Kerala Court January 2005 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.
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. High Range Estate Labour Union
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-10-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker122; 2005(1)KLT507
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. These Writ Appeals are preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge in a matter arising under the Tea Act. W.A. No. 1202/2004 is filed by the Union of India whereas W.A.No.1334/2004 is filed by one of the promoters. At this stage, all the learned counsel have requested the Court to hear and dispose of the Writ Appeals themselves which lies in a narrow compass. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from W.A.1202/2004.2. Only one argument has been advanced by Sri.V.T.Gopalan, learned Addl. Solicitor General of India pointing out the imposition made by the learned Single Judge in his order of 5th January, 2004 in O.P.No.32613/2002, which is to the following effect: 'If the revival of the functioning of High Range Tea Estates of M/s. Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd., is not possible, then the Union of India shall take over such estates of the said Company as contemplated by law within six months from the said date of judgment'. Mr.V.T.Gopalan submi...
Basheer Vs. T.N. Radhakrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-10-2005
Reported in: I(2007)BC408
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Accused in S.T. No. 3326/97 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodungallur is challenging his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act as confirmed by the third Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur in Crl. A. No. 364/01. First respondent was the complainant before Court below. Case of first respondent in the complaint was that towards amount due, petitioner issued Ext. P1 cheque drawn in his account maintained in Eriyad Branch of South Indian Bank Limited and when cheque was presented for encashment under Ex. P2 it was dishonoured for want of funds and petitioner intimated dishonour and demanded amount covered by the cheque under original of Ext. P5 notice received by petitioner under Ext. P5 acknowledgement card and instead of paying the amount he sent. Ext. P5 reply disputing liability and thereby he committed offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Petitioner pleaded not guilt before the Court below. First resp...
Sheriff Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-07-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC340; [2005]127CompCas469(Ker); 2005(1)KLT873
P.R. Raman, J.1. Petitioner is admittedly a defaulter in respect of the amounts due to the Public Sector Bank, the 4th respondent herein. For realisation of the amounts due and payable by the petitioner a suit was instituted by the Bank and obtained a decree on 20/5/1989. An E.P. No. 95/1991 was thereafter filed before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara. While so, the Bank after obtaining the decree proceeded to recover an amount under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act by making a requisition in that behalf as evidenced by Ext.R4(a) dated 10.11.2000. The petitioner has raised mainly two contentions before me challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated as evidenced by Ext.P2. (1) That the revenue recovery proceeding is barred by law of limitation, since what is sought to be recovered is a Bank loan and not a decree amount and the Bank loan normally should be paid on the expiry of three years. (2) That the Bank cannot seek recourse to two parallel proceedings. After filing an E.P. the ...
Sadasivan Chettiar Vs. Rajendran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT653
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. In this revision filed under Section 20 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), the petitioner/landlord who is the manager of the Kanyaka Parameswari Devaswom, Arakurussi, Mannarkad, challenges the judgment dt. 22.12.1999 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Palakkad, dismissing the Rent Control Petition for eviction.2. Since the provisions of the Act had not been extended to the area in question, the petitioner/Devaswom had originally filed a suit for eviction as O.S. No. 641/1966 before the Munsiff s Court, Perinthalmanna. The said suit was decreed and confirmed in appeal filed as A.S. No. 47/1975 before the District Court, Palakkad, as per Ext.A5 judgment dt. 19.12.1975 and further confirmed in second appeal by this Court in S.A. No. 290/1975 as per Ext.A19 judgment dt. 13.11.1978. In the meanwhile, the Act was extended to the area in question and therefore this Court had affirmed the deci...
Balachandran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-2005
Reported in: II(2005)ACC124; AIR2005Ker187; 2005(1)KLT641
B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Petitioner is the owner of a Maruthi Zen Car. The issue relates to the question as to what is the rate of tax payable by him for the said vehicle. This, in turn, would depend upon the unladen weight of the vehicle. If that is above 750 kgs., he has to pay tax at a rate higher than the rate to which he concedes.2. In the presence of an Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector (A.M.V.I.), the vehicle of the petitioner was weighed. Ext.P3 is the computerised extract which shows that the weight of the vehicle as recorded on 2.11.2004 is 720 kgs. Ext.P4 statement prepared by the A.M.V.I. was submitted to the 2nd respondent, the Joint Regional Transport Officer. This statement shows that the fuel level of the vehicle at the time of weighing was below 5 litres and that spare wheel, jack, jack lever, wheel spanner and tools were not provided in the vehicle at the time of weighing.3. A counter-affidavit is placed on record by the 2nd respondent. Referring to Ext.P4, it is state...
Anaswara Offset (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT651
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Appellant is a small scale industrial unit engaged in the production of brochures, folders, leaflets, dockets etc. They have approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the conditions prescribed in the notifications issued as per S.R.O.No.1092/99 as amended by notification S.R.O. No.295/2000 to the extent it denies sales tax exemption to the appellant's unit in terms of the notification issued in S.R.O.No.1729 of 1993 is unconstitutional, unsustainable and illegal. Writ of mandamus was also sought for directing the first and second respondents to grant sales tax exemption to the appellant's unit in accordance with the notification S.R.O.No. 1729 of 1993. 2. Appellant had purchased 29.38 cents of land for construction of factory for starting an offset press, vide registered sale deeds executed in the year 1997. Copies of the three sale deeds have been produced along with the Writ Petition covering pages 39 to 91 w...
Babu Sebastian Vs. Additional Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-2005
Reported in: [2005]141STC434(Ker)
P.R. Raman, J.1. Petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93. Originally the assessments were completed based on the return filed by the assessee. Final assessment for the year 1991-92 was thus completed as per office proceedings No. 25131716/91-92 dated December 4, 1992. Likewise for the year 1992-93 final assessment was completed as per proceedings No. 25131716/92-93 dated April 20, 1994. Later on the Intelligence Officer, Sales Tax, Thrissur detected certain unaccounted purchase made by the dealer during the year 1992-93. For the assessment year 1991-92 also he detected certain inter-State purchase which were not accounted in the books of accounts maintained by the petitioner. The assessee admitted the facts before the Intelligence Officer and compounded the offence for the year 1991-92 as evidenced by exhibit P1 proceedings of the Intelligence Officer dated January 31, 1995. Likewise for the assessment year 199...
Anaswara Offset Private Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-2005
Reported in: (2007)8VST342(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The appellant is a small-scale industrial unit engaged in the production of brochures, folders, leaflets, dockets, etc. They have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the condition prescribed in the notifications issued as per S.R.O. No. 1092 of 1999 as amended by Notification S.R.O. No. 295 of 2000 to the extent it denies sales tax exemption to the appellant's unit in terms of the notification issued in S.R.O. No. 1729 of 1993 is unconstitutional, unsustainable and illegal. Writ of mandamus was also sought for directing the first and second respondents to grant sales tax exemption to the appellant's unit in accordance with Notification S.R.O. No. 1729 of 1993.2. The appellant had purchased 29.387 cents of land for construction of factory for starting an offset press, vide registered sale deeds executed in the year 1997. Copies of the three sale deeds have been produced along with the writ petition cove...
Babu Vs. Banumathy Menon
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker155; 2005(2)KLT859
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. The appellant is the applicant in an application for permission to file the suit as an indigent person. The Trial Court dismissed the application finding that there is no bona fides in the application and that he is misusing the provision in Order XXXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is intended only to genuine cases of indigent persons.2. The suit is for specific performance of an oral agreement for sale of 5 cents of land and building admittedly owned by the defendant. When the defendant sent notice for eviction of the plaintiff from the building the present suit was filed with the following allegations. The defendant agreed to sell the plaint schedule property for a consideration of Rs. 2,25,000/- on 8.2.1997 and an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid on the same day. The document was to be executed on or before 30.1.2000. Possession was also given to the plaintiff on the date of agreement. The plaintiff reconstructed the two rooms in the plaint sched...
Ammini Joseph Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT830
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. These Writ Appeals are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 17797/2004. The matter relates to the levy of electrical energy charges. The appellant is a widow and the electricity connection was given during her husband's lifetime. The meter is defective, is a fact found by the Electrical Inspector under Sub-section 6 of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. This aspect has become final. The question is about the calculation to be made and the Electrical Inspector himself is given the power under the above provision, who has to make assessment pursuant to decision by him about the faultness of the meter. But he has further delegated the power after recording that the meter was defective and the assessment has been made by, an Officer of the Electricity Board which is impermissible under the above provision. It was the Electrical Inspector who has recorded the finding that the meter was faulty, to make an assessment as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »