Kerala Court October 2004 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.
Anikad Grama Panchayath Vs. Baiju
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT153
Kurian Joseph, J.1. The Panchayat has filed the latter Writ Petition challenging the order dated 2.12.2003 (Ext.P6) and the highest bidder in auction for collection of sand has filed the former Writ Petition for implementing the said order. According to the bidder, owing to the orders passed by the Deputy Director and this Court he could not fully enjoy the benefit of collection of sand during the period of licence and hence he suffered huge loss. He approached the Deputy Director. The Deputy Director held that the petitioner should be compensated for the loss for 50 days instead of 81 days as claimed by him. The Panchayat took up the matter before the Government and the Government passed the impugned order affirming the stand of the Deputy Director. According to the Panchayat, the Deputy Director and the Government could not have computed the amounts as done in the impugned orders. Even if the Government was of the view that a resolution by the Grama Panchayat requires cancellation, m...
Shamsudeen Vs. Tahsildar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-24-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT290
P.R. Raman, J.1. Petitioner is the owner of the building in Sy. No. 1556/15 (R.S.496) comprised in Keezhthonnakal Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. Total plinth area is 250 m2. He was assessed the building tax as per the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 for an amount of Rs. 21,600/- against which he preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority concurred with the view of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal against which the present Writ Petition is filed.2. While the appeal was pending, the petitioner filed a representation before the District Collector stating that in spite of the return filed the District Collector, after enquiry, directed the Tahsildar to assess the building based on the existing rate as per order dt. 31.5.2003. Naturally, the Appellate Authority being a Sub Collector has no other go but to accept the order of the District Collector and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein.3. No finding was rendered by the Appellate Authori...
Selvaraj Francis Vs. Returning Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-21-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ker38; 2004(3)KLT889
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. The appellant attempted an Election Petition. He lost. Therefore, this appeal.2. The appellant herein and the second respondent were the contesting candidates. The appellant lost in the election by 63 votes. He challenged the election of the second respondent on the ground that the second respondent continued to hold an office of profit as a Checking Inspector in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the K.S.R.T.C.'), a public sector undertaking, not only on the date of submission of nomination paper, but also on the date of election and even on the date of declaration of the result. He further contends that, in order to show that the nomination paper filed by the second respondent was in order, the second respondent had manipulated documents in such a way that there was acceptance of his voluntary retirement before the nomination. Really, there was no voluntary retirement in the eye of law. There was no legal request for voluntary retirement,...
Francis Vs. John Britto
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT1113
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. Both these cases are connected. Appellant in the appeal and the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition is the same person. State Bank of Travancore filed O.S. No. 129 of 1984 and obtained a decree for recovery of money. During the execution proceedings, the second defendant died and deceased defendant's legal heirs were impleaded. The decree schedule property consisting of 42 cents of land at Chettikkadu Muri was brought to sale. In the Court auction conducted on 3.10.2002, the petitioner was the auction purchaser for Rs. 84,001/-. As provided under the auction notice, the petitioner remitted the entire amount in time and the matter was posted to 5.12.2002 for confirmation of the auction.2. On 3.12.2002, beyond the time limit of 60 days from the date of the sale, the first respondent, who is the fifth judgment debtor deposited an amount of Rs. 4,205/- being 5% of the purchase price. The purchaser filed E.A. No. 510 of 2002 under Order XXI Rule 89 of the C...
Shamsudheen Vs. Sounder Rajan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-19-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)35; II(2005)BC509; 2005CriLJ1278; 2005(1)KLT247
J.M. James, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether a notice issued under Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (in short 'the Act') stating, apart from the cheque amount, the interest and cost, thereby demanding an amount more than the amount covered by the cheque, could be considered as a valid notice under the Act.2. The appellant filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta, against the accused, as the cheque for Rs. 4,00,000/- issued by the accused was dishonoured. He had sent a notice stating, inter alia, as follows:'Hence you are hereby called upon and required to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- and with interest together with Rs. 200/- (two hundred only) being the cost of this notice within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice failing which my client will be forced to launch necessary proceedings Under Section 138 of the NegotiableInstruments Act and..........'.3. The accused filed Crl.M.P. 1341 ...
Vijayalakshmi Vs. Rajasekharan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-19-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC45; 1995ACJ405; 2005(1)KLT195
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1.The Apex Court as per order in Civil Appeal No. 754/1999 has remanded M.F.A. No. 209/90 for consideration by this Court. The Apex Court ordered as follows:'The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is remanded to the High Court for hearing and decision afresh. The High Court shall admit the policy in evidence and decide the case keeping in view the law settled by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court referred to hereinabove. The claimants and the owner shall be noticed for the date of hearing. However, we make it clear that the appeal is being remanded to the High Court only for the hearing and decision on the question of determining the extent of liability of the insurer qua the third-party claim. The quantum of compensation as determined by the High Court shall not be available for reconsideration in view of the owner having not pursued his challenge to the quantum in this Court.'2. Thus the point involved ...
Lalithambika Vs. Varghese
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-2004
Reported in: III(2005)BC289; 2004(3)KLT892
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. This appeal is filed by the defendant in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule property with its adjacent land belonged to the defendant. She executed an agreement on 20.4.1993 for sale of 20 cents for a consideration of Rs. 70,000/- out of which Rs. 50,000A was paid as advance. The sale was to be executed on or before 14.5.1993 after receiving the balance consideration. The title deed of the property, tax receipt and encumbrance certificate were also handed over to the plaintiff. Possession was also given to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to execute the sale deed. Since the defendant was not ready to execute the sale deed, a letter was sent by registered post and no reply was sent to the plaintiff. The plaintiff went to the Sub Registry Office on 14.5.1993 for paying the balance consideration. But the defendant did not turn up. On these averments, the suit was filed....
Mani Vs. Kerala Agricultural University
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT588
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. 1. This Writ Petition throws up a legal conundrum, to be solved by this Court. Whether a member of the General Council of the Kerala Agricultural University, elected by the Senate of the Calicut University, can continue to be the member of the General Council, notwithstanding the expiry of the term of the Senate, which elected him, is the point to be decided in this Writ Petition. The brief facts of the case, are the following:2. The Senate of the Calicut University was reconstituted for a period of four years, on 2.11.1999. The petitioner was a member of the Senate. In that capacity, he was elected by the Senate, to the General Council of the Kerala Agricultural University, for a term of three years, on 18.6.2002. The term of the Calicut University Senate expired on 2.11.2003. While so, somebody brought to the notice of the Registrar of the Kerala Agricultural University that the petitioner has ceased to be a member of the Calicut University Senate and therefo...
M.N. Moni, Executor for E.K. Vijayan and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Agri ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: [2007]291ITR385(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. These references arise under the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act. The question referred in these cases is as follows:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, is the finding of the Tribunal that income from 60.79 acres of unregistered coffee area is not included in the accounts of the assessee supported by any material or evidence The facts of the case are as follows:2. The assessee owns an estate by name 'Woodland Estate' in Kalpetta. The assessee derived agricultural income from coffee, pepper, arecanut, coconut, cardamom and cocoa. The assessment years are 1982-83 and 1983-84. The assessee returned an income of Rs. 1,22,520. The Assessing Officer rejected the account of the assessee and enhanced the income with regard to the years 1982-83 and 1983-84.3. Aggrieved by the orders, the assessee filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals).4. The appeals were allowed by a common order. The assessee not being satisfied with the relief granted...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Victory Aqua Farm Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Ker)593; [2004]271ITR530(Ker); 2004(3)KLT810
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum. The assessee is a Company doing business in aqua culture. Prawns are grown in specially designed ponds. According to the assessee, prawn ponds are tools to the business of the assessee and hence the same constitute 'Plant' eligible for depreciation at the rates applicable to Plant and Machinery. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee. The assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of C.I.T. v. Hotel Luciya : [1998]231ITR492(Ker) , held that prawn pond should be treated as 'plant' and depreciation applicable to plant should be allowed. Against that order, the Revenue went in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal applying the functional test laid down by the Kerala High Court in Hotel Luciya's case : [1998]231ITR492(Ker) , decided the issue in favo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »