Kerala Court August 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.
Lalu Vs. Kalam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: IV(2005)BC150; 2004(3)KLT1116
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The appellant initiated prosecution against the first respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The prosecution ended in conviction. In the appeal by the first respondent the conviction was set aside and he was acquitted. Therefore, this appeal. The facts of this case are as follows:2. Ext. P1 cheque is the cheque in question. It was drawn on 20.7.1993 on Kuruvilassery Service Co-operative Bank for an amount of Rs. 21,500/-. It was sent for collection through the banker of the complainant on 12.1.1994. It was returned bounced as per Ext.P3 memo dated 24.1.1994 of the drawee bank with the endorsement refer to drawer. Obviously, the meaning is that there was no sufficient fund in the account. Statutory notice was issued and the same was returned unclaimed. The amount was not paid. Therefore, the prosecution was initiated.3. The submission of the appellant is that the Trial Court has rightly appreciating the evidence...
Gopinatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT290
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that has come up for consideration in this batch of cases is whether re-employed pensioner who is regulated by the provisions of Rule 100 Part III of the Kerala Service Rules is entitled to draw pension and dearness relief thereon alongwith re-employment pay?2. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Govindankutty, 1999 (2) KLT 746, held that a District Judge re-employed after retirement as President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum would be governed by the Consumer Protection Act and the Rules and not by Part III of the Kerala Service Rules.3. The Apex Court in M.S. Chawla v. State of Punjab, (2001) 5 SCC 358, had occasion to consider similar issue and held that a retired District Judge re-appointed as President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum would be governed by the relevant provisions of the Punjab Civil Service Rules and consequently upheld the order by which pension was deducted from the salary of the President o...
General Auto Sales Vs. Vijayalakshmi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)42; II(2005)BC597; 2005CriLJ1454; 2005(1)KLT478
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The appellant initiated prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent. The respondent was acquitted. Therefore this appeal.2. According to the complainant he is a dealer in two wheelers manufactured by Bajaj. Accused was also a dealer in another place. There was business dealing between the two. The complainant had given vehicles for sale to the accused. The accused committed default in repayment. On 1.3.1995 there was a settlement of account between the two. There upon the accused drew a cheque for an amount of Rs. 7,97,918.95 towards the amount due as found at the time of settlement. The cheque was presented to the bankers. It bounced. Statutory notice was issued. There was no response. Hence prosecution was initiated.3. The accused took up a contention that there was no such settlement of account. The cheque was given only as a security for the transaction between the parties. Therefore, the ...
Vasulal International Vs. Addl. Sales Tax Officer-ii
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT162; (2007)7VST283(Ker)
K.K. Denesan, J.1. Appellant represented by its Managing Partner is the petitioner in O.P.No.2793 of 2003. It is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (for short 'the Act' only). The assessment of the appellant under the Act for the year 2000-2001 was completed by the Additional Sales Tax Officer-II, 1st Circle, Kannur under Section 17(4) of the Act. The assessment thus completed was reopened under Section 19 of the Act alleging omission to include in the return filed by the appellant the amount received under Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme exigible to tax. Besides initiating revised assessment proceedings, the assessment authority issued notice dated 27.11.2002 (Ext.P2) under Section 17(5 A) of the Act proposing to levy thrice the amount of the difference between the amount of the tax already paid by the appellant and that arrived at on fresh assessment, as penalty. To the Original Petition, appellant sought for a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P2 and a declaration th...
Chandran Vs. Sunil Kumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT420
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Can a Rent Control Petition filed under Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965 be rejected placing reliance on certain subsequent events brought out in the cross-examination without amendment of the pleadings by the tenant is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. Rent Control Petition was filed on 17.6.1996 under Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965 contending that the tenanted premises is bona fide required by the landlord's son. Landlord's son has completed a technical course from the Thyagaraja Poly Technic and he intends to start a refrigeration service and repairing unit in the petition schedule premises. Landlord is financially sound to purchase the machinery and tools to start the refrigeration service and repairing unit for his son. Son is unemployed, but has the requisite qualification and experience to start the refrigeration service and repairing unit.3. Tenant contended that the attempt of the landlord is only a ruse to evict him. F...
Higashimaru Feeds (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT502
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. 1. The petitioner is an importer of fish meal and it is challenging Ext.P4 public notice dated 9.7.2001 issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Ext.P5 notification dated 17.10.2001 issued by the Central Government and Ext.P6 public notice dated 21.1.2002 issued by the Commissioner of Customs. The brief facts of the case, are the following.2. The import of live-stock to India, is governed by the provisions of Live-stock Importation Act, 1898. Section 2(a) of the Act defines the expression 'infections or contagious disorders' as including tick-pest, anthrax, glanders, farcy, scabies and any other disease or disorder, which may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette. Section 2(b) defines live-stock as 'live-stock includes horses, kine, camels, sheep and any other animal which may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette'. The Parliament has amended the Live-stock Importation Act of 1898 b...
Sugathan Vs. CochIn Devaswom Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-03-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR1032]; 2005(1)KLT46
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Can a portion of the death-cum-retirement gratuity be withheld after retirement without initiating any disciplinary proceedings while in service, is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. Petitioner retired from the service of the Cochin Devaswom Board as Devaswom Assistant Commissioner on 31.1.2003. An amount of Rs. 1,67,937/- was sanctioned to him towards death-cum-retirement gratuity, but was not disbursed for want of non liability certificate. Cochin Devaswom Board by its proceedings dated 15.4.2004 provisionally fixed Rs. 30,603/- as the liability of the petitioner. Sanction was accorded by the Devaswom Board, vide order dated 14.6.2004 to disburse the death-cum-retirement gratuity withholding an amount of Rs. 30,603/-. Petitioner is aggrieved by the said order and has approached this Court seeking a direction to the Devaswom Board to issue non liability certificate and to disburse the entire amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity...
Chitharanjan Vs. Ravi Mohan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ker10; 2004(2)KLT1163
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal is instituted against the judgment of the District Judge, Kozhikode in a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal which was directed against an Interlocutory Application filed in a suit wherein the present appellant was the second defendant. An interlocutory application was filed under Order 11 of the Code for delivery of interrogatories and since the answers furnished to the interrogatories were not in the form of affidavit as required by law, the learned Munsiff passed an order directing the answers to be furnished in oath form. The learned District Judge noticed on hearing the C.M.A. that the appellant had already answered the interrogatories by an affidavit as directed by the learned Munsiff in the order which was impugned in the C.M.A. and therefore the C.M.A. was to be dismissed not only on merits but also in that the appeal has become infructuous.2. According to the Registry the Second Appeal is not maintainable in law obviously in view...
Abraham Vs. Elikulam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT25
M. Ramachandran, J.1. The Convenor of the Disciplinary Sub Committee constituted by the Director Board of Elikulam Service Co-operative Bank Limited (1st respondent herein) had advised the petitioner, by communication dated 16.10.2001, that in furtherance of the memo that had been issued to him dated 23.7.2001 after due enquiries it had been found that the petitioner was at fault, duly taking notice of the gravity of the lapses. According to him, though it was a case of serious indiscipline, taking notice of the circumstance that there was no past similar conduct from his part, it had been decided to bar two increments with cumulative effect. Ext.P1 is the order. During the period concerned, the petitioner was working in the cadre of Accountant, but working as Branch Manager of Karakkulam Branch of the Bank. He had been kept under suspension during the period of enquiry.2. Normal remedy, which might have been admissible to the petitioner, is an appeal as prescribed under Rule 198(4) of...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.M. Moosa, Bharath Sea Foods
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Ker)441; [2005]272ITR29(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. This reference arises from a reference made by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench. Reference is at the instance of the Revenue. Questions of law that arise in this case are regarding the interpretation to be given to some of the provisions in Section 80HHC of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The questions of law are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in entertaining the additional ground raised by the assessee on an issue which had not been disputed earlier before the AO or the first appellate authority ?(2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the payment received from the export houses under the agreements could. not partake the nature of receipt towards 'charges' mentioned in Clause (baa) of Explanation to Section 80HHC ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on an interpretation of Section 80HHC(3) ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »