Kerala Court November 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alphonsa Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(Ker)25
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The assessee is a partner of M/s Don Bosco Industries, M/s Right Stationery Products and M/s Don Bosco Card Centre. The business as well as residential premises of the assessee were searched under Section 132 of the IT Act on 4th Jan., 1996 and AO issued notice under Section 158BC calling upon the assessee to file return of income for the block period from 1st April, 1985 to 4th Jan., 1996. Notice was served on the assessee on 29th Aug., 1996. Since the assessee did not file any return of income, notice under Section 142(1) was issued on 23rd Sept., 1996, directing the assessee to produce books of account on 15th Oct., 1996. The case was later re-posted on 10th Dec, 1996 as the assessee himself had made a request for further time to file return.2. The assessee later filed a cash flow statement for the block period from 1st April, 1985 to 4th Jan., 1996 relating to all the firms and partners. In the statement produced, the assessee has declared only Rs. 3,10,200...
Vasudevan Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1457; 2005(1)KLT499
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The accused in C.C.379 of 1993 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pathanamthitta is the revision petitioner.2. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed challenging an order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing a petition filed by the petitioner to implead C.W.2-- Govinda Kurup- also as an accused.3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Revision Petition are as follows: On 4.12.1986, the first accused started a time deposit account in the Post Office of Vallikodu, Kottayam. He deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/-. Subsequently, the second accused, who is the son of the first accused, withdrew the amount with interest producing an authorisation letter stated to have been signed by the first accused. At the relevant time, the revision petitioner was the post master. The allegation against the petitioner (A3) was that he released the amount without making proper entries in the registers. The further prosecution case is that ...
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Premsankar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT343
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as CBI) have come up with these appeals aggrieved by the common judgment in W.P.C. No. 27289 of 2003 and O.P. No. 23400 of 2002 quashing all proceedings in C.C. No. 513 of 1995 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ Appeals have also been filed by the widow of Maniyeri Madhavan, the complainant.2. Counsel appearing for the CBI Sri. S. Sreekumar submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge has the effect of nullifying the decisions of the Apex Court in Maniyeri Madhavan v. Sub Inspector of Police, (1994) 1 SCC 536, Prem Shankar v. CBI, 1998 (2) KLT 103 and K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector General of Police, (2002) 8 SCC 87, and the various directions contained therein with regard to the same subject matter.3. Senior Counsel Sri. T.P. Kelu Nambiar, appearing for the respondents in W. A. No. 1979 of 2004 as well as the counsel app...
Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1843
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellant, the accused in Sessions Case No. 90 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No. 11), Palakkad was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The Court charge levelled against the accused was as follows :'That on 10-3-1998, after 1 o'clock at midnight, there was a quarrel between you and your wife Remani in continuation of the quarrel on suspicion that you have illicit connection with the wife of your brother, from your room on the eastern side of House bearing No. VI/385 at Vellacheriparamb, at Chalavara Panchayat at Kayiliad Desom wherein Kunjandi and family are residing and on account of that enmity, with the intention to kill your wife and knowing that will result in death, you forcibly administered 'Furadan' to your wife Remani and while she ran out and fell on the eastern side of your house, you accompanied her and smothered her by closing...
State of Kerala Vs. Kuttappan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT664
J.B. Koshy, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the State against acquittal of the accused in S.C.No.78 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam. The prosecution case as narrated in the appeal memorandum is as follows:'A dead body of a young man, with injuries over his neck and head, was seen lying in the dry bed, embedded with loose rocks, close to the northern bank of Manimala river, while water was scarce during summer, in the early morning of 20.4.1992. Close-up property owner, one Devassia (C.W.1), reported the matter before the Sub Inspector of Police, Manimala Station, who recorded his statement and registered the crime under P-9(a) F.I.R. for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. P.W.12, then, Circle Inspector of Police, Manimala took over the investigation of the crime. He proceeded to the scene of crime, conducted an inquest over the dead body, and arranged its lecropsy through Dr. S. Gopalakrishna Filial (P.W.9), then Assistant Professor of For...
United Tours and Travels (Calicut) (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(Ker)185
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the order in ITA No. 286/Coch/2001 passed by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench.2. The assessee is a travel agent. Their main source of income is from sale of air tickets. During the course of the assessment proceedings the AO noticed that during the previous year relevant to the assessment year the assessee-company has introduced on various dates cash in the name of one director V.J. Thomas, amounting to Rs. 1,48,000. When Thomas was questioned he had initially stated that there was no ostensible source of income other than the salary he was getting from the assessee-company. On verification of the accounts, it was found that the assessee had repaid the loans in cash on various dates during the period from 21st Nov., 1995 to 12th March, 1996 and the balance outstanding as per the assessee's accounts in the credit of V.J. Thomas was Rs. 29,000. On questioning the director, he stated that he had not given any amount to the company as 'his own'...
State of Kerala Vs. Mariyamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Ker)393; 2005(1)KLT173
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. State, the judgment debtor in E.P. No. 242 of 1994 in L.A.R. No. 120 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, is the revision petitioner.2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging an order passed by the executing Court proclaiming 50 cents of property comprised in Sy. No. 874/B of Thycaud Village, wherein the Government Rest House situate for sale in public auction. 1 hectare and 11.28 Ares of dry land comprised in Sy. No. 303/25 of Kazhakkuttam Menamkulam Village was acquired for a public purpose by the appellant. A notification Under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 14.5.1985. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 31.3.1986. The land was taken possession on 4.2.1986. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs. 2340/- per Are. On a request made by the decree holder, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the Subordinate Judge' s Court, Thiruvanant...
Varkisons Engineers Vs. Kinetic Foundations (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC195; 2005(1)KLT264
K. Thankappan, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 586/99 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam is the appellant. First respondent is a firm represented by its Managing Director, 2nd respondent and respondents 3 to 5 are directors. The suit was filed for realisation of Rs. 3,33,926 with 22% interest per annum from 28.2.1998 onwards. As per the plaint averments, the appellant is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of supplying metal aggregates under the name and style 'Slabs and Aggregates'. The 1st respondent purchased metal aggregates from the appellant and during the course of the said business transaction the 1st respondent owed a sum of Rs. 5,48,926 on 28.1.1998. On demand, the 1st respondent paid an amount of Rs. 2,15,000 leaving a balance of Rs. 3,33,926. Inspite of repeated demands, the 1st respondent did not pay the balance amount and hence, the suit is filed for recovery of the amount.2. Resisting the suit claim, the respondents had jointly filed a written...
Rajappan Achari Vs. Mathava Kammathi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT293
ORDERR. Bhaskaran, J.1. This revision is placed before us on a reference by Justice Sankarasubban, as the learned Judge felt that the decision reported in Pariyaran Panchayat v. Damodaran Nair, 1999 (3) KLT 205, requires reconsideration.2. This revision arises out of the order passed by the District Judge, Kottayam, in A.S.198 of 2000 holding that the appeal was not maintainable Under Section 96(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit was filed for recovery of damages and the Trial Court decreed the suit for Rs. 2150/- with 12% interest from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter with 6% interest on Rs. 2000/-. According to the Appellate Court, Under Section 96(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, no appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, if the value of the subject matter of the original suit does not exceed Rs. 3000/- and relied on the decision in Pariyaram Panchayat's case.3. In this revision it is contended that the interpretation given by the Appella...
Aboobacker Vs. R.T.A.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2004
Reported in: III(2005)ACC606; 2005(1)KLT987
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. 1. The point that arises for decision in these Writ Petitions is whether it is mandatory to furnish the details of the vehicle, at the time of considering the application for a regular permit.2. W.P.(C) No. 29731/2004: The petitioner submitted an application for grant of a regular permit on the route Parappanangadi -- Malappuram. He did not have a ready vehicle. So, in the application form, it was stated that the particulars of a suitable stage carriage will be furnished later. For the purpose of operating the service on the above route, the petitioner purchased a vehicle on 23.3.2004. Temporary registration was obtained for it on the very same day. While the body construction of the vehicle was going on, the 1st respondent R.T.A., Malappuram considered his application on 25.3.2004. Though, there was no objection to the grant of the permit from any quarters, the R.T.A. by Ext.P3 decision, rejected it. The relevant portion of the decision reads as follows:'Heard...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »