Kerala Court February 2005 Judgments
themma Vs. Infant Jesus Church
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT296
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 857 of 1987 of the Sub Court Ernakulam. The suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff. The facts of the case are as follows:2. The appellant is the additional third plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed by late Alexander Palathinkal and his son for specific performance of the agreement, Ext.A5, dated 5.3.1984 entered into by the said Alexander Palathinkal and his son with the first defendant - Church represented by its Vicar and Trustees. As per the agreement, respondents 1 to 8 herein had agreed to convey the plaint schedule property for a total consideration of Rs. 3,47,500/-. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid as advance. As per the agreement, the sale was to be effected on or before 5.9.1984. The plaintiffs have always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The suit was necessitated on the failure of the re...
Tag this Judgment!Cherupushpam Hospital Trust Vs. Pala Municipality
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker178; 2005(2)KLT234
A.K. Basheer, J.1. Is a hospital run by a Charitable Trust entitled to get exemption from payment of property tax leviable under Section 235 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994? The learned Single Judge answered the question in the negative holding that the appellant would not come under any one of the exempted categories enumerated in the above statutory provision. This Writ Appeal is directed against the above judgment. 2. The appellant is a registered Charitable Trust. It is running Cherupushpam Charitable Hospital at Palai in Kottayam District. The appellant was admittedly exempted from payment of tax by virtue of Section 101 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1960, the predecessor of Act 1994. It is not necessary to go into the details of the assessment proceedings which were initiated by the Municipality after enactment of Act 1994 in view of the primary issue to be decided in this appeal. Suffice it to say that the appellant was found liable to pay property tax at the rate of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Prasannan Vs. Haris
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT365
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Can a legatee under the Will claim the status of a tenant if he is also one of the legal heirs, can a heir of the statutory tenant claim all the benefits entitled to the statutory tenants, what are the effect of subsequent events in a Rent Control Petition under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short 'the Act') etc. are some of the questions to be decided in this case. Before dealing with the above issues, we may, briefly, narrate the facts. R.C.P. No. 103 of 1986 was filed by the first respondent herein seeking eviction of the petition schedule building contending that no rent was paid from October, 1965, and therefore, tenant is liable to be evicted under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. It was also contended that first respondent herein was employed in Saudi Arabia and his future in Saudi Arabia was uncertain. Since his employment would be terminated at any time, he wanted to start a garment business in the petition schedule building. He had necess...
Tag this Judgment!Sudarsanan Sen Vs. Sudarasanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: II(2005)DMC433; 2005(3)KLT178
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. Petitioner in an Original Petition under Section 9(4) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 read with Section 13(1) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 seeks revision of the order of the learned District Judge dismissing the Original Petition as not maintainable. The Original Petition was filed by the revision petitioner before the District Court, Kollam seeking an order of declaration that he is the adopted son of the 3rd respondent, a citizen of the United Kingdom. Petitioner's natural parents were arrayed as respondents 1 and 2 in the O.P. According to the petitioner, he was born to respondents 1 and 2 on 10.3.1983; all the parties are Hindus; the 3rd respondent is a British citizen who retired from the service of M/s. D.S.S. Long-benton of United Kingdom; the 3rd respondent's wife Smt. Vijayamma Narayanan died in the year 1965; they have no issues, the 3rd respondent did not re-marry after the demise of his wife; on 15.5.1985 the...
Tag this Judgment!CochIn Cements Ltd. Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT417
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner in O.P. No. 2948/96 has approached this Court seeking a direction to the Kerala State Electricity Board to grant exemption to the petitioners from power cut imposed vide Government Order G.O. (Rt.) No. 17/96/PD dated 2.2.1996 and also for a declaration that petitioner's industrial unit is entitled to contract demand of electricity 1600 KVA per month as agreed to be supplied by the Board. Petitioner is also challenging Ext.P6 communication from the Special Officer (Revenue) directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 51,58,948/- towards short assessment of demand charges and energy charges for the period from December 1996 December 1997 and Ext.P7 bill claiming the said amount. Common questions arise for consideration in other cases also and hence we are disposing of all these cases by a common judgment.2. Petitioner in O.P. No. 2948/96 is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of cement. Company has established a cement man...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan Namboodiri Vs. Unnikrishnan Namboodiri
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker328; 2005(3)KLT556
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The questions of law arising for consideration in these revisions are: (1) Whether the Court can invoke Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to enforce the decree for injunction and to pass an order directing delivery of the property to the decree holder from the judgment debtor who forcibly evicted the decree holder violating the decree; and (2) When a suit is withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, whether an order passed under Rule 29 of Order XXI staying the execution of the decree, would revive on filing the fresh suit2. The facts necessary for disposal of these revisions are the following: O.S. No. 853 of 1968 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Kozhikode was filed by A.P. Damodaran Namboodiri against his brother Krishnan Namboodiri and the wife and children of Krishnan Namboodiri, for a declaration that the properties purchased as per Ext.A2 document dated 31.3.1933 in the name of Krishnan Namboodiri were acq...
Tag this Judgment!Ashish Kapur Vs. Forest Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: [2005]141STC333(Ker)
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. These writ appeals raise a common point regarding the exigibility of sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The facts need not separately be stated as all the matters relate to levy of sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Act'). The appellants filed the writ appeals aggrieved by the judgments rendered by the learned single Judge repelling their contention that they are not liable to pay the sales tax under the State Act, but are liable to pay tax only under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act'). All the appellants are said to be traders in sandalwood and having sale outlets in other States than Kerala, be it in Uttar Pradesh, Delhi or Haryana and had participated in the sandalwood auction conducted by the Kerala Forest Department in which they were the highest bidders. They were not permitted to take their bid properties unless the sales tax under Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Lazarus Alosius Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC254; 2005(2)KLT604; [2006]144STC210(Ker)
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. 'Whether sales tax varies with place of business' is the question for consideration. This question has been referred to Full Bench by a reference order made by Division Bench in S.T.Rev. Nos. 312 and 313 of 2003. There are two previous judgments of this Court on this point The first is in Vilasini v. State of Kerala, 2001 (1) KLT 320 = 2001 (9) KTR 411 (Ker.). Referring to Entry 87 of Schedule I of Kerala General Sales Tax (for short 'K.G.S.T. Act'), it was held that soda is taxable in the said Entry, and, then, on a question of fact, it was held that the sales were not exigible to sales tax in the said case, as the sales tax already suffered and being single point tax, second sales were held to be not liable to tax. There were no arguments that soda is not traceable to Entry 87, but taking that the above case laid down a proposition that sale of soda in Bar attached hotels attracts sales tax in Entry 87, another Division Bench, in T.R.C. No. 99 of 1999 held ...
Tag this Judgment!Baby Mathew Vs. G.C.D.A.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT39
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether a land owner who had surrendered land on the basis of an agreement entered into between him and the requisition authority and the compensation amount received in pursuance of the award passed under Section 16 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act is entitled to get the benefit of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1994.2. Sri. T.P. Mathew was the owner of 71 cents of land in survey number 1013/1 of Ernakulam village. The Greater Cochin Development Authority (in short, 'GCDA') for the purpose of Elamkulam West Extension Scheme, wanted to acquire the said property. Notification under Section 3(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 21.11.1978. Secretary of the GCDA and late Mathew entered into an agreement on 20.2.1979 by which price of the property was agreed. It was also agreed that the land owner would hand over possession of the property in advance and GCDA would pay 50% of the price at the time of taking possession and the balance within one...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Roy
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR1138]; 2005(2)KLT63
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. To err is human; to correct an error is also human. Due to an error in the Divisional Office, respondent was paid cash incentive contrary to the guidelines issued by the General Insurance Company of India. Provisions of the guidelines stipulated that extension of notional credit cannot be taken into account for computation of development incentive. Relevant provision of the guidelines issued by the General Insurance Corporation of India is extracted below.'It should be abundantly clear that extension of aforesaid notional business credit shall not be taken into account for computation of development incentive at the servicing Do'.Due to mistake in the office of the United India Insurance Company, benefit was extended to the writ petitioner for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96. When the mistake was noticed at the Head Office, Head Office instructed the Divisional Office to recover the excess amount paid to the respondent herein. Petitioner was then served with the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »