Kerala Court February 2005 Judgments
Krishnan Moopan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT700
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Revision petitioner was the accused in C.C.No. 84/90 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Cherthala. The charge was for the offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner was acquitted. While acquitting the learned Magistrate directed 2nd respondent, Sub Inspector who had arrested the petitioner and registered the crime to show cause why compensation shall not be paid under Section 250 of Cr.P.C. Second respondent showed cause in M.C.No. 21/93. But he was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3000/-. Second respondent challenged the order in Cr.A.No. 144/93 before Sessions Court, Alappuzha. Learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Magistrate. Accused is challenging that order in the revision contending that he was not heard by the learned Sessions Judge and even if there was any illegality or irregularity, learned Sessions Judge should have remitted the case back to the Magistrate and should not have ...
Tag this Judgment!Merchandisers (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT381; [2005]142STC43(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. A Division Bench of this Court after hearing T.R.C. No. 336 of 2000 referred the case for decision by a Full Bench as it felt that the questions raised by the petitioner are of such importance that it should be decided by a Full Bench. In fact the Tribunal decided the case based on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Deputy Commissioner v. A.V. George & Co. Ltd., T.R.C. No. 105 of 1998 reported in (2001) 9 KTR 107 the correctness of which was canvassed by the petitioner, which appears to be the reason why reference was made by the Division Bench. Since the questions raised in S.T.Rev. Nos.6 and 8 of 2004 are the same, as in T.R.C. No. 336 of 2000, those cases are clubbed together and posted for disposal along with the referred T.R.C. Eventhough several questions are raised in the T.R.Cs. there is only one issue to be decided which is petitioners eligibility for exemption from turnover tax on the purchase turnover of rubber effected as agents for outs...
Tag this Judgment!Shoba Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT431
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The petitioner is an unmarried daughter of deceased K. Narayanan, a Freedom Fighter. She claims that as a freedom fighter her late father was entitled to get Freedom Fighters' Pension under the State and Central Schemes for Freedom Fighters' Pension. The petitioner submits that her father late Narayanan was accused in case PE No. 8/1122 before the Special Magistrate Court, Alappuzha for participating in the Punnapra- Vayalar struggle. An arrest warrant was issued against him and he was declared as a proclaimed offender and he went underground for one year from October, 1946 to November, 1947. He was given State Freedom Fighters' Pension in 1986 considering his participation in the struggle and consequent underground suffering. He died in 1994. Thereafter his wife was receiving the pension. On her death in the year 1996 the petitioner is getting the State Pension as per Ext.P-2. The Central Government has recognised the Punnapra-Vayalar struggle as a, freedom struggl...
Tag this Judgment!Rasheed Vs. Saji Basheer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1638; 2005(2)KLT106
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J. 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act. Appeal has not been numbered by the Registry raising objections regarding maintainability. That is how the matter came up before the Court when the appellant reiterated his stand that Writ Appeal is maintainable under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act. The above provision reads thus:5. Appeal from judgment or order of Single Judge:-- An appeal shall lie to a Bench of two Judges from - (i) a judgment or order of a Single Judge in the exercise of original jurisdiction; or(ii) a judgment of a Single Judge in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of original jurisdiction by a Subordinate Court'.2. By bare reading it is no doubt sounds that appeal is maintainable against any judgment or order of a Single Judge in the exercise of original jurisdiction under Section 5(i). But that is a general provision. Question is whether the contemp...
Tag this Judgment!Francis Mathew Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-2005
Reported in: I(2007)BC515; 2005(3)KLT288
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Accused in C.C.No. 838/99 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-1, Aluva is the revision petitioner. Second respondent was the complainant. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and compensation of Rs. 80,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Petitioner challenged conviction and sentence before Additional Sessions Judge, North Paravur in Crl. A.No. 590/03. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after analysing and re-appraising the evidence confirmed conviction and sentence and dismissed appeal. Petitioner has preferred this revision from jail. Advocate Krishna Kumar was appointed as State Brief.2. Case of second respondent was that petitioner promising to secure a job for Rasheed, brother of PW.1, in Premier Tyres Ltd., Kalamassery obtained Rs. 80,000/-and when he failed to arrange job second respondent demanded back the amount and then petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Antony Vs. P.S. Rana
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT120
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. Can a review lie in contempt cases is the question for consideration. R.P. Nos. 947 and 948 of 2004 have been filed to review the orders passed in Contempt Case Nos. 854/2004 and 807/2003. We need not enter the facts as the extra thing revolves around the maintainability of review against an order discharging the contemnors.2. Under Rule 6 of the Contempt of Court Rules framed by the Kerala High Court including the explanation added in 2001, a contempt case filed before the Single Judge is to examine as to whether there exists a prima facie case for referring the case to a Division Bench or to drop the case in limine. If the learned Single Judge finds a prima facie case for the contemnor being tried, then he has to refer the matter to a Division Bench. In these two cases, the learned Single Judge found that there was a prima facie case and then referred the matter to Division Bench.3. Having perused the pleadings and considering the contentions raised and hav...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Motison's International
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT499
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This Original Petition has been filed by the Commissioner of Customs to require the Appellate Tribunal to refer the question as to whether the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Review Cell) is entitled to file a reference application under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Request for reference was made by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Review Cell) before the Tribunal by invoking the powers under Section 130 of the Act against the final order of the Tribunal in Order No. 2213 to 2216/97 dated 13.8.1997.2. Preliminary objection was raised by the respondent herein before the Tribunal regarding the maintainability of the reference application made by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. Placing reliance on various decision rendered by the Tribunal in CCE v. Indian Oil Corporation (1985 (20) ELT 368), CCE v. Air Conditioning Corporation Ltd. (1994 (70) ELT 405), CEE v. Kehsarwani Zarda Bhandar (1995 (75) ELT 651), the Tribunal concluded that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Biju Ramesh Vs. Vijayakumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker196; 2005(2)KLT960
V. Ramkumar, J.1. The 2nd defendant and additional 3rd defendant (who are assignees from defendants 1 and 4 respectively) in O.S.No. l 14/1984 on the file of the Prl. Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, are the appellants in this appeal. The said suit was one for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's one half share over the plaint A, B and C schedule properties. The plaint A schedule property is 20 cents of land with a building situated thereon called 'Grace Lodge' comprised in Chengazhassery Village of Thiruvananthapuram District. The plaint B schedule property is 40 cents of land with a building thereon situated in Cheruvakkal Village of Thiruvananthapuram District. The plaint C schedule is a 1971 model Fiat motor car bearing registration No. KLV 5422.2. The case of the plaintiff can be summarised as follows:The plaint A, B and C schedule properties belonged to late Johnstone who died on 2.7.1981. The 1st defendant is his widow and the plaintiff is their son. Johnstone was ...
Tag this Judgment!Sajitha Vs. Competent Authority
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3255; 2005(3)KLT637
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. First petitioner Sajitha is the wife of V.H. Subair, detenu No. 739 who had undergone imprisonment under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, in short COFEPOSA. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the brothers of the detenu. They have approached this court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P7 order issued by the Competent Authority under Section 7(1) of Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, in short SAFEMFOPA, and Ext. P8 order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeiture of Property, New Delhi and also for other consequential reliefs.2. Petitioner has answered the description of a person within the meaning of Section 2(2)(c) read with Explanation (ii) thereto of SAFEMFOPA. Consequently proceedings under the Act were initiated against all the aforesaid persons after issuing separate notices under Section 6(1) of the Act dated 15.3.1988 for forfeiture of the following properties.----...
Tag this Judgment!Haries Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3314; 2005(3)KLT400
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. A bunch of anonymous letters was received by a woman. A mere glance through those letters is enough. Any reader can perceive the foul smell of the author's filthy intentions. The victim's modesty gets hurt, injured, outraged, and terribly insulted. This is only normal. Her distress would have withered away, unheard and unattended. This is also not quite unusual. But, the victim in this case happened to be a senior police official from IPS cadre. She did not choose to languish her grievances in secrecy. She got the author traced out, unmasked him and brought him before law. A charge sheet was filed against him alleging commission of certain offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short).2. Petitioner seeks to quash the charge laid against him under Section 292, 294(b) and 506(1) of IPC. The records in this case reveal mainly the following allegations: A lady police officer while working as District Superintendent of Police received some anonymous letters sent t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »