Kerala Court February 2005 Judgments
Rafeek Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker185; 2005(2)KLT29
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. This pro bona publico Writ Petition has been filed by a practicing advocate and it concerns with the outside interference with legal profession. The trouble started with a complaint said to have been presented under the name 'Kerala Advocate General Office Employees Co-ordination Committee' on 9.6.2003 addressed to Sri. A.K. Antony, the then Chief Minister making imputation against Sri. V.K. Beeran, Additional Advocate General touching upon his integrity while conducting the cases on behalf of the Government and even making accusations against him that he colluded with private persons and that he had appeared in cases on behalf of the Government even without the latter authorizing him to do so and that cases failed in the Courts only on account of the said conduct of Sri. V.K. Beeran.2. There was a lot of controversy raised because of the press statements made by Sri. E.K. Bharat Bhushan, Secretary to Government, Forest and Wild Life Department which promoted...
Tag this Judgment!Jomon Puthenpurakal Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT1
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. These three Writ Petitions have been filed as pro bono publico assailing the appointments of 12 members of Kerala Public Service Commission which were made by G.O.(P) No. 370/2004/GAD dated 30.12.2004. While in W.P.(C) Nos. 37726/2004 and 3279/2005 all the 12 newly appointed members of Kerala Public Service Commission are made respondents, in W.P.(C) No. 198/2005, only one new appointee, namely, Mr. P.R. Devadas, has been made a party. We refer the respondents as arrayed in W.P.(C) No. 37726/2004. The first respondent is the Government of Kerala, second respondent the Kerala Public Service Commission, third respondent the Chairman of the second respondent-Commission, while respondents 4 to 15 are the newly appointed members of the second respondent-Commission. Respondent No. 16 was impleaded as per order dated 12.1.2005 in I.A.No. 596/2005. He is the Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration Department and said to have handled files relating t...
Tag this Judgment!Pant Enterprises Vs. Additional Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Ker)409; [2007]291ITR363(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This is a revision filed by the assessee under Section 78 of the . IT Act, 1991 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), against the order in second appeal issued by the Agrl. IT Appellate Tribunal confirming petitioner's assessment for the year 2001-02. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in agricultural operations. The crops cultivated are essentially coffee and pepper. The petitioner which was being assessed to tax on coffee income on receipt basis until the asst. yr. 1995-96, opted for payment of tax at compounded rate based on extent of yielding area of plantation in terms of Section 13 of the Act. After availing composition of tax under Section 13 for the asst. yrs. 1995-96 to 2000-01, the petitioner re-opted for payment of tax based on income from the asst. yr. 2001-02 onwards, in terms of Section 39(3) of the Act. Even though the AO originally completed assessment for year 2001-02 by determining net loss at Rs. 5,98,150, the said assessment was reop...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Fisherman Welfare Fund Board Vs. Kunjan Divakaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT610
A.K. Basheer, J.1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing appellant No.1 to reconsider the request of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 for financial assistance for medical treatment.2. Respondent No.1 is admittedly a fisherman and a member registered under the Kerala Fisherman Welfare Fund Board. He is afflicted with Rheumatoid Arthritis and has lost vision in his right eye. It was further averred by respondent No. 1 in the Writ Petition that he had got only partial vision in his left eye. According to respondent No. 1, he had made several requests to the Board for financial assistance. Ultimately, he had approached the Kerala Human Rights Commission for appropriate direction to the Board to grant him assistance. By order dated February 8, 2002, the Human Rights Commission had directed respondent No. 1 to submit an application to the Board for financial assistance and the Board in turn was directed to consider the application expediti...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanan Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT1014
K.K. Denesan, J.1. The petitioner belongs to the cadre of Industries Extension Officer. The next higher post of Industries Extension Officer is Assistant District Industries Officer. The latter post is a selection post. Therefore, the Department Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) has to prepare a select list of persons eligible to be included for each year for promotion to the post of Assistant District Industries Officer. Ext.P-1 select list was published for the year 2002. Petitioner's name was included in that list as serial No. 12. However, petitioner was not promoted from that list. May be for the reason that sufficient number of vacancies did not actually arise in the year 2002. In the select list prepared for the year 2003, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P-2 along with the Writ Petition, petitioner's name was not included. Against his non-inclusion, he filed objection before the departmental authorities. While so, Ext.P-3 revised list of Industries Extension Officers, entitled for...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Chitharanjan Vs. P.M. Kunhunni and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4434
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. I do not find any justification for invoking this Court's revisional jurisdiction on the order passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode and confirmed by the District Judge, Kozhikode under which the Subordinate Judge and the District Judge have concurrently concluded that there is no warrant for initiation of criminal proceedings against the second respondent in the C.R.P., a lady by name P. M. Valsala.2. The allegation or rather the accusation of the revision petitioner is that the second respondent, Smt. P. M. Valsala impersonated for the first respondent in A. S. No. 165/97, one P.M. Kunhunni and filed a counter-statement before the Sub Court in I. A. No. 4308/01. Ext. P. 1 produced along with the revision petitioner is the certified photostat copy of the controversial counter statement. Pages 1 and 2 of Ext. P1 bears the signatures of Smt. P. M. Valsala, who is none other than the mother of Sri P.M. Kunhunni, the 1st counter petitioner in I....
Tag this Judgment!Komalam Vs. Radhakrishnan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT577
K. Thankappan, J.1. The petitioner -- wife of the third respondent is the applicant in E.A.No. 1357 of 2004 in E.P.No. 420 of 2004 in O.S.No. 426 of 1986 on the file of the I Additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The said suit was filed by the third respondent herein for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff.2. The petitioner filed O.S.No. 94 of 1986 before the same Court claiming that the plaint schedule property mentioned in O.S.No. 426 of 1986 was purchased by the third respondent with her funds and hence she is entitled for possession of the plaint schedule property. The Trial Court allowed the suit filed by the third respondent and dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner. Against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 94 of 1986, the petitioner filed A.S. No. 46 of 1999 which also ended in dismissal. The petitioner then filed R.S.A. No. 1192 of 2004 and this Court dismissed t...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Devan Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2220
Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. These three writ petitions have been filed as pro bona publico seeking action against Mr. P.K. Kunhalikutty who was a Cabinet Minister in the present Government till first week of January of this year, but later resigned. He is the 2nd respondent in W.P. (c) No. 33821/2004, 1st respondent in W.P. (c) No. 34015/2004 and 4th respondent in W.P. (c) No. 34301/2004. Allegations are common to him to the effect that he is involved in the offences committed under Crime No. 282/ 1997 of Nadakavu Police Station, Kozhikode. The above crime was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by Anweshi Women's Counseling Centre alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 361, 366(A) and 377 of the Indian Penal Code.2. One Ms. Sreedevi was alleged to be running commercial sex centre under the guise of running an ice cream parlor. Now, it is famously called as 'Ice cream parlor sex scandal'. No others were specifically named except the above lady and basing upon t...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavsingh D. Rathod Vs. Asst. Collector of Customs
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT210
J.M. James, J.1. Bhavasingh Rathod @ Bhavasinghbhai, the 4th accused in C.C.46/1992 on the file of the II Addl. Sessions Court, Ernakulam, has been found guilty under Section 20(b)(ii)(c), Section 25, Section 28, Section 29 and Section 30 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in short 'the NDPS Act' and also under Section 135A of the Customs Act, 1982, in short 'the Customs Act' and therefore was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine of rupees two lakhs, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offences under the NDPS Act, except Section 30 thereof, for which no separate sentence has been imposed; and to undergo simple imprisonment for three years, together with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default of payment of which to undergo further imprisonment for six months, for the offence under Customs Act. The substantive sentence were directed to run concurrently.2. The main contentions of the learn...
Tag this Judgment!P.P. Shylaja Vs. Premajan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: II(2005)DMC520
J.M. James, J.1. The first respondent, Premajan, is accused of having married for the second time, during the life time of his first wife, the appellant herein, P.P. Shylaja and, therefore, at the instance of the latter, a complaint has been preferred before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Aluva, as C.C. No. 99/89, under Section 494, I.P.C. Eight witnesses and two documents, Exts. P1 and P2 series were marked. The accused entered the box and examined himself as D.W. 1. Ext. D1 was marked. The learned Trial Magistrate found the accused guilty, and, therefore, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. It was challenged before the 5th Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam, Crl. A. No: 109/93. The learned Sessions Judge, as per the impugned judgment, found the evidence for the second valid marriage lacking, and, therefore, set aside the convection and sentence passed by the Trial Court, and acquitted the accused. Hence, the complainant P.P. Shylaja,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »