Kerala Court April 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.
Tashi Delek Gaming Solutions (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Ker248; 2004(2)KLT461
Cyriac Joseph, J.1. As common issues arise in these Writ Appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of through this common judgment.2. Writ Appeal No. 2044 of 2003 arises from W.P.(C) No. 35368 of 2003, Writ Appeal No. 2079 of 2003 arises from W.P.(C). No. 35253 of 2003, Writ Appeal No. 2083 of 2003 arises from W.P.(C) No. 37260 of 2003 and Writ Appeal No. 44 of 2004 arises from W.P.(C). No. 35606 of 2003. W.P.(C). No. 35368 of 2003 and W.P.(C) No. 35606 of 2003 were disposed of by the learned Single Judge along with connected cases through a common judgment dated 17.11.2003. W.P.(C). No. 35253 of 2003 was disposed of by the learned Single Judge in the light of and in terms of the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 35368 of 2003 and connected cases. W.P.(C) No. 37260 of 2003 also was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 5.12.2003 following the judgment in W.P.(C) No.35368 of 2003 and connected cases.3. Petitioners 1 to 3 in W.P.(C) No. 35368 of 2003 are marketing agents of com...
Thomas K. Varghese Vs. the Family Court
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: I(2005)DMC495; 2004(3)KLT1036
Cyriac Joseph, J.1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the Judgment in O.P. No. 6500 of 2002 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant is the petitioner in the Original Petition and the respondents herein are the respondents in the Original Petition.2. The petitioner Thomas K.Varghese and the second respondent Asha Mary Alexander are husband and wife. They professed the Christian religion and their marriage was solemnized at Jerusalem Marthoma Church, Nanthencode, Thiruvananthapuram on 25th May, 1995. The petitioner has his permanent residence at Ernakulam and he has been residing at Palarivattom, Ernakulam along with his parents in their own house. At the time of marriage the petitioner was employed at Ernakulam as Civil Engineer with M/s. Penta Group. The second respondent filed O.P. (I.D.A.) No. 942 of 1997 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram praying for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the husband. She filed the case before the Family Co...
Anil Akkara Vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-19-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Ker283; 2004(2)KLT805
Cyriac Joseph, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this Writ Appeal is whether the Representative General Body of a co-operative society is competent to amend the bye laws of the co-operative society.2. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment in O.P. No. 31240 of 2002 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant herein was the petitioner in the Original Petition and the respondents herein were the respondents in the Original Petition.3. The petitioner is a member and share holder of the third respondent - Adat Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') which is governed by the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').4. An election to the Managing Committee of the Bank was held on 28.11.1998 and the elected Managing Committee took charge on 5.12.1998. As per the p...
Circle Inspector of Excise Vs. Super Star Distilleries
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT962
Cyriac Joseph, J.1. Since these Writ Appeals are filed against the common judgment in O.P Nos. 9666 of 2003, 9996 of 2003, 10118 of 2003,10119 of 2003 and 10345 of 2003 and since a common question arises in these Writ Appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of through this common judgment.2. The question raised in the Writ Petitions is whether there is any provision in the Abkari Act or the Rules thereunder to enable the Distillery Units/Blending units to avail themselves of the wastage for spirit/liquor imported and whether duty could be levied for the entire stock which is not accounted for while spirit/liquor imported by these units. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge held in favour of the petitioners and found that in view of the provisions contained in Rule 7(5) of the Kerala Foreign Liquor. (Compounding, Blending and Bottling) Rules 1975 and Rule 55 of the Kerala Distillery and Warehouse Rules, 1968, the Distillery units/Blending units are entitle...
Sebastian Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT1150
K.K. Denesan, J.1. State of Kerala in exercise of the power conferred by Rule 10(b)(iii) of Part II of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') issued Ext.P8 order dated 11.9.2001, directing that the advice of the Kerala Public Service Commission for appointment of the petitioner as Police Constable in the M.S.P. Bn., Malappuram shall not be given effect to. Petitioner, aggrieved by the above order, has filed this O.P. seeking to quash Ext.P8.2. Kerala Public Service Commission invited applications in the year 1998 for selection to the post of Police Constables in Armed Battalion. Candidates had to come out successful in the written examination, physical efficiency test and medical examination for inclusion of their names in the select list. Petitioner passed all the tests and he was included in the ranked list. He was advised for appointment according to his turn. Ext.P1 is the copy of the advice memo issued to the petitioner on 6.7.199...
Eugenia Archetti Abdullah Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT1025
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The petitioner is a U.S. citizen. She has approached this Court with this Writ Petition seeking to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other writ or direction commanding respondents 2 to 4 to produce two infants named Roshan and Nishant before this Court and to handover their custody with their passports to the petitioner, their mother.2. According to her, herself and 2nd respondent Jamshed Ahamed Abdullah got married while in United States. Thereafter, both of them went to Behrain in connection with the employment of the latter. While in Behrain she gave birth to the said two children, twins. Because of the shift of his employment, they went back to the State of Texas in United States and settled there. According to the petitioner, their married life was not happy, as there was domestic violence from the part of the 2nd respondent. This resulted in a criminal case. Finally, the matter was patched up. Unfortunately, the second respondent lost his employment in ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Abraham
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT585
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench has referred the following question of law under S. 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') for decision by this Court at the instance of the revenue.'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to set off his share of unabsorbed depreciation from the firm in which he was a partner, against his income of the previous year even though the firm was not carrying on any business during that previous year'.2. The brief facts are as follows: The respondent-assessee was a partner in the firm M/s. Anthraper Industries. In the assessment under the Act for the year 1983-84 he was assessed to tax on a total income of Rs. 50,000/-. The Assessing Officer in doing so did not accept the request for adjusting the share of unabsorbed depreciation of the firm brought forward from the earlier years. The unabsorbed depreciation was to the extent ...
Pen Books Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Padmaraj
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT31; 2004(29)PTC137(Ker)
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. By the judgment dated 20-2-2004 this Court had partly modified the order passed by the trial court by deleting the condition for deposit of Rs. 75,000/- for the grant of injunction in favour of the appellant. One of the reasons stated in the judgment was that there was no cross objection filed by the respondent against the grant of injunction by the trial court. Since it was an omission to take note of the filing of cross objection, the judgment was reviewed and the counsel were heard again.2. This appeal is filed against the order passed by the District Court, Ernakulam in LA. 804/2003 in O.S. 23/2003. The appellant herein was the plaintiff in the suit. The prayer in the suit was for perpctual prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant and his agents from using the domain name PENBOOKS.com or any name or trade mark similar to PEN BOOKS as a domain name, trade name or trade mark or offering for sale such domain name, trade name or, trade mark and from doing any...
Omanakuttan Vs. Sajan Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT891
P.R. Raman, J.1. Petitioner is a returned candidate from Ward No. 15 of Kanjirappally Grama Panchayat as per the election conducted under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. He won the election by a margin of two votes by securing 689 votes as against 687 votes secured by the first respondent herein. The first respondent challenged the election by filing Election O.P.No. 1/2000 before the Election Tribunal, the Munsiff's Court, Kanjirappally.2. The main allegation contained in the Election Petition was that three persons named in Schedule A to the Election Petition were figured in the voters list of Ward No. 9 of Chirakkadavu Grama Panchayat. Two persons named in Schedule B were figured in the voters list of Ward No. 12 of Kanjirappally Grama Panchayat as well. It was further alleged that the above five persons cast their votes in both the constituencies and therefore, they have committed the mischief of double voting and hence their votes are void. It was his further case ...
P.U.K. Menon Vs. Excelads (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT1130
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This R.F.A. is filed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 479 of 1999 of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. The suit was filed by respondents 1 and 2 for specific performance of an agreement. Appeal is filed by respondents 3 to 9 who got themselves impleaded in the suit. According to the plaintiffs, defendants 1 and 2 executed an agreement in their favour for the sale of the plaint schedule property. The amount under the sale is fixed as Rs. 75 lakhs. So, the suit was filed paying the court fee on Rs. 75 lakhs. Respondents 3 onwards got themselves impleaded as additional defendants. It was contended by them that they have attached the above property before judgment in suits filed against defendants 1 and 2. According to them, decrees have been obtained against defendants 1 and 2 and hence, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. The Court below by the impugned judgment rejected the case of the appellants and granted a decree as prayed for by the plaintiffs. It is ag...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »