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.
Purushothaman and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4588
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. Appellants in Cri. A. No. 835 of 2002 were charge-sheeted under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A-1 and deceased are brothers and A-2 is their father. A-1 was residing in the tharwad with family. Deceased was residing with his family in the adjacent land. The Sessions Court found A-1 (first appellant) guilty under Sections 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. A-2 was found guilty under Section 323, IPC and not guilty under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34, IPC. Since A-2 was not found guilty under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34, State filed Cri. Appeal No. 1637 of 2003. The following sentences were imposed on them: 'The first accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302, IPC. He is also sentenced to undergo R.I. for2 (Two) years under Section 324, IPC. He is directed to deposit in this Court within six (6) months from this day for payment to the legal heirs of the deceased, the sum of ...
Pareekutty Vs. Union of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN495(Ker)
Petitioner has virtually challenged the provisions of section 194L of the Income Tax Act, 1961 providing for deduction of tax from the amounts awarded under the Land Acquisition Act.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri George K. George, learned Standing Counsel, Government of India (Taxes) for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader for the third respondent. Standing counsel submits that the provisions of section 194L have subsequently been omitted. He further submits that the petitioner can file return, get an assessment and get refund, if any, since tax has already been deducted pursuant to the interim order.3. I find merit in the said submission. Since pursuant to the interim order, the award amount was paid deducting tax from the said amount, it is for the petitioner to file a return in respect of the income for the said period and get an assessment, so that if any amount is due by way of refund, certainly, the petitioner will be entitled to g...
Mohanachandran Nair Vs. Andoorkonam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT1062
Kurian Joseph, J.1. The requirements for the invocation of power under Section 32(3) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, is the main issue in this Writ Petition.2. Ext.P 11 order passed by the third respondent Joint Registrar is under challenge in this Writ Petition. As per the said order, the Joint Registrar invoking the power under Section 32(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter called 'the Act') superseded the elected Managing Committee of the first respondent Co-operative Society. The Committee was elected to power on 4.10.2002 and they had a tenure of five years, upto 3.10.2007. At the outset, it may be noted that under Section 32(3) of the Act, the Registrar is empowered to supersede the Committee dispensing with notice and consultation.3. A reading of the impugned order as clarified in the Counter Affidavit, clearly shows that it is passed only on one ground -- the Committee did not implement the lawful orders issued by the Department. Learned Spec...
Abdul Rahiman Vs. Rajan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC251; 2005ACJ682; 2004(2)KLT1113
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. When the insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and after satisfying the award insurance company is given the right to get reimbursement from the insured for violation of policy conditions etc. and that direction challenged in appeal filed by the co-respondent who is liable to reimburse the insurance company, whether he should deposit the amount as required under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act is the question to be considered in this order.2. Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows:'173. Appeals:- (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court:Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty-five thous...
Cyriac Mathew Vs. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR7]; (2004)IIILLJ1000Ker
M. Ramachandran, J.1. Exhibit P 11 order passed by the 1st respondent, Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kottayam in W.C.C No. 29/2001 dated September 26, 2001 is under challenge, as one passed without jurisdiction, and therefore null and void. Execution of such orders have been attempted by notice dated October 7, 2003 (Exhibit P15) and this also is subjected to attack. According to the petitioner, if at all anybody was liable, it should have been the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, the 5th respondent herein for the accidental death of one Madhavan, whose legal representatives are the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein.2. The 4th respondent is an establishment engaged in the business of textiles in Kottayam and petitioner refers to him as the principal employer. He had been awarded a contract for construction, for them. It is not disputed that Madhavan had sustained an accident on February 6, 2001 by a fall from the lift in the course of his employment. In the counter affid...
ShamsuddhIn Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT1020
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Petitioner retired on 31.5.1999. He is aggrieved since a portion of the DCRG is withheld. Such withholding of the DCRG is as per Ext.P2. It is seen from Ext.P2 that there is an excess payment to the petitioner on two counts as follows:'1. Excess pay and allowances drawn due to re-fixation of pay for the period from 10.11.1986 to 13.10.1988 as per the Liability Certificate No. Estt. 1/2000 Dated 18.11.2000 issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Audit), Kanjirappally, Kottayam District. &2. Excess subsistence allowances drawn while working as Village Extension Officer in the Block Development Office, Erattupetta as per letter No. D5/3346/86 Dated 25.9.1986 of the District Collector, Kottayam'.2. Learned Special Government Pleader referring to Rule 3C of Part III KSR contends that if any payment is made by mistake, the Government is within its powers to recover such excess payment. The only restrictions are that it should not be for a period of fo...
Aboobacker Vs. Ismail
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT663
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. This Revision Petition 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. 2,30,000/-. The signature in the cheque is admitted. That it was handed over by the accused to the complainant is also not disputed. While the complainant alleged that the cheque was handed over to him towards payment of amounts for articles supplied, the accused contended that it was handed over when a transaction in pepper was anticipated. In short, the accused contended that the cheque was issued not for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability, but it was handed over as security for an intended transaction. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 toP5. Accused examined DWs 1 and 2. DW2 is the accused himself and DW1, a friend of his- to speak about the alleged transaction.3. Courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the evidence...
Kalliani Amma Vs. Sarojini Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT976
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Is the Rent Control Court bound to examine the question whether it would be financially viable for the tenant to conduct the business in the building available in the locality under the second proviso to Section 11(3) and also under Section 11(4)(iii) of Act 2 of 1965, is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. Rent Control Petition was filed under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. Landlady wanted the tenanted premises for the purpose of her dependent son who wanted to start business in cultery and allied products. Tenant is conducting grocery business in the tenanted premises. Landlady submits that subsequent to the lease tenant constructed a building No. 135A in Ward No. II of Muliyar Panchayat, which is reasonably sufficient for his requirement. Consequently eviction was also sought under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act.3. Tenant resisted the petition contending that there is no bona fides in the plea. Further it ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›