Kerala Court August 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.
Prasad Vs. Circle Inspector of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT737
R. Basant, J.1. The petitioners are the husband and relatives of the de facto complainant. The petitioners apprehend that the police may arrest them on the allegation that they have been guilty of matrimonial cruelty against the wife of the 1st petitioner-Geetha by name. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are absolutely innocent and the allegations are raised with vexatious intent. It is prayed that directions may be issued under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that no crime has been registered against the petitioners. But the learned Public Prosecutor immediately submits that it is true that a complaint was received from the said Geetha raising allegations of matrimonial cruelty against the petitioners. The police are trying to get the matter settled amicably and no crime has been registered so far. The police have no intention to arrest the petitioners now, it is further submit...
Mather and Plat (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-07-2003
Reported in: [2004]135STC413(Ker)
1. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act'). Revision-petitioner is the same in all these cases. The assessment years concerned are 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87. The revision-petitioner, a works contractor, had entered into a contract with Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd., Ambalamugal for the design, manufacture, supply, erection, commissioning and handing over of fire protection system. In the assessment for the aforesaid three years the assessee contended that since it has transferred materials in the execution of works contract not in the form of goods but only in some other form, the transfer of such materials cannot be subjected to tax under the Act for the three assessment years in question. The assessee also contended that it is entitled to the benefit of compounding provided under Section 7 of the Act. The assessing authority rejected both the contentions and brought the materials transferred in the execution of the works contract to ...
Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. Radhamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ARBLR646(Kerala); [2004]122CompCas937(Ker); 2003(3)KLT289
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. Whether an appeal is maintainable against an order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1996 Act') as an interim measure? If appeal is maintainable, what is the court fee payable? These are the two questions considered in this order.2. The appellant, a finance company, in this case filed an application before the District Court as O.P. (Arb.) No. 22 of 2003 under Section 9(2) of the Act to have the hired vehicle (under hire purchase agreement) seized through a Commission appointed pending arbitration proceedings. It is not disputed that arbitration proceedings are in progress involving the above hired vehicle.3. Section 9 of the 1996 Act is as follows:'9. Interim measures by Court:- A party may, before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with Section 36, apply to a Court - (i) for the appointment of a guardian fo...
Subramanian Vs. Aboobacker Koya
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT819
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in a suit for money. The plaintiff's case, after amendment of the plaint, is as follows. On 23.2.1984, the defendant executed a document in favour of the plaintiff and obtained Rs. 25,000/-. He paid back Rs. 10,000/-in May, 1984 and Rs. 10,000/- on 20.7.1984. Again he borrowed Rs. 15,000/- on 7.8.1984 and Rs. 10,000/- on 18.8.1984. On 6.3.1986 he paid back Rs. 5,000/-. The balance payable is Rs. 35,389/-. Before amendment, the claim was based on the loan given on 23.2.1984 and no repayment was stated in the plaint. Even after amendment, the cause of action portion of the plaint was not amended.2. The defendant contended that the entire loan as stated in the original plaint was repaid by payment of Rs. 10,000/- on 20.7.1984, Rs. 10,000/- on 11.8.1984, and Rs. 5,000/- on 6.3.1986. The document was not returned and the plaintiff insisted on 36% interest. The defendant also contended that the suit was barred by limitation.3. The tria...
Surendran Vs. Excise Inspector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT404
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C. J. 1. On account of the conflict of decisions regarding the scope and interpretation of Sections 55 and 58 of the Abkari Act, this revision has been referred to Division Bench. First, the facts.2. The petitioner is running a stationery shop. On April 26, 1989 he was found to be in possession of 15 litres of 'Arrack' kept in a plastic container and 27 bottles of 'Arrack' each containing 180 ml. He was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.3. The trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default, he was to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. He filed an appeal. The Appellate Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment to six months. However, the conviction under Section 55(a) was upheld, hence, this Revision Petition.4. Mr. Kunhikrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a two-fold submission. Firstly, it...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. George
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT387
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Were the respondents who were in service till December 31, 1995, entitled to the payment of retiral benefits at the rates as prevalent on that day or at the rates as revised with effect from January 1, 1996? The Tribunal has upheld the claim of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It has taken the view that the two officials had become pensioners on January 1, 1996 and were, thus, entitled to the benefit of revision. The Union of India etc. challenge the order. Has the Tribunal erred? First, the facts may be noticed.2. The two respondents were working in the Telecom Department on the posts of Senior Section Supervisor and Section Supervisor respectively. They had continued in service till December31, 1995. They were paid pension with effect from January 1, 1996.3. The Fifth Pay Commission recommended the revision of pension and other retiral benefits. In pursuance to these recommendations, the Government of India issued two separate orders on October 27, 1997. The orders ...
Alpha Clays Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT235; [2004]135STC107(Ker)
1. The short question that arises for consideration in these cases is as to whether the hire-charges received by the assessee in respect of the excavator owned by it and used for excavating clay mine of M/s. Sulekha Clay Mines is liable to be assessed under Section 5(1)(iii) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, for short, 'the Act'.2. All these tax revision cases arise from the common order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, passed in T.A. Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of 2001 filed by the assessee under the Act. Assessee is the revision-petitioner. State of Kerala is the respondent. The assessment years concerned are 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98, respectively.3. During the three assessment years concerned, the assessee had received Rs. 2,88,580, 9,06,280 and 5,61,272 respectively towards lease charges of the excavator from M/s. Sulekha Clay Mines. The assessments of the petitioner for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97 were originally completed wherein the lease charges menti...
Pooja Milk Foods (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT1063; [2006]143STC467(Ker)
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. Is 'pasteurised milk' not 'fresh milk' as contemplated under Entry 23 of the Third Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 so as to be exempted from the levy of tax? This is the short question that arises in these two writ petitions. The Counsel for the parties have referred to the facts in O.P. No.5975 of 2002. These may be briefly noticed.2. The petitioner is a private limited company, It is engaged in the processing of milk. It is running a small-scale industrial unit. It is registered as a dealer under the K.G.S.T. Act. The petitioner is selling pasteurised milk, curd and ghee etc. The petitioner filed its return for the assessment year 1996-97. It showed a total turnover of Rs. 35,51,706.65 on account of the sale of milk. It claimed exemption from payment of sales tax. Vide order dated March 21, 2001, the Assessing Authority accepted the petitioner's claim and finalised the assessment 'as a case of nil demand'.3. The petitioner had also filed ...
Bindu Vs. Assistant Police Commissioner
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT583
K.K. Denesan, J.1. Petitioner in W.P. (Crl.) No. 23/03 is the wife of one Sunil Kumar @ China Sunil, who is accused No. 3 in Crime No. 116 of 2003 of Nemam Police Station. Petitioner in W.P. (Crl.) No. 29/03 is the wife of one Babu who is accused No. 4 in the above crime case. The main offence alleged against the accused is under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. According to the petitioners accused Nos. 3 and 4 were arrested from their houses on 29.5.2003 by the police and were taken to the Office of the 1st respondent who is authorised to detect and investigate offences punishable under the Act.3. The prosecution case, based on materials now available on record and the investigation so far conducted appears to be the following: FIR in Crime No. 116 of 2003 of Nemam Police Station was registered on 9.4.2003 in respect of an offence alleged to have been detected on 8.4.2003 at about 8.15 p.m. The place of occurrence is a room on the back s...
Satheesh Vs. Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT480
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. These Original Petitions are filed by the members of the erstwhile Managing Committee of the Guruvayoor Devaswom and the Commissioner and the previous Administrator of the Devaswom against the orders passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Trichur in C.M.P. No. 559 of 2002. By this order, the court has directed vigilance enquiry and further action on Ext. P1 complaint. Ext. P1 complaint is filed by one Suresh alleging certain allegations against the previous members of the Managing Committee and against the Administrator and Commissioner. As soon as the Complaint was received, Special Judge called for the remarks from the Commissioner and thereafter the impugned order was passed.2. The complaint is filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It further states that the audit was not taking place due to the mismanagement of the members of the Managing Committee. The Enquiry Commissioner got details from the Commissioner of Guruvayoor Devaswom and pa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »