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.
Vaijayanthi Vs. Mary
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT934
Pius C. Kuriakose, J. 1. Plaintiffs 3, 4 and 6 are the legal representatives of deceased plaintiffs 2 and 5 in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction which was dismissed by the trial court are the appellants in this Second Appeal. An appeal was filed before the Sub Court, Hosdrug against the decree and judgment of the trial court on 21.11.1992 which was registered with that Court as A.S.No. 35 of 1992. The appeal was found to be in order by the Registry and hence the same was placed on the judicial side for admission. Alongwith the appeal, the appellants produced certified copy of the decree and certified copy of the judgment of the trial court. Printed copy of the judgment of trial court which was necessary in view of the number of words contained in the judgment as per Rule 258 of the Civil Rules of Practice was not produced alongwith the appeal memo. Instead, I.A.874 of 1992 was filed by the appellants for dispensing with production of the printed judgment. The appeal was admit...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. T.J. Mathai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Ker)201; [2004]269ITR492(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. The above IT Reference has been referred to this Court by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench in R.A. No, 194/Coch/1996. As per the reference, three questions of law are referred to this Court; they are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal should have decided the appeal in the light of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c)(3) or remitted the case back to the assessing authority to be considered in the light of the Explanation?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Explanation being part of the main provisions of Section 271(1)(c), the Tribunal is right in holding that a separate notice should have been given by the AO before invoking the Explanation?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee was not deliberately showing a low estimate of income with a view to conceal his income?'The facts of the case are as follows :2. The assessee ...
Maheswari Vs. Jaideep
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT88
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. The appellant is the accused in Section C.No. 1289/2000 on the file of the Special Judge (for trial of cases under the NDPS Act), Thiruvananthapuram. She has been charged with offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii), 21 and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'). She was found guilty and was convicted under those counts.2. The occurrence was on 27.9.2000, before the enforcement of the amendments as per Act 9/01, but the conviction was on 16.11.2001, after such enforcement. The quantity of the psychotropic substances (cannabis plant and hashish oil) involved violating Section 20(b)(ii) of the Act was 158 grams, whereas the quantity of heroin, a narcotic drug, to invite punishment under Section 21 was 100 grams. The interception of the accused was at Thiruvananthapuram Airport, while she was proceeding overseas from Trichy to Maldives. She did possess Exts. P1 to P4 air tickets and other travel documents to show ...
Kamalakshi Amma Vs. Special Tahsildar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT716
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment of the reference Court in a reference under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer on a consideration of the application under Section 28A filed by the appellant-claimant redetermined the compensation payable to her on the basis of the judgments relied on in the application, certified copies of which had been produced. In fact, land value for the appellant's acquired property was re-determined in terms of the Court-award on the basis of which redetermination was sought for. The Land Acquisition Officer however did not award any additional value by way of improvements nor did the Land Acquisition Officer award statutory benefits on the redetermined compensation, taking the view that applicants in proceedings under Section 28A are not entitled for statutory benefits. Since the appellant was dissatisfied with the order of the Land Acquisition Officer, at her instance the reference under Sec...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Forbes, Ewart and Figgies (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Ker)163; [2004]269ITR94(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. In IT Ref. No. 232 of 1997, the questions of law that arise are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the manner and method of computation of profits by the Tribunal for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC is valid and in accordance with law?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the light of the facts and figures given in the enclosure to the reference application, the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 80HHC in a sum of Rs. 5,27,108 and the allowance of the same by the Tribunal, are in accordance with law?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and factually the amount being commission paid on export sales as could be seen from the assessment order and the same having been debited by the assessee as an expenditure in its P&L; a/c, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding the amount as 'commission received' and in further holding that 'there ...
Kuriachan Joseph Alias Kuriachan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4095
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The appellant/accused in S.C. No. 11/1995 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. He pleaded right of private defence. The Court below found that he had exceeded the right of private defence. Accordingly, it was found in terms of Exception 2 to Section 300 that he has committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part I to Section 304, IPC and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- with default sentence. This is under challenge in this appeal. The contention urged by the appellant is that this is a case where absolute private defence was available to him.2. Evidence of occurrence witness. PW-2, was on unequivocal terms that the deceased had in his hand a bottle and with that bottle he had threatened the accused/appellant that the accused/appellant should not move further and that the appellant/ accused had pleaded t...
A. Kamarudeen Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2004
Reported in: (2007)7VST51(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The matter arises in proceedings under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act'). The first respondent, on the basis of a statement dated January 5,1990 given by the petitioner to the Enforcement Directorate on an inspection conducted in the petitioner's premises issued a notice under Section 45A of the Act on January 25, 1997 to the petitioner proposing to impose a penalty of Rs. 30,938 for the assessment year 1987-88 and another sum of Rs. 93,688 for the assessment year 1988-89. According to the petitioner he had not effected any transactions which are exigible to tax under the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that the statement was given by him to the enforcement officials only under threat and coercion. The petitioner in his objection has also stated that the petitioner had obtained raw cashewnut rejections from various factories in Kollam and he supplied the same to a Bombay party as their agent, that the sale proceeds wer...
Asoo Hajee Vs. Adbul Latheef
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC305; [2005]123CompCas112(Ker); 2005CriLJ640; 2004(3)KLT387
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The complaint filed by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act failed and 1st respondent/accused was acquitted. Therefore, this appeal.2. The facts of this case are not in dispute. There was a dealing between the parties in terms of Ext.P6 agreement. Whether the 1st respondent was the dealer of the appellant or agent of the appellant is immaterial when Ext.P6 agreement is admitted.3. Ext.P6 agreement discloses that the 1st respondent had drawn two cheques in favour of the appellant. One for an amount of Rs. 5000/- as deposit and another, cheque No. DLBC 890885, drawn on Dhanalakshmi Bank, Ltd. Palluruthy, the cheque in question. This was a blank cheque. Both the cheques are referred to in Ext.P6 agreement and it is made clear that this blank cheque was towards the liability that may fall due from the 1st respondent. When there was certain dues payable by 1st respondent, the cheque was presented in the bank. It was bounced for want of fu...
Babu Vs. Padmanabhan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-2004
Reported in: I(2005)DMC787; 2005(1)KLT141
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. There was a private complaint by PW.6 against accused No. 1 and his mother, accused No. 2, alleging commission of offence punishable Under Section 498A and Section 304B due to the death of daughter of PW.6 in the house of the accused, immediately within ten months of the marriage, alleged to be in connection with a demand for dowry. Such a private complaint, Ext.P4 was happened to be filed before the Magistrate Court as the police referred the case registered as per Ext.P3 F.I.R. In connection with Ext.P3, based on the. F.I. Statement of PW.6 and the information from the police, PW.12 Tahsildar had conducted an inquest and drew up Ext.P7 report recording the statement of PW.1 and PW.2. On investigation, the police found that no offence had been made out. Accordingly, the case was referred. It was thereupon, Ext.P4 complaint was filed before the Magistrate. But only the offence Under Section 304B alone had been taken cognizance of and was tried by the Additional ...
Kelu Kurup Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT399
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. I will consider first the Criminal Appeal. This appeal is by the first accused. There were altogether three. First accused is the husband, second accused is wife and third accused is their son. Accused 2 and 3 were acquitted. The charges faced by all of them were under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Accused No. 1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. This conviction is under challenge in this appeal.2. The plea set up by accused No. 1 was that of right of private defence. The Court below accepted his case of right of private defence; but found that he had exceeded that right. Therefore, it was found that the case came under exception No. 2 of Section 300 I.P.C. and was accordingly convicted under Section 304 Part II as mentioned above.3. It is submitted by the Counsel for the appellant that the entire incident took place in the courtyard of appel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »