Kerala Court March 2005 Judgments
Sathy M. Pillai Vs. Sarma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2814; 2005(2)KLT954
ORDERK.P. Balachandran, J.1. The petitioners in the former Criminal M.C. filed under Section 482 Crl.P.C. to quash Annexure-III private complaint are the accused therein. The said complaint is one filed by the first respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate No. 1, Attingal complaining of commission by the petitioners of offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 304 and 201 I.P.C. read with Section 34 thereof. The petitioners 1, 2 and 4 in the former Crl.M.C. are the petitioners in the latter Crl.M.C. filed under Section 482 Crl.P.C. wherein Annexure-II final report and. proceedings pursuant thereto are sought to be got quashed. The said Annexure-II final report is charge sheeting the petitioners for offences under Sections 120B, 304A, 465, and 468 I.P.C. read with Section 34 thereof. According to them Annexure-III private complaint in the former Crl.M.C. and Annexure-II final report in the latter Crl.M.C. are liable to be quashed invoking power of this Court under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Susmitha Mohan Vs. Rajesh
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT88
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. Petitioners in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are the respondents in Ext.P1 Original Petition presently pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam, at the instance of the respondent under Section 7, 12 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 for guardianship and custody of a minor child. The writ petitioners are respectively the mother, the material grandfather and the maternal grandmother of the child. The 1st writ petitioner and the minor child are presently residing at Bangalore and the child is being educated there. A preliminary objection was raised by the 1st petitioner before the Family Court on the basis of the documents Exts.P3 to P10 produced along with the Writ Petition that the Family Court does not have territorial jurisdiction in terms of Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act to entertain Ext.P1 O.P. According to the writ petitioners, a similar objection...
Tag this Judgment!Baijunath Vs. Station House Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT253
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. These Criminal Revision Petitions and Crl.M.C. No. 2605 of 2003 are filed challenging a common order passed by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kozhikode dismissing five Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions filed by accused Nos. 4, 6 to 12 and 14 to 16 in S.C.No. 124 of 2002 on the file of that Court contending that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against them and hence they may be discharged under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Crl.R.P. No. 661 of 2003 is filed by the 14th accused in the case. He along with the 11th accused filed Crl.M.P. No. 171 of 2002 praying that he may be discharged. Crl.R.P. No. 782 of 2003 is filed by accused No. 7. A7 to A10 filed Crl.M.P. No. 198 of 2002 for the very same relief. Crl.R.P. No. 865 of 2003 is filed by the 8th accused in Crl.M.P.No. 198 of 2002. Crl.R.P.No. 938 of 2003 is filed by the 5th accused. Though he had not filed any petition for discharge, he has filed the Criminal Revis...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Premier Breweries Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-2005
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Ker)496; [2005]279ITR51(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Actg. C.J. 1. Tribunal, Cochin Bench, on a direction given by this Court in OP No. 3740 of 1996, referred several questions under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, arising out of the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 874/Coch/1993, for the opinion of this Court which we have reframed and stated in para 6 of this judgment.2. Assessee is involved in the business of manufacture and sale of beer. It follows the mercantile system of accounting. It filed return of income for the asst. yr. 1990-91, declaring a total income of Rs. 56,14,990. On going through the accounts, it was noticed that the assessee had claimed Rs. 59,85,644 as marketing expenses and service charges. At the same time, expenditure under the same head for the period relevant for asst. yr. 1989-90 claimed was Rs. 60,750. Due to abnormal increase in the item of expenditure, the assessee was directed to furnish a detailed break up of the amount. Following are the details submitted by the assessee. Rs.1. Service ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Janatha Cashew Exporting Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-2005
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Ker)117; [2005]278ITR327(Ker); 2005(3)KLT883
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Actg. C.J.1. Whether turnover on sales to export house undertaken by the assessee as a supporting manufacturer be included in the 'export turnover' for the purpose of computation of deduction under the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961, is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. Assessee is a cashew exporter who had made direct and indirect exports for the asst. yr. 1992-93 and claimed total deduction of an amount of Rs. 97,54,515 under Section 80HHC (1) and (1A) of the IT Act, 1961. The AO granted separate deductions under Section 80HHC(1) and 80HHC(1A) in respect of both direct and indirect exports totalling an amount of Rs. 91,10,306 as against the claim of Rs. 97,54,515; while granting deduction under the proviso to Section 80HHC(3), the AO excluded sales to export houses from 'export turnover' and reworked relief at Rs. 12,63,532. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee took up the matter before the CIT(A). Th...
Tag this Judgment!Vakkom Purushothaman Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3166; 2005(2)KLT895
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The petitioner is the Finance Minister of State of Kerala. He was the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Kerala till 4.9.2004. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext.P-6 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram in C.M.P.No. 3157 of 2003 and Ext.P-7 summons issued to the petitioner.2. The second respondent filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram as C.M.P.No. 3157 of 2003 arraying Sri. A.K. Antony, the then Chief Minister and Sri. Oommen Chandy, the present Chief Minister describing him as the Convenor of United Democratic Front (as he then was). It was alleged that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 465 and 468 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the accused fabricated a Fax Message purporting to be one issued by Sri. Ahammed Patel, General Secretary of All India Congress Committee to the Speaker of Legislative Assembly...
Tag this Judgment!Pootholi Damodaran Nair Vs. Babu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT707
K.R. Udayabhanu, J.1. The Writ Petitioner, who is the defendant in O.S.No. 210/02, the suit instituted for realisation of amounts as per cheque issued has sought to quash the order of the Munsiff declining his request to have the magnetic tape that he has produced, played in the open Court. The conversations he had with the plaintiff on the alleged date of the transaction involving the handing over of the disputed cheque is fully recorded in the cassette, he claims. The suit based on a loan transaction is contested by the defendant alleging that the cheque happened to be transmitted on account of the deception and subterfuge perpetrated by the plaintiff to secure a job as Conductor in the K.S.R.T.C. for the son of the defendant. The plaintiff had made him believe that he has got close contacts at the Cabinet level and that only on payment of Rs. 1,75,000/-, the assignment would materialise. The defendant paid Rs. 1,25,000/- in cash and for the balance, a cheque for Rs. 50,000/- was iss...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Babu Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT759
R. Basant, J.1. Challenge is raised by the petitioners in these Writ Petitions against the amendments to the Kerala Liquor Transit Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Rules 3 and 5 of the Rules were amended by Ext.P7 notification dated 3.2.2005. I extract below the amended rule showing particularly the nature of the amendment.Rule 3: Permit for transit of liquor:No liquor shall be allowed to be moved from one place in a State to another place in that State through the territory of the State of Kerala except under a permit issued by the Assistant Excise Commissioner of the Division through whose jurisdiction it is proposed to be moved.Provided that when liquor has to be moved through more than one Excise Division, the permit shall be issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise and when liquor has to be moved through more than one Excise Zone by the Excise Commissioner. 'Provided further that when liquor has to be moved through the State of Kerala to Mahe the permit sha...
Tag this Judgment!Varkey Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT468
M. Ramachandran, J.1. Government Order dated 17.2.2004 and the follow up order passed by the Government, on an application for review thereof, dated 31.7.2004, marked as Exts.P3 and P6 in W.P. (C) No. 25418 of 2004 are respectively marked as Exts. P8 and P10 in W.P.(C) No. 26399 of 2004. Mr. P.V. Varkey, a teacher working in the Sacred Heart Orphanage High School, Mookkannur, is the petitioner in the earlier Writ Petition. The school management is the 5th respondent therein. The Manager is the petitioner in the later proceedings, wherein Mr. P.V. Varkey is the 5th respondent. Taking notice of the circumstance that an interim order had been passed in the Writ Petition filed by the management, there was urgency shown by the teacher concerned to get the Writ Petitions disposed of. The effort of the teacher was to see that the orders, referred to earlier, were implemented and the attempt of the school management was to establish that such orders had been passed in violation of law, and des...
Tag this Judgment!Saithu Vs. Thahira
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT363
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. This Rent Control Revision is filed by the respondents in R.C.P. No. 149 of 1995 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kannur. The R.C.P. was filed under Sections 11(2)(a)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Rent Control Court dismissed the petition while the Appellate Authority reversed the order of the Rent Control Court and granted eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act.2. The contention of the landlord in the Rent Control Petition is as follows. The petition schedule building belonged to the petitioner's father under whom the husband of the 1st respondent and father of respondents 2 to 9 was a tenant as per the rent deed dated 26.4.1972. The petitioner's father gifted the property with the building in favour of the petitioner in 1979. The tenant attorned to the petitioner and paid rent to her. The rent is paid only upto 23.1.1995 and thereafter it was kept in arrears. The petitioner is in need of the petition schedu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »