Kerala Court March 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.
Nazar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ974; 2005(1)KLT61
K.A. AbduI Gafoor, J.1. Appellants/accused faced conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 I.P.C. First accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and second accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years under Section 304B read with Section 34 I.P.C. They are also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/-respectively. The conviction is appealed against.2. The marriage between the first appellant and deceased Soudha is not disputed. It was on 28.8.1997. Immediately after one month of the marriage, first accused, the husband of the victim, left for Gulf. Thereafter she was alone except for a few occasion with 2nd accused, her mother in law. Immediately after the marriage, both 1st accused and the victim visited her parental house. There was demand for dowry in the form of 25 cents said to be promised by PW.l, father of the victim. There was frequent demand thereafter. That 1st accused returned from Gulf after n...
Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: [2006]144STC588(Ker)
1. The matter arises both under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KGST Act and CST Act', respectively). The same assessee is the revision petitioner in all these cases. The assessment years concerned are 1986-87 and 1987-88. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode, by a common order dated December 20, 2001 disposed of four appeals filed by the State and cross-objections filed by the assessee. The appeals filed by the State were allowed and the cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed. Initially the assessee had filed only one revision against the order in T.A. No. 144 of 1995 and cross-objection No. 86 of 1995 as T.R.C. No. 416 of 2002. Later, the assessee, realising the fact that the order in the other appeal will operate as res judicata, filed the other three revisions along with applications for condoning the delay. The State has filed counter-affidavits objecting to th...
K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Varghese Overruled
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT542
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Whether Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (K.S.R.T.C.) is bound to pay revised pension and pensionary benefits to its retired employees as per the Government Service Rules (K.S.R.) on par with pensioners of Government service without fixing a different cut off date is the question that is to be considered in these appeals. Earlier, this Court answered the above question in the affirmative. In appeal, the matter was remanded as according to the Honourable Supreme Court, this Court had considered only the entitlement of the pensionary benefits and not regarding the legality of fixing a different cut off date. Apex Court also noticed that reliefs claimed in the Writ Appeals were not identical. There are two classes of employees in all the Writ Appeals: (1) erstwhile Government employees who were transferred and absorbed by the Corporation and (2) employees who were appointed after the formation of the Corporation. The Apex Court also held that this Court has not con...
Mohammed Ismail Vs. Shamsuddeen
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT170
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the second defendant in a suit for partition. The trial court granted a decree for partition subject to reservation of tenancy right claimed by the second defendant. The appellate court found that the reservation of tenancy right in favour of the second defendant is illegal and directed those items also to be partitioned.2. The plaint schedule properties belonged to Asanaru Pillai. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 are the heirs of Asanaru Pillai. Asanaru Pillai died on 31.7.1976. The 6th defendant is his widow and plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 are their children. After the death of Asanaru Pillai the legal heirs except the second defendant had executed a partition deed dividing the properties between them. The second defendant refused to be a party and contended that Asanaru Pillai has executed a will in his favour giving the properties exclusively to him. Since the second defendant has taken up a stand that all the properties belo...
Ravi, S/O Kochappan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3075
N. Krishnan Nair, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th August, 1999 of the Sessions Judge, Thrissur, in S.C. No. 11/1998. The appellant was charged with the offences punishable under Sections 493 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After the trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 493 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and he was acquitted of the offences. But the appellant was found guilty of the offence under Section 3(1)(xii) of the S.C./ S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and convicted him. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-; in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 months. The order of...
Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT173
M. Ramachandran, J.1. By Ext. P1 order of the .Government dated 11.1995, the petitioner, who was working as a Senior Grade Assistant, attached to the Administrative Secretariat, had been temporarily appointed as Assistant Director of National Savings under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. The petitioner was continuing thereafter in the above said post and during the year 2003, he was working in he Kottayam District.2. The District Collector, Kottayam apparently was of the opinion that because of the poor public acceptance of the petitioner, his lack of resourcefulness and inactive posture, he was incompetent to hold the post. The District Collector had recommended the Department that the petitioner may be removed from the position. Considering the report, the Government had by Ext.P3 dated 17.9.2003, issued a memo to the petitioner. The comments of the District Collector had been brought to his notice and he had been directed to furnish his explanation i...
Premlal Vs. Government of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC6; 2004(3)KLT48
N.K. Sodhi, C.J. 1. These three Writ Petitions have been put up for hearing before us on a reference made by a learned Single Judge. Since common questions of law and fact arise in these cases, they can be conveniently disposed of together. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from W.P. (C) No. 5929 of 2004.2. Petitioners are stage carriage operators carrying on their business of running stage carriages on different routes on the strength of permits granted to them by the Regional Transport Authority, Alappuzha. Petitioner No. 1 applied for a regular stage carriage permit on Cherthala--Aroor temple route and made an application to the Regional Transport Authority, Alappuzha. The Regional Transport Authority considered the application in its meeting held on 9th October, 2003 and as per item No. 15 of its agenda, the application of the first petitioner was taken up for consideration and the same was granted subject to settlement of timings. Similarly, petitioner No. 2 appli...
Paul and Sons Wood Designs India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT173
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging contempt of court by the respondents in as much as they have not released the entire records seized from the petitioner. Standing Counsel for the respondents conceded that some of the records seized and acknowledged in the seizure mahazar are missing from the department's custody. If records are missing from the custody of the Central Excise Department they should compensate the petitioner for the consequences. According to the petitioner the records are required for production before the Sales-tax Officer-IInd Circle Trichur where the petitioner is an assessee. There cannot be any contempt of court for non-production of missing records. Therefore contempt is closed. However the petitioner is free to produce whatever records available before the STO and the STO based on accounts produced propose assessment and issue a pre-assessment notice. If any addition of turnover and assessment of tax are proposed on a...
Cherian Vs. Jessy Was
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT415
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. Can an application for appropriate directions regarding reconstruction or re-allotment under the second and third provisos to Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 be maintained by a tenant who has not been completely evicted from the building which was subject-matter of the R.C.P. or continues to retain possession of a portion of the said building is one of the question arising for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition.2. The landlord is no more and his son has got himself impleaded as additional revision petitioner. After a prolonged litigation which commenced wayback in 1973, the landlord could obtain an order of eviction against the respondents-tenants (legal heirs of the deceased original tenant) under Section 11(4)(iv). The delay was mainly due to a plea of kudikidappu raised by the tenant which was ultimately repelled by the Land Tribunal upon a reference case initiated in that context. The landlord coul...
Sree Narayana Dharmasabha Vs. Sathiapalan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT373
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. Whether the need of a public institution with the financial, educational and cultural uplift of the members of the institutions as its objective to conduct a business for raising funds for achieving the aforementioned objective be termed as a need for the purposes of the institution within the ambit of Sub-section (7) of Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is the question which arises for consideration in this case.2. The facts having been narrated in detail in the orders passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority need be stated only very briefly. The revision petitioner landlord is the Sree Narayana Dharmasabha at Kodungallur, a society registered under Act 12 of 1955. The building which is the subject matter of the proceedings for eviction under the Rent Control Act presently occupied by the respondent tenant belongs to the revision petitioner society. Eviction was sought on various grounds under the Rent Cont...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »