Kerala Court February 2005 Judgments
Balakrishnan Nair Vs. Government of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker223; 2005(2)KLT485
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This matter has been placed before us on a reference made by the learned Single Judge.2. The question is with regard to the interpretation of Section 5(1) of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 which prohibits cutting of trees in the notified area. Contention was raised by the petitioner laying stress on the expression 'tree growth' stating that what is envisaged in Section 5(1) is only wild growth and not the trees planted by the petitioner. Counsel submitted Section 5 of the Act enables the Government to issue notification only to preserve tree growth in private forests, or in the Cardamom Hills reserve or in any other areas cultivated with Cardamom and that the words 'tree growth' refers only to wild growth and not plantations. Learned Single Judge felt that on the above question an authoritative pronouncement is warranted.3. We heard Senior Counsel Sri.P.N.K. Achan as well as Special Government Pleader for Forests Smt. Susheela Bhat.O.P.No. 14224 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Reliance Generators (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT573; [2005]141STC82(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner is engaged in the business of supplying, installing, testing and commissioning of Diesel Generating Sets. Petitioner is registered as a non-resident dealer with the Sales Tax Officer, Works Contract, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner has filed returns under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and has been assessed accordingly. Petitioner is aggrieved by the notification SRO No. 949/2002 by which Government have decided to withdraw the exemption granted to various items including generator in respect of tax payable under Section 3 of the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994 by dealers who are registered under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 on which they are paying sales tax under Section 5 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Notification SRO No. 949/02 according to the petitioner, is unconstitutional, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 301, 303 and 304 of the Constitution of India.2. Petitioner has under...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Western India Cottons Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT294
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The Electricity Board is the appellant. There was an arbitration between the appellant and the respondent. The arbitrator passed an award. This was sought to be converted as a decree by the first respondent. In this proceedings the Electricity Board filed an objection alleging misconduct and lack of jurisdiction of the arbitrator and seeking to set it aside the award. Contentions from either side were considered and a decree was passed, in terms of award. It is under challenge in this appeal.2. It is contended by the appellant that neither the arbitrator nor the Court below appreciated the contention of the appellant that the arbitrator did not have jurisdiction to entertain the claims in terms of Section 76 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 which has been duly referred to in Clause 26 of Ext.A-76(a) agreement. Section 76 of the Act enables arbitration, only if such claims are required to be referred to arbitration. None of the claims comes within the purview ...
Tag this Judgment!Edayanal Constructions and anr. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Ker)343; [2007]288ITR134(Ker)
M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Revision petitioners were accused in CC No. 179 of 1988 on the file of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. They were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 7,500 and in default rigorous imprisonment for one month each for each of the offences under Sections 276C(1)(ii) and 277(ii) of IT Act. Petitioners challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Emakulam in Crl. Appeal No. 105 of 1992. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal, which is challenged in the revision.2. First respondent is the ITO, the complainant in the case. First petitioner is a partnership firm and the second petitioner is its managing partner. They submitted a return of income for assessment for the year 1984-85. It was verified and signed by the managing partner, second petitioner. Along with the return, P&L; a/c and balance sheet were al...
Tag this Judgment!Edayanal Constructions Vs. Ito
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: [2006]153TAXMAN65(Ker)
ORDERBy the Court 1. Revision petitioners were accused in C.C. 179/88 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. They were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 7,500 and in default rigorous imprisonment for one month each for each of the offences under sections 276C(1)(ii) and 277(ii) of Income Tax Act. Petitioners challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Ernakularn in Crl. A. 105/92. The learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal, which is challenged in the revision.2. First respondent is the Income Tax Officer, the Complainant in the case.3. First petitioner is a partnership firm and the second petitioner is its Managing Partner. They submitted a return of income for assessment for the year 1984-85. It was verified and signed by the Managing Partner, second petitioner. Along with the return, profit and loss account ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Sageer Vs. Prakash Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT400
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. He challenges the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under Section 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The landlord contended that the petition schedule building was purchased by him as per Document No. 2381/1994 of the Sub Registrar Office, Ernakulam from Pradeep P. Thomas. The tenant was duly informed about the transfer of ownership. The tenant is occupying the building from May 1, 1993 onwards as per the agreement, wherein there is a stipulation that the tenant shall not sublease the building. In contravention of the stipulation against subletting, the tenant sublet a portion of the petition schedule building to Punnoose Mathew for running a public telephone booth. The landlord came to know of the subletting only in December, 1998. Another portion of the building was sublet to Sheriff to run real estate business an...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Narayanan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT501
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. This is an appeal by the State assailing the award of the Land Acquisition Court.2. The respondent/claimant did not initially seek a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'). Therefore, his case was not referred to the Civil Court. Later, he came to know that the owner of the adjoining land which was acquired under the same notification had sought for reference under Section 18. His case was referred as L.A.R.No. 40/86. The Court later awarded enhanced land value and enhanced value for the improvements. Thereupon, the respondent/claimant moved the collector filing an application under Section 28A(I) of the Act. There was no action on the part of the collector. The respondent, therefore, moved this Court and obtained a direction for consideration of his application under Section 28A(I) of the Act. The Collector, thereupon, considered the application and passed an award redetermining the compensation and awarded a sum of R...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Debt Recovery Tribunal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-2005
Reported in: [2005]127CompCas873(Ker); 2005(3)KLT73
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner is a nationalized Bank to which an amount of Rs. 6.94 lakhs is due from the 8th respondent in O.A.No. 66 of 2004 filed by the second respondent before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. According to the petitioner the application filed by it under Section 19(2) of the Recovery Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, hereinafter called the 'Act', is returned by the Registrar of DRT on the ground that application is not maintainable by virtue of Section 1(4) of the Act, as the claim amount is less than Rs. 10 lakhs. Another objection raised for declining the application is that the petitioner is already impleaded in O.A.No. 66 of 2004 filed by the second respondent herein as additional 9th respondent. Eventhough appeal against rejection of application by the Registrar of the DRT is maintainable before the DRT under Rule 5 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1993, petitioner has approached this Court to avoid delay a...
Tag this Judgment!Mrf Ltd. Vs. K.S.E.B.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker164; 2005(2)KLT230
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. They had entered into the agreement Ext.Pl dated 6.10.1993 by which the K.S.E.Board had assured uninterrupted and firm supply of electricity subject to certain terms and conditions agreed to therein. Agreement has also referred to the Government Order dated 6.2.1992 which was adopted by the Board providing for special concessional tariff to industries undertaking expansion or diversification and also the order dated 13.4.1993 issued by the Government of Kerala in consultation with the Board the petitioner would be eligible for the special concessional tariff for 5 years from the date of commercial production. It was in pursuance of the agreement Ext.Pl the Board issued proceedings dated 23.2.1998 declaring that the petitioner shall be entitled to special concessional tariff in electricity consumed for its expanded and diversified portion.2. Petitioner submitted that acting on the offers and promises ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC480; 2000CriLJ1199; 2005(2)KLT344
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J. 1. Complainant in C.M.P. Nos. 2628/04, 2631/04, 2629/04 and 2630/04 is the revision petitioner. Respective petitions were filed to condone delay in lodging complaint. The complaint was filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act. All petitions were dismissed by the Court below as per separate orders on the ground that petitioner was absent and no steps were taken to issue notice to accused. It is seen from the order itself that revision petitioner was represented by a counsel though complainant was absent. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner contended that accused has no right to be heard before cognizance of the offence was taken. Argument is that as delay has to be condoned before taking cognizance, accused cannot be heard at the pre-cognizance stage. I cannot agree with the submission. In a complaint filed for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, it may not be proper to deny opportunity to the accused to defend the case on the ground of delay which ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »