Kerala Court February 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.
Pradeepkumar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4577; 2005(4)KLT339
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. No suit or criminal prosecution or other proceeding shall lie against any forest official for any act done or omitted or ordered to be done, in good faith, in pursuance of the Kerala Forest Act (for short, 'the Act'), as per Section 74 read with Section 73 of the Act. So, can the proceedings initiated against a forest official, a 'Ranger', in respect of a seizure made by him be quashed under Section 482 of the Code? Is a 'Ranger' entitled to benefit of Section 197 of the Code? These are the main questions to be decided in this case.2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Petitioner is the second accused in a case pending before a Magistrate's court. The second respondent/complainant filed complaint against him and other Forest Officials on the allegation that they took away certain timber logs of Anjili timber from the Wood Industries owned by complainant etc. All relevant documents evidencing lawful purchase of timber were produced by the complainant before the o...
Sankaran Nair Vs. K.S.S.i.D. Corporation Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR803]; 2005(2)KLT245
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This Writ Petition has been placed before us on a reference made by the learned Single Judge of this Court expressing the opinion that the decision in Abdul Kareem v. Canara Bank (1991 (1) KLT 521) requires reconsideration. While holding so, learned Single Judge stated as follows:'The Classification, Control and Appeal Rules which is binding on the petitioner provides for different kinds of punishment which includes dismissal as well as recovery. As both these were imposed as part of one and the same charge according to him, this does not amount to double jeopardy. An analogy may be drawn as regards punishment under the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure which contemplate sentence in prison besides imposition of fines. The decision in Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T. Corporation v. N. Ramulu and Anr., ((1997) 11 SCC 319) also supports this view.'2. We may point out that the decision of the learned Single Judge in Abdul Kareem's case, supra (1997 (1) ...
K.R. Alloy's Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT177
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking a declaration that they are also entitled to the extension of the period of concession at the pre 1992 tariff rates and exemption from payment of electricity duty for the period during which power cut was enforced in the State of Kerala and also for a direction not to limit the concessional tariff only to those industries which have suffered 50% or more power cut during the year 1996-97.2. Petitioners submit that the Government of Kerala as part of its industrial policy had announced various concessions, incentives and invited entrepreneurs in the country to the State of Kerala for setting up their industries for the purpose of industrialisation of the State. Government had issued G.O.(Ms) 71/90/ID dated 21.5.1990 to that effect stating that the power connection would be given on completion of any project irrespective of whether a general power cut is in force or not. Further it was also stated that new units comme...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hotel Shah and Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Ker)314; [2005]275ITR195(Ker); 2005(2)KLT123
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The following question of law has been referred to this Court on an application made under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax.'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the building tax paid Rs. 1,98,609/- under the Kerala Building Tax Act is allowable business expenditure under Section 30(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?'Applicant claimed a sum of Rs. 1,98,609/- paid as building tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act as allowable business expenditure. Assessing authority did not accept the claim and took the view that the building tax paid under the Kerala Building Tax Act was incurred for bringing a capital asset into existence and is not an expenditure incurred for earning income. Assessee took up the matter before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who held that the building tax is allowable under Section 30(b) of the Income ...
Ray Constructions Ltd. Vs. Intelligence Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT436; [2005]142STC323(Ker)
P.R. Raman, J.1. Petitioner is a Public Limited Company engaged in the business of execution of works contract. He is also an assessee under the Sales Tax Act coming within the jurisdiction of the third respondent. Towards the execution of the work under taken by the petitioner at Air Cargo Complex, Karipur, Kozhikode, he hired an excavator belonging to one of its sister concerns, M/s. Ray Constructions, a partnership firm having its head office at Bombay. The said sister concern is also a Sub Contractor for the construction of some road works for the Indian Institute of Management, Kozhikode. The excavator in question was brought from Bombay belonging to the sister concern. After using the excavator at Karipur by the petitioner who was in the process of transport from Karipur to Kunnamangalam. For Return of the said excavator to his sister concern that the said excavator was carried in a trailer lorry bearing Reg. No. KA.08/777. While the said trailer reached near Kozhikode, the Intel...
Askar Ali Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT528
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2554/2005 was appointed as Headmaster of the Viswavidyalayam U.P.School, Chennara by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2938/2005, the Manager of the said school. In doing so, Sri.George George, who is the 5th respondent in W.P.(C) No. 2938/2005 (6th respondent in W.P.(C) No. 2554/2005) was proposed to be superseded.2. The appointment of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2554/2005 in preference to Sri.George George as Headmaster will admittedly be against Rule 45 in Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (the 'Rules' for short), since Sri. George George, who is a graduate with B.Ed., is admittedly the candidate to be preferred in accordance with the Rules, over the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2554/2005, whose qualification is S.S.L.C. with T.T.C. and, therefore, only a non-graduate teacher (See Karunakaran v. D.E.O., Badagara and Ors. (1976 KLN 51) and Akkarishetty v. Manager, S.R.A.U.P. School (ILR 1978 (2) Ker.14)).3. The Manag...
Annai Jayabharathi Vs. Debt Recovery Tribunal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker137; III(2005)BC365; [2005]126CompCas888(Ker); 2005(1)KLT921
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. At issue, is the power of the Debts Recovery Tribunal to order impounding of Passport of the defendant facing the claim for recovery of debt by the Bank/Financial institution2. The appellant is the unsuccessful writ petitioner challenging the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short 'the DRT') in ordering impounding of her passport. Other persons against whom such impounding has been made are not parties before this Court, and, as such, we need to confine the adjudication only in respect of the appellant.3. Mr. C. Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel, submits that when a question of law has been raised before the learned Single Judge regarding the power and jurisdiction of the DRT in ordering impounding of passport, the learned Single Judge ought to have decided the same instead of relegating the appellant to the DRT.4. The appellant, along with others, raised loans from the second respondent - Bank in connection with her business of partnership firm of w...
Powrasamithi Vs. Rajan Thattil
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT927
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. This is a pro bono publico seeking writs of quo warranto, certiorari and mandamus against the first respondent who is now working as the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mattannur of Kannur District of Kerala State.2. The petitioner claims to be a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and functioning for getting justice and assisting the organisation of legal literacy classes and similar welfare activities, having its area of operation over the entire State of Kerala. It is stated that in Malayalam daily newspapers, there were news items published against the conduct of the first respondent not benefitting the status of a Judicial Officer and that he had been guilty of misconduct and also of wilful suppression of his antecedents relating to disputes inter se himself and his wife leading to dissolution of marriage and sufferance of a decree for maintenance, apart from facing criminal prosecution. On the ground of said wilful suppressi...
Meenachil Co-op. Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. Vs. K.S. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker189; [2006]132CompCas358(Ker); 2005(1)KLT992
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J. 1. Two different financiers are fighting over their priorities in recovering the amounts from their respective debtors. The priority of the first respondent, who was the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge, was upheld over the one claimed by the appellant herein. The appellant is a registered co-operative society doing banking business. It is governed by the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The first respondent is the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. running Chitties. Respondents 4 and 5 were the subscribers of two Kuries in Chitty No. 2/1994 having a sale of Rs. 5 lakhs each and were assigned Chittal Nos. 30 and 25 respectively. During 1994, the Kuries were prized and for the purpose of release of the prize money, an equitable mortgage was created on 4.7.1994 by depositing title deeds of an extent of Ac.2.98 cents of land in Survey No. 328/3 of Thalappalam village of Meenachil Taluk of Kottayam District. The amounts so realized were receiv...
Baburaj Vs. Government of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT451
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner and the third respondent were appointed as P.D. teachers (Tamil) in Government service. As per Ext.P6 order dated 29.10.1993, the service of the petitioner was regularised with effect from 7.6.1993 and that of the third respondent with effect from 8.6.1993, the respective dates on which they joined duty.2. The third respondent was working in the Govt. U.P.School, Elappara when a vacancy of Headmaster arose in the Govt.U.P.School, Vandiperiyar during the academic year 2004-2005. The petitioner was then and is even now working in the Government U.P.School, Pampanar.3. Vandiperiyar in Peerumedu Taluk in Idukki District is identified as a local area with more than 15% of the population speaking Tamil.4. In terms of Rule 9(d) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (hereinafter called 'the general Rules'), notwithstanding anything contained in the General Rules or the Special Rules, if and when a vacancy arises in a post...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »