Kerala Court December 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. John
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Ker108; IV(2006)BC86; 2006(1)KLT593
S. Siri Jagan, J. 1. This writ appeal is filed by the Union of India, the Post Master General, Thiruvananthapuram and the Post Master General, Calicut, against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P.No. 28568 of 2002 whereby they were directed to pay the maturity value of Indira Vikas Patras which were stated to be lost from the possession of the respondent herein, after obtaining a simple bond with sureties from him, undertaking to the Government to make good any loss in the event of any claim being made by anybody under the very same Indira Vikas Patras.2. The main contention of the appellants is that as per the Indira Vikas Patra Rules, since name and other details of the person purchasing the Indira Vikas Patras are not recorded at the Post Office, they are transferable and lost certificates are not replaced, amounts in respect of lost Indira Vikas Patras cannot be paid on the strength of a bond. They particularly rely on Rule 10 of the Indira Vikas Patra Rules, which prov...
Subhash Babu Vs. Radhakrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-2005
Reported in: III(2007)BC69; 2006(3)KLT994
K. Hema, J.1. In the nature of the peculiar facts in these appeals, these are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Two complaints were filed by the appellant before a Magistrate's Court against the first respondent herein, alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act, for short). One of the complaints relates to a cheque dated 15.7.2000 for Rs. 1,00,000/- and the other is with respect to another cheque dated 30.07.2000 for Rs. 75,000/-. On filing the complaints, those were numbered as C.M.P. 812/2001 and C.M.P. 813/2001. The complaint involving the cheque dated earlier was numbered as C.M.P. 812/2001 and the one dated subsequently was numbered as C.M.P. 813/2001.3. Sworn statements of the complainant were taken in both the cases and those were taken on file as C.C. 115 and C.C. 116 of 2001. But, chronological order was not followed while numbering the cases as calender cases. Instead of numbering C.M.P 812/2001 as C.C. 115/2001, it was n...
Muraleedharan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-2005
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT254
A.K. Basheer, J.1. These petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raise the following common question:2. Are excise authorities empowered to initiate action against persons who deal with or sell ayurvedic preparations like Asavas, Arishtas etc., on the ground that they have not obtained a licence in Form S.P. VII issued under Rule 11 of Spirituous preparations (Control) Rules3. Relevant facts and documents that are available in writ petition No. 22093/2003 are being referred to in the judgment for the sake of convenience.4. The case of the petitioners is that they have obtained licence to manufacture Ayurvedic medicines like Asavas, Arishtas etc., under Rule 154 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Ext.P2 is stated to be a true photo copy of the licence issued in Form 25 D under the rule mentioned above. According to the petitioners, by virtue of Ext.P4 licence also, which is issued in Form L-2 as provided under Rule 83 of The Medicinal and Toilet Preparation...
Paulina Joseph Vs. Idukki District Wholesale Co-operative Consumer Sto ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT603
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The revision petitioner/landlord leased out the petition schedule building on 1.3.1984 to the respondent, the Idukki District Wholesale Co-operative Consumer Stores Ltd., on a monthly rent of Rs. 750/-. The building was taken by the tenant for the specific purpose of conducting a provision store under the name and style 'Priya Department Stores' at Thodupuzha. The landlord alleged that rent was kept in arrears and that the tenant ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of three years since December 1991, without any reasonable cause. It was contended that the building was not even opened by the tenant for any purpose and that it was not occupied by the tenant. The landlord also stated in the Rent Control Petition that the respondent Society ran into huge loss and that it was incapable of revival. On these allegations the Rent Control Petition was filed under Section 11(2)(b) and Section 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act...
Pan Polymers Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT329
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. As the issue raised in these three connected cases is the same, the W.Ps. are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. I heard counsel appearing for the petitioners and the Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.2. All the three petitioners started their industry in the year 2001 and are granted sales tax exemption on the sale of their products for a period of seven years under Notification SRO 1729/1993 issued under, Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called ('the KGST Act'). The petitioners have been enjoying sales tax exemption ever since the commencement of commercial production based on certificate of exemption obtained and produced as Ext. P1 in all W.Ps. which were issued in terms of the above referred notification. While the petitioner in W.P. 15242/2005 is engaged in production of tread rubber, the petitioner in W.P. 15221/2005 is engaged in production of coir mattresses and the petitioner i...
Roopa Engineering Corporation Vs. General Manger, Telecom
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)ARBLR225(Kerala); 2006(2)KLT508
ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This is an application filed invoking Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' seeking the following reliefs:(i) hold that the Arbitrator Shri. Roy M.Jacob, Area Manager of BSNL, appointed as per Annexure D is illegal and incompetent and be pleased to appoint another arbitrator or arbitrators who may be independent and outside the purview of the BSNL and direct the arbitrators appointed by this Hon'ble Court to adjudicate upon all claims and disputes of the petitioner arising under the contract entered into according to Annexure A tender and direct them to publish the award;(ii) invalidate the notices issued so far by Respondent No. 3 'ex-pane' in the absence of the petitioner as the petitioner was not agreeable to such appointment and further, the Respondent No.3 has failed to confirm that there are no circumstances likely to give rise tojustifiable doubts as to his independence and impartiali...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. P. Jayanti and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-2005
Reported in: I(2007)ACC228
J.M. James, J.1. The questions raised for consideration in this appeal are, whether the owner of the vehicle could remit the policy premium on an earlier date and then opt for a future date for the commencement of the insurance policy, when the existing policy had already expired, if so, is it not against the mandatory provision under Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in short 'the Act', and in such situation, whether the insurer could allow the insured to have his vehicle plied without a policy in force for that vehicle. If that be so, is not such a contract between the insurer and the insured against the public policy and public interest, and also what is the impact of such insurance policy on the third party.2. Applicants 1 to 4, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein, are the legal representatives of one Kamaladharan, who met with a motor vehicle accident, on 10.1.2000, at about 3.30 p.m., and died consequently. A claim, as O.P. (M.V.) No. 430/2000, had been preferred before the Motor ...
Santha Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT249
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C.No. 62 of 2004 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Marad Cases) Kozhikode. At the relevant point of time, the first accused was working as an Upper Division Clerk and the second accused, her husband, was employed in Kerala Soaps and Oil Mills Limited.2. The case arose from a private complaint filed by P.W.1 before the Magistrate alleging that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 504, 509, 294(a), 506(1) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was forwarded to the Sub Inspector of Chevayur, under 8.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He registered the case and investigated the same. After investigation, the final report was filed alleging that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 504, 509, 294(a), 506(1) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. When the revision petitioners appeared before the learned Magistra...
Jayalakshmi Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT523
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The revision petitioner challenges the appellate order passed by the II Addl. District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in C.M.A 16/2000 preferred by her against the order of the Estate Officer, Union Bank of India, Thiruvananthapuram dated 21-1-2000 calling upon the revision petitioner to vacate the premises in question on or before 10-3-2000 under the provisions of the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971 - Central Act 40/1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Public Premises Act' for short.)2. The admitted facts leading to the order passed by the Estate Officer can be summarised as follows:One Sri. Vasudeva Kurup who was the father of the revision petitioner was the tenant in respect of a shop room bearing building No. T.C. No. 26/112 in the heart of Thiruvananthapuram City. O.P. B.R.C. No. 254/1970 was filed by the then landlord of the building against the said Vasudeva Kurup for eviction of the premises on the ground of sub lease falling unde...
Rafeeque Enterprises Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT207; (2008)11VST568(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This Tax Revision Case arises out of the order in TA.No. 411 of 1997 of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench-H, Palakkad.2. Assessee is engaged in the business of buying and selling of arecanuts. Assessment year in question is 1991-92. Assessee is the last purchaser of arecanut liable to be taxed at his hands, the taxable point of the commodity being fixed on the last purchase point. Assessee was accordingly assessed as the last purchaser on the purchase value of arecanuts as per assessment order dated 27-7-1996 and he paid tax accordingly. While making the assessment the assessing authority took the view that the assessee is liable to pay turnover tax as per Government Notification SRO. 717/88 and 1008/91 at the rate of 1/2% upto 31-7-1991 and 1/4% from 1-8-1991 since the assessee had failed to submit a declaration as provided under SRO No. 717/88. Assessee was accordingly taxed, which came to Rs. 34,080/-. Asse...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »