal tax demanded by the Municipality concerned. That is a matter for adjustment for the tenants with the landlords in tune with the lease agreement.Hence the appeal fails, dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Vikrant Tyres Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Ii
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT822
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Undisputed facts are as follows. There was an assessment against the appellant for the sales tax for the year 1987-88. Disputing the assessment, the appellant took up the matter before the higher authorities. Finally, the Appellate Tribunal, the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, as per Ext.P1 order dated 21.3.1994 set aside the assessment and remanded the matter for fresh disposal to the assessing officer. The Appellate Tribunal did not specify any period for completion of assessment afresh. This order of the Appellate Tribunal was received by the assessing officer on 22.7.1994. The Assessing Officer, pursuant to Ext.P1, completed the assessment proceedings on 13.1.1999. There is agreement on both sides to these facts.2. Whether the assessment so completed on 13.1.1999 was beyond the period of limitation provided for in Section 17(8) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 is the issue involved in the appeal. Learned Single Judge found that it was within th...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanan Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-07-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC205; AIR2004Ker29; 2003(3)KLT676
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. Is the State bound to enforce the mandate of Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 that 'every person driving or riding.... on a motor cycle shall, while in a public place, wear protective headgear'? This question was answered in the affirmative by Koshy, J. in O.P. No. 17480 of 1998. The decision was challenged in W.A. No. 1980 of 1999 on the ground that by Act 54 of 1994, Section 129 had been amended to provide that the headgear should conform 'to the standards of the Bureau of Indian Standards'. The appeal was allowed as 'the change made to Section 129', had not been noticed. However, in this petition, it has been pointed out that factually there is no difference in ISI and BIS marks. In view of the public importance of the issue, the matter has been referred to this Bench. -2. The petitioner is an unfortunate parent. On February 9, 2000, his son Ranjit, a young man of 26 years, was riding a motorcycle. If hit against an electric pole on the highway....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »