Kerala Court December 2005 Judgments
CochIn Port Trust Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: (2007)8VST184(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in these cases is whether the Cochin Port Trust, governed by the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, is a dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and liable to pay sales tax.2. S.T.R. No. 321 of 2005 and S. T. R. No. 326 of 2005 arise out of a common order passed in T. A. No. 1 of 2000 and T. A. No. 143 of 2003 of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench-II, Ernakulam. T. A. No. 1 of 2000 and T. A. No. 143 of 2003 were disposed of along with T. A. No. 162 of 2000 filed by the State. State has not filed any revision petition against the order in T. A. No. 162 of 2000 and hence we need only examine the correctness or otherwise of the common order passed in T. A. No. 1 of 2000 and T. A. No. 143 of 2003. T. A. No. 1 of 2000 relates to the assessment year 1994-95 and T. A. No. 143 of 2003 relates to the assessment year 1997-98. T.R.C. No. 412 of 2002 was filed by the Cochin Port Trust against the order...
Tag this Judgment!Renosh Samuel Vs. Joint Registrar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT374
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. In this amended Writ Petition the petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P2 proceedings issued on 14-11-2005 by the 1st respondent invoking Section 33(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and superseding the Committee of the 9th respondent Bank. The petitioner is the President of the superseded Committee.2. It is the admitted situation that no notice was issued to the Committee of the Bank before supersession as per the impugned Ext.P2 order.3. On 30-11 -2003, a new Committee assumed office. On 29-10-2005, the President of the said Committee died. On 7-11-2005, the writ petitioner was elected as the President. On 7-11-2005 and 8-11-2005 Exts.R5(a) and R3(a) resignation letters were tendered by the 5th respondent and respondents 3 and 4 respectively to the writ petitioner President.4. Though the writ petitioner disputes the receipt of the said resignation letters, I proceed on the basis that the said resignation lett...
Tag this Judgment!Valanchery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT425
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The 3rd respondent Grama Panchayat, by Ext.P1, unanimously resolved to accept the quotation of the petitioner for supply of food articles for different anganwadies under its jurisdiction. The 2nd respondent Project Officer of Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) issued Ext.P2 to the Supervisor of the 3rd respondent Grama Panchayat directing that the supply shall be taken from the 4th respondent. Faced with Ext.P2, the 3rd respondent Panchayat issued Ext.R3(a) letter to the Secretary to the Government of Kerala in the Social Welfare Department. In reply to that, the Government through Under Secretary for the Secretary in the Social Welfare Department, issued Ext.P4 to the 3rd respondent Grama Panchayat directing that the 4th respondent should be permitted to make the supply. It is this decision that is under challenge by the petitioner.2. The 3rd respondent Panchayat has filed a counter-affidavit, standing by its unanimous decision reflected as pe...
Tag this Judgment!Shiji P. Antony Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1097; 2006(1)KLT331
ORDERA.K. Basheer, J.1. This petition has been filed by a defacto complainant in a crime under Sections 439(2) and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to cancel the order of pre-arrest bail granted in favour of respondent No. 2/accused.2. Kuruppampady Police had registered Crime No. 291/2005 for offences punishable under Sections 447, 326 and 308 I.P.C. at the instance of the petitioner who was allegedly attacked by respondent No. 2 with a bill hook. The petitioner had suffered grievous injuries including 'fracture of ulna with severed ECU mid forearm' apart from certain lacerated wounds on the other parts of the body.3. Respondent No. 2 had filed an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated August 19, 2005 directed that 'the petitioner be released on bail in the event of his arrest, on executing a bond for Rs. 15,000/- with two solvent sureties each in the lik...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Bank Vs. Ernakulam District H.G.M.T. Co-op. Society Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Ker154; III(2007)BC7; [2006]131CompCas232(Ker); 2006(1)KLT479
K.K. Denesan, J.1. Whether a suit or other proceeding filed by a bank or financial institution as defined in the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short the Act) and pending adjudication before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Societies Act) would stand automatically transferred to the Recovery Tribunal constituted under the Act? If not, dismissal of the suit by the Registrar, instead of returning the same for presentation before the Tribunal, is not improper resulting in miscarriage of justice? These are the questions for consideration in this Original Petition filed in the backdrop of the following facts.2. Petitioner is a nationalised bank and respondent No. 1 is a co-operative society registered under the Societies Act. According to the petitioner, respondent No. l borrowed a certain sum of money from the petitioner-bank, respondent No. 2 executed agreemen...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Vishnu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT445
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. This is a proceedings initiated suo motu under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancelling the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the case is as follows: The respondent Vishnu, S/o. Jayasree is the 2nd accused in Crime No. 221 of 2004 of Pazhayannur Police Station. 1st accused in that case is one Sulaiman, S/o. Saithumohammed. The accused, it is alleged, in furtherance of a common intention of committing theft of cement stored for the construction of a building of the defacto complainant Veerankutty, committed theft of one bag of cement from the construction site and placed the same in an autorickshaw. Before they could steal another packet of cement, the defacto complainant came to the spot. On seeing the defacto complainant, the accused abandoned not only the cement bag they had stolen, but also the autorickshaw and fled away from the scene of occurrence. Based on the F.I, Statement g...
Tag this Judgment!Deepa Vs. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT778
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner is an Advocate, who feels aggrieved by the adverse observations made against her, by the 1st respondent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur, in an order passed by it. Seeking to quash those adverse remarks, this Writ Petition is filed. The brief facts of the case are the following:2. The petitioner, who is also a Government Pleader, was appearing for the Kerala State Housing Board in OP No. 426/00 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur. The said O.P. was allowed by the Forum by Ext.P1 order dated 24.11.2004. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows:In the result, the opposite parties are directed to return the original document to the complainant or in the alternative, if they are not able to trace out the original title deed of the complainant, issue necessary publication showing that the original document is irrecoverably lost and issue a certificate to that effect to the complainant for getting the...
Tag this Judgment!Moosa Vs. Sub Inspector of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1922; 2006(1)KLT552
ORDERP.R. Raman and M.N. Krishnan, J.1. The above Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are filed under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein on the ground that the co-accused in the respective cases were acquitted on trial. The case of the petitioners who were absconders were separated and are now proceeded with in their respective cases. The co-accused against whom case was proceeded with earlier were finally acquitted on appreciation of the evidence in each of the cases above. It was contended that as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of any of them, no useful purpose will be served by conducting trial against them and it will be an abuse of process of the court and to secure the ends of justice further proceedings against the petitioners is to be quashed. In support thereof reliance was placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Arun Kumar v. State of Kerala reported in : 2004...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanan Vs. Meenakshi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Ker143; 2006(1)KLT210
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The questions of law involved in this Second Appeal are the following:1) Whether a suit for partition at the instance of a daughter of the deceased could be defeated by invoking Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act by the legal representatives of a deceased son of the intestate?2) Whether Section 23 would be applicable in a case where the deceased intestate has left behind him only one male issue and whether it is necessary that there must be more than one male issues to invoke Section 23?3) Whether the protection in favour of the male heir under Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act would be available if he inducts a third party in the dwelling house or any portion thereof?4) Whether omission of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act by the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 would have any impact on a suit for partition or appeal therefrom pending on the date of the commencement of the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005?2. The property sought to be partition...
Tag this Judgment!Ebrahim Syed Mohammed Vs. Pothanicadu Farmers Co-op. Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT335
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner is a member of the Managing Committee of the 1st respondent Cooperative Bank. The total number of elected members of the said Committee is 12. It has an ex-officio member also.2. Ext.P2 no confidence motion was passed against the President of the 1st respondent Bank.3. The 3rd respondent was to conduct the proceedings as authorised by the 4th respondent in accordance with Rule 43A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Ext.P3 notice was issued notifying that the no-confidence motion will be considered at 11 a.m. on 29-7-2005 in the conference hall of the 1st respondent Bank.4. According to the petitioner, six members and the ex-officio member, the Managing Director were present while one Sasikumar was not allowed to enter the hall. It is a matter of record that as of now, the said Sasikumar stands disqualified as per an order issued under Rule 44. This Writ Petition is filed contending that the m...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »