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.
Chami Vs. Excise Inspector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT511
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. This Bail Application was referred by learned single Judge (Justice K. Padmanabhan Nair) expressing doubts in certain observations made by another learned Single Judge in Roshy v. State of Kerala : 2005(3)KLT796 . Petitioner in this bail application is the first accused in CR.No. 39 of 2005 of Excise Range Office, Ottappalam, registered under Sections 57(a), 57A(1)(iii) and 57A(3) of the Abkari Act 1 of 1077 (in short 'the Act') and Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). At about 3.30 p.m. on 2.9.2005, the Preventive Officer, Excise Enforcement and Anti-narcotic Special Squad along with party went to the Toddy Shop No. 33/05-06 of Ottappalam Excise Range, to which the petitioner was the licensee, and took sample in accordance with Rule 8 of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 from the toddy stored in the toddy shop for sale and it was sent for analysis. On examination, it was found that Diazepam, a psychotropic substa...
Sasindran Vs. Addl. District Magistrate
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-2005
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT662
A.K. Basheer, J.1. Are Exts. P-2 and P-3 orders passed by the statutory authorities suspending the licence issued to the petitioner under the Explosives Act, 1884 (for short, 'the Act') legally valid and sustainable2. The above question has arisen for consideration in this Writ Petition in the following facts and circumstances.3. The petitioner was granted Ext.PI licence by the competent authority in February 2002, to manufacture explosives. It is the admitted position that the said licence was renewed for a further period of two years which was due to expire on March 31,2004. On January 26, 2004 at about 3.30 P.M. a massive explosion took place in the work site where the petitioner was engaged in manufacture of explosives. Three persons lost their lives in the explosion. One of the victims was a 12 year old boy. Ponnani Police registered Crime No.34/2004 in this connection against the petitioner and two others for offences punishable under Sections 286 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code...
Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-2005
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Ker)144; [2006]281ITR413(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for the decision of this Court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the claim of bad debts in respect of Vanchinad Leathers Ltd. was not legally sustainable and allowable Abovementioned question arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 831/Coch/1991, dt. 13th June, 1997 in the case of Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Trivandrum, for the asst. yr. 1988-89.2. Assessee, the Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., is a limited company wholly owned by the Government of Kerala. It was incorporated with the object of promotion of industries and advancement of industrial development in the State of Kerala. Vanchinad Leathers Ltd. was a joint sector company promoted by the assessee in the year 1974 for processing hides and skins. The company starte...
K.S.E. Board Vs. Sakeena
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT629
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether the height of a multi-storeyed building has to be measured from the basement or from the ground level for the purpose of Rule 50A of the Indian Electricity Rules 1956 read with Regulation 12 of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy is the question that has come up for consideration in this case. 2. Learned single Judge made reference to Rule 110 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 and took the view that 'high rise building' is one which is having more than four floors and/or 15 metres of height from the ground level. Reading Rule 50A of the Indian Electricity Rules in conjunction with Rule 110 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules learned Judge took the view, for determination of the height, the ground level has to be taken into account and not the floor level. Board is aggrieved by the reasoning of the learned single Judge and has filed this appeal. 3. Application preferred by the petitioner for electric connection was not enter...
Radhakrishnan Vs. Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-2005
Reported in: I(2007)BC324; [2006]130CompCas618(Ker); 2006(1)KLT150
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Can an account maintained in the name of a firm be said to be an account maintained by its Managing Partner? Can the Managing Partner who issued the cheque be said to-be the drawer of the cheque? These questions arise for consideration in this case.2. This revision petition is directed against the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence (the sentence was modified by the appellate court) imposed on the revision petitioner/accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.3. The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 90,000/- The cheque is issued by the accused as Managing Partner of M/s. Integrated Homoeo Pharmaceuticals, a firm. The complainant alleged that the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs. 90,000/- and had issued the cheque in question, Ext.P1, for the discharge of the said liability. The cheque, when presented, was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. A notice of demand was issued. The same was not received and was returned unclaimed. It is ...
State of Kerala Vs. Lakshmanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT352
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the State is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 12094 of 1993. The matter relates to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows.2. Certain properties belonging to the respondents were acquired for a public purpose by the State. Invoking the urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, advance possession of the land was taken by the State on 5-12-1991. Under Clause (a) of Sub-section (3A) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, whenever advance possession is taken by the State invoking the special powers under Section 17 in cases of urgency, the Collector was bound to tender payment of 80% of the compensation for such land as estimated by him to the persons interested entitled thereto. It is alleging that such amount was not paid that the Original Petition was filed by the respondents.3. There was a dispute as to wh...
Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Ker)662; [2006]284ITR69(Ker); 2006(2)KLT792
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether the contribution made by the assessee to a trust which undertook the work of rehabilitation of the victims of Lathur earthquake could be regarded as an allowable deduction under Section 37(1) of the IT Act is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. This appeal is preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, aggrieved by the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter called the Tribunal) declining relief under Section 37(1) of the IT Act on the ground that the donation made by the assessee to the Malayala Manorama Charitable Trust is not a reasonable expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business by the assessee chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession'.3. Appellant Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. is engaged in the business of printing and publishing of newspapers and periodicals and is an assessee on the files of the Addl. CIT (Asst.), ...
Noushad Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1089; 2006(1)KLT717
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Court, Thalassery in Sessions Case No. 138 of 2001. The allegation was that due to personal enmity, on 1 -5-1999 at about 6-00 p.m., he voluntarily caused stab injuries to one Narayanan with a deadly weapon like knife on his stomach and back at the public road situated on the back side of Badariya flour mill at Puzhathi amsom, Kunhipalli and the said Narayanan succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment at the Medical College Hospital, Pariyaram on 4-5-1999.2. Son of the injured, PW1, gave Ext.P9 FI, statement before PW15, Sub Inspector of Police, Kannur and he registered Ext.P9 FIR. PW16 Circle Inspector of Police conducted investigation. According to the prosecution, the accused surrendered before the police at 9-00 p.m. on the same day with a bleeding injury on the right li...
Mathew George Vs. Jacob
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-12-2005
Reported in: III(2006)BC21; 2006(1)KLT126
K. Thankappan, J.1. The petitioner seeks to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No. 1134 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court I, Ernakulam.2. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No. 1134 of 2001 pending before the court below. The above Calendar Case was taken on file on the basis of a complaint filed by the first respondent alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court below took cognizance of the complaint. During trial, the petitioner raised a question with regard to the identity of the signatory of the cheque in question as there was no clear evidence regarding the same. The petitioner produced photographs of four different persons to identify the accused from among the photographs. The grievance of the petitioner is that the court below adjourned the case without considering the point raised by the petitioner.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has no case...
Ramachandran Nair Vs. D.E.O.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT348
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The issue involved in this case is whether invocation of sub-rule(6) of Rule 45C of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules for the purpose of appointing the W.R(C)No.22686of2005. Decided on 9th December, 2005. seniormost teacher on the staff of the school as teacher in-charge will be justified in a case where the Manager has already invoked Rule 11 of Chapter XIV-A for the purpose of making available a teacher qualified to be appointed as regular Head Mistress and there are no valid reasons for the District Educational Officer to decline the Manager's request for approval under R. 11(1)2. The petitioner, Manager of a Vocational Higher Secondary School, is aggrieved by Ext.PS order passed by the District Educational Officer (D.E.O.) directing him to appoint the second respondent a High School Assistant in his school, who does not admittedly have the requisite qualification to be appointed as Head Mistress, as the teacher in-charge of the school under Sub-rul...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »