Kerala Court July 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.
Retnakaran Vs. Rosy
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT154
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether mere possession of a part of a building without occupation would satisfy the ingredients of Section 11(8) of Act 2 of 1965, is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. Rent Control Petition was filed by the respondent-landlord for eviction under Sections 11(2) and 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. Both the Rent Control Petition and the Appellate Authority have proceeded on the basis that Section 11(3) was misquoted, facts would indicate that the claim is essentially under Section 11(8). For disposal of the case we will proceed as if the claim raised by the landlord is under Section 11(8) of the Act. Rent Control Court dismissed the petition. However, Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and ordered eviction under Section 11(8).3. Petition schedule building bearing number XXV/446 lies in front of room No XXV/445 on the western side which is in the possession of the original landlord. Petition schedule building has a length of 12 ft. a...
Mathai Antony Vs. Abraham
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT169
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Tenant is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought for by respondent landlord under Sections 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(v) of Act 2 of 1965. Rent Control Court dismissed the petition. On appeal by the landlord Appellate Authority allowed eviction under Section 11(4) (v) of the Act, the legality of which is under challenge in this revision.2. The tenanted premises was let out to the respondent on 30.1.81 on a monthly rent of Rs.40/-. Landlord has provided electric connection to the shop room. As per the terms of the rent deed the tenant has to pay rent on the first of every month and also to pay the electricity charges. Rent was kept in arrears, so also the electricity charges to the Board. Due to the non-user of the premises the value and utility of the building was also reduced materially and permanently. Further due to the failure to pay electricity charges the Electricity Board disconnected the supply of electricity and later dismantled the equipments. Landlord...
Raghavan Vs. Valsaraj
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT134
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Whether execution of a fresh lease deed between the landlord and the tenant after 1.4.1940 would extinguish or disrupt the prior continuous occupation and hence fatal to a claim under Section 11 (17) of Act 2 of 1965 is the question that arises for consideration in this case.2. Counsel for the landlord placing reliance on Ext.B5 dt. 1.5.48 submitted the said document has to be treated as a fresh entrustment of lease to the tenant and hence whatever rights accrued to the tenant prior to the execution of the said deed would stand extinguished. Revision petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 11(3) claiming surrender of tenanted premises for the purpose of running a textile shop for the two of his sons who are unemployed. Schedule premises originally belonged to one Kallyanikutty Amma which was let out to one Gopalan Chettiar on 14.5.1948 on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/-. Part of the building numbered as 10/334 was sublet to the revision petitioner on 28.5....
Kuruvilla Vs. Asst. Commissioner
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT915
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The petitioner, an engineering contractor, engaged in contract work with Railways and other institutions and an assessee on the files of the respondent, brought a JCB Loader from Pondichery, purchased as per Invoice No. 10698 dated 18.11.1995. The said JCB Loader was registered with the Assistant Registering Authority, Ernakulam, on 15.12.1995 with registration number KL 7 L 4453. Similarly, the petitioner purchased a HMT 2522 Tractor on 24.4.1995 as per invoice dated 24.4.1995, according to the petitioner, for his use at Coimbatore in Tamilnadu. The said tractor was registered under Section 40 of the Motor Vehicles Act, with the Assistant Registering Authority Coimbatore on 25.4.1995 and assigned Registration No. TN 37K 1350.2. The Assessing Authority under the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act (for short 'the Act') has assessed the said two vehicles to entry tax under the said Act as evidenced by proceedings dated 4.5.2000 (Ext.P6) and also raised d...
Ramachandran Potti Vs. Thankam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Ker323; 2004(3)KLT183
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The first respondent in an unnumbered appeal presented before the District Court, Kottayam is the petitioner in this Writ Petition. The appeal was filed against the decree passed in O.S.291 of 1996 filed by the petitioner on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Kottayam.2. The first respondent filed O.S.291 of 1996 against the Kaliyammanada Kshethra Bharana Samithy, represented by its President, Secretary and also against his own brother. A compromise decree was passed in the suit on 18.7.1997. The respondents 1 to 4 filed I.A.257 of 2004 under Section 96(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave to file appeal and I.A.258 of 2004 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 2417 days in filing the appeal. The learned District Judge heard both these applications together and allowed by a common order. The plaintiff-first respondent in the unnumbered appeal has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of In...
T.M. Kuruvilla Vs. Asst. Commissioner (Assessment) Iv, Commercial Taxe ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: (2007)6VST424(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The petitioner, an engineering contractor, engaged in contract work with Railways and other institutions and an assessee on the files of the respondent, brought a JCB loader from Pondichery, purchased as per invoice No. 10698 dated November 18, 1995. The said JCB loader was registered with the Assistant Registering Authority, Ernakulam, on December 15, 1995 with registration number KL 7 1 4453. Similarly, the petitioner purchased a HMT 2522 Tractor on April 24, 1995, as per invoice dated April 24, 1995, according to the petitioner, for his use at Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu. The said tractor was registered under Section 40 of the Motor Vehicles Act, with the Assistant Registering Authority, Coimbatore on April 25, 1995 and assigned Registration No. TN 37K 1350.2. The assessing authority under the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act (for short, 'the Act') has assessed the said two vehicles to entry tax under the said Act as evidenced by proceedings dated Ma...
Francis Vs. Pradeep
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)17; IV(2004)BC320; 2004CriLJ3827; 2004(2)KLT1080
R. Basant, J.1. Does Section 254(2) Cr.P.C. oblige the Magistrate to accept every request to send a cheque to the handwriting expert, in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act? This question incidentally arises for consideration in this Revision Petition which is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 13,000/-. The complainant alleged that it was issued by the accused to him for the discharge of a liability arising from sale/purchase of banana bunches. Notice of demand, though received and acknowledged, did not evoke any response. The complainant examined himself as PW.2 and the Bank Manager as PW.1. Exts.P1 to P7 were marked. In the course of cross examination, there was no specific suggestion that the signature in the cheque is not that of the accused. But at the stage of 313 examination, a contention was raised that the cheque was not signed by him. Whe...
Sudhakara Kurup Vs. Returning Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT62
M. Ramachandran, J. 1. These two Writ Petitions could be disposed of by a common judgment, since the facts are almost identical. In W.P.(C) No. 20001 of 2004, the petitioner is the President of an Industrial Co-operative Society. For election to the Circle Co-operative Union, as envisaged under Sections 88 and 90 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, steps were being taken and a preliminary voters list had been published. But, it was found that the name of the petitioner's Society had not been included and therefore the Committee members as well as the employees of the Society, who are two distinct categories to be included in the electoral college, are disabled from exercising their franchise, or for filing nomination as candidates. The Writ Petition had been filed in the above said circumstance, seeking for such relief.2. In addition, there was yet another submission made. It is that a separate electoral roll in respect of elections to the posts had been envisaged. In other words...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ouseph Chacko
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Ker)21; [2004]271ITR29(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This IT reference has come up before us on a reference made by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in RA No. 240/Coch/1989. The following questions of law have been referred to us by the Tribunal :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and considering the disadvantages noted in the enclosure to the reference application,(i) the Tribunal is right in law and fact in remitting the case to the officer in a restricted/closed manner ?(ii) should not the Tribunal have made an open remand ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also for the reasons noted in the enclosure, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 54F of the IT Act?'2. The dispute herein lies in a very narrow compass. The assessee's residential building in Panampilly Nagar was sold. He constructed another residential building at Kottayam. He has got another building at Thodupuzha, where, it is stated that a firm, of which he is a partner is conducting ...
Alias Vs. Abraham
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Ker344; 2004(2)KLT1044
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether the principle acts curiae nominee gravidity would be applicable to this case, is one of the questions that has come up for consideration in this case. It was contended that the learned Judge would not have rendered the judgment had the court been correctly appraised of the facts after impleading the necessary parties. Prayer was therefore made to relegate the parties to the same position prevailing before the judgment of the learned single Judge by way of restitution.2. This Writ Appeal has been preferred with leave of this court. Appellants are aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C). No. 39626 of 2003 permitting the second respondent to withdraw the amounts lying in the account of the first respondent firm with the State Bank of Travancore without the appellants in the array of parties. Appellants submit that the conduct of respondents I and 2 in approaching this court without making them parties to the Writ Petition is an abu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »