Kerala Court June 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.
Prakash Babu Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT908
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Did the learned Sessions Judge travel beyond the scope of his jurisdiction or act incorrectly in withholding the consent for withdrawal of a prosecution against the petitioners who face indictment, inter alia, under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act and Sections 357, 353 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code? This is the crucial question that arises for consideration in this revision petition.2. Fundamental facts are not in dispute. The prosecution was launched and cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report filed by the police. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners/accused, 46 in number, who are leaders and workers of the D.Y.F.I. belonging to the L.D.F. which was in opposition at the relevant time, were members of an unlawful assembly of persons. Their common object was to disrupt a meeting which was scheduled to be held at the Tiruvalla Service Co-operative Bank. The Minister for Co-operation was to conduct the inauguration of the str...
Mohammed Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC303; 2004(3)KLT330
R. Basant, J.1. The accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has filed this revision petition against a direction issued by the learned Magistrate that the trial against him -- in respect of the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in respect of six separate cheques, can proceed in one trial.2. There is no serious dispute on fundamental facts. These cheques dated 4.5.2000, 11.5.2000, 16.5.2000, 25.5.2000, 31.5.2000 and 8.6.2000 each for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- were allegedly issued by the accused to the complainant on the same date i.e., 4.5.2000 for the due discharge of a total liability of Rs. 1,80,000/-. Though the cheques bore different dates, they were not presented for encashment on or immediately after the dates shown in such cheques. All of them were presented together for encashment. The precise date of presentation is not very clear. But at any rate, dishonour memos issued are all dated 18.9.2000. Those separate dishonour memos, six...
Kunjumon Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: I(2005)DMC333; 2004(3)KLT684
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Appellant/accused was charged for the offence punishable under Ss.306 and 498A IPC. He was acquitted on the latter count finding that there was no valid marriage between the appellant and the deceased. On the other hand he was convicted for the offence under former count and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-. This conviction is under challenge.2. PW1 saw the deceased Ammini hanging on the shed of the house owned by son PW6 where she was living, at 8.30 p.m. on 14.11.1997. Immediately prior to that there was quarrel, threat and cruelty by the accused towards the victim. The investigation revealed that she committed suicide because of such illtreatment and cruelty and harassment from the hands of, the accused. It was proved from Ext.P3, the suicide note kept by the deceased. It was in the above circumstance he was charged for the said offence.3. The Trial Court found that 'in the light of the dictum laid down ...
SherafuddIn Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT731
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Rule 39 Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules provides for certain situations where the Government is empowered to relax the rigour of any rules, if it is required in the interests of justice and equity. (1) If pass in an examination prescribed under the Special Rules is mandatory for confirmation in service and in case such examination was never conducted, is it a just and equitable cause to invoke the Rule granting exemption? (2) Could the same be exercised giving confirmation retrospectively and is it mandatory that notice is issued to the affected parties2. Petitioners are presently holding the post of Superintendent of Police (non IPS). They are aggrieved since respondents 3 to 6 are exempted from passing the prescribed test and also in declaring their probation retrospectively. The impugned orders are Exts.P6 and P7. At the outset two things are to be noted: (1) the case is contested only by respondents 3 and 6, among the contesting party r...
Chemmayya Gowda Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3742
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The appellant/accused has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. Admitting the incident, he pleaded exercise of right of private defence. That was also found in his favour by the Court below. But the Court below was of the view that he exceeded that right and therefore had committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder to fall under Section 304, Part I, I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.2. This conviction is assailed in this case contending that having found that he was exercising the right of private defence, the Court ought to have found that he did not exceed that right, as there were only three injuries on the deceased as disclosed in Ext. P-1 post-mortem certificate issued by PW-1, the doctor who conducted autopsy. Threat on the accused by the deceased had been found by the Court below. That threat was using MO. 4 iron rod. He was also injured as i...
State of Kerala Vs. Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT85; [2006]144STC442(Ker)
N.K. Sodhi, C.J. 1. This Writ Appeal by the State of Kerala and others is directed against the judgment dated January 7, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing O.P.No.8563 of 2003 filed by the respondent herein challenging the order dated 8.6.2003 by which its application for the grant of eligibility certificate for sales tax exemption had been rejected. Facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal which lie in a narrow compass may first be noticed.2. The respondent, a private Company with unlimited liability (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'), had set up an industrial unit at the Industrial Development Area at Kanjikode in Palakkad District and it commenced commercial production of soft drinks in March, 2001. It is an industrial unit under the large and medium category. It had set up the unit with its own fund and, therefore, is a self-financed unit within the meaning of the Government notification SRO No. 1092 of 1999. It applied to the Director of Industries and ...
Pathootty Vs. District Collector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT348
J.B. Koshy, J.1. When an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short 'the Act') is filed, whether the Collector can simply make a reference, without verifying whether there is valid reference or not, leaving that matter also to be decided by the reference Court merely because claimant asserts that all requisites of Section 18 are complied with, is the question of law to be considered in these Writ Petitions. These cases are referred to the decision of the Division Bench by an. order of reference passed by the learned Single Judge (Mr. Justice R. Rajendra Babu) doubting the view taken by another Single Judge of this Court in Assain v. Land Acquisition Officer, 2003 (1) KLT 863. It is not disputed that an interested person can apply for reference under Section 18(1) only if the award amount is received under protest and claim is filed within the time prescribed under Section 18(2). Section 18 of the Act is as follows:--'18. Reference to Court.-- (1) Any person inte...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kil Kothagiri Tea and Coffee Estate Co. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Ker)405; [2005]273ITR278(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. In all the above cases, the assessee is the same, namely, The Kil Kothagiri Tea & Produce Co. Ltd. While IT Ref. No. 179 of 1997 deals with the asst. yr. 1987-88, the other three cases relate to the asst. yrs. 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91. In IT Ref. No. 179 of 1997, the reference is at the instance of the assessee. In all the other three cases, the appeal is filed by the Department.2. In IT Ref. No. 179 of 1997, the Tribunal took the view that under Section 32AB of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'IT Act') for the purpose of deduction of 20 per cent profit, only the income from business or profession should be taken into account, while in the other three cases, the Tribunal has taken up opposite view and held that any income which is included in the P&L; a/c under Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act has to be taken into account. Thus the decision of the Tribunal in IT Ref. No. 179 of 1997 conflicts with the decisions in the ot...
Cwt Vs. Kil Kothagiri Tea and Coffee Estate Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-2004
Reported in: [2004]140TAXMAN89(Ker)
Sankarasubban, J.In all the above cases, the assessee is the same, namely, the Kil Kothagiri Tea & Produce Co. Ltd. While ITR No. 179 of 1997 deals with the assessment year 1987-88, the other three cases relate to the assessment years 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91. In ITR No. 179 of 1997, the reference is at the instance of the assessee. In all the other three cases, the appeal is filed by the department.2. In ITR No. 179 of 1997, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal took the view that under section 32AB of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the purpose of deduction of 20% profit, only the income from business or profession should be taken into account, while in the other three cases, the Tribunal has taken up opposite view and held that any income which is included in the profit and loss account under Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act has to be taken into account. Thus the decision of the Tribunal in ITR No. 179 of 1997 conflicts with the decisi...
Mathew Vs. Range Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-11-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3961; 2004(2)KLT865
ORDERG. Sasidharan, J. 1. Petitioner is the registered owner of Maruthi 1000 car which was taken into custody by the Forest Officers in connection with O.R. 12/2002 of Chedelath Forest Range. An application filed by the petitioner for getting interim custody of the vehicle was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class II, Sulthan Bathery. This petition is filed challenging the order by which the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed.2. In the order, it is said that the Forest Range Officer objected giving vehicle to the petitioner on interim custody. The objection which was raised before the Magistrate was that the vehicle seized by the Forest Officers had become property of the Government and hence it should not be released to the petitioner. Learned Magistrate accepted the above objection raised by the Forest Range Officer.3. Objection raised by the Forest Range Officer was on the basis of what is said in Section 39(1)(d) of the said Wild Life (Protection) A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »