Kerala Court March 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.
Rev. Sr. Mary Angella Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT29
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The Apex Court vide its order dated 1-4-2003 and 12-3-2003 in Civil Appeal No. 4204 of 1984 and C.A. No. 2334/2002 directed this court to rehear the appeals in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in TMA Pai Foundation & Ors v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (2002) 8 SCC 481 and hence these appeals have been posted before us for fresh hearing in the light of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the above mentioned decision. While ordering so, the Apex Court has stated as follows:'The several questions raised in these matters are covered by the decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 317/1993 - TMA Pai Foundation & Ors. etc. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. Etc. and connected batch decided on 31st October, 2002. Since larger questions have been decided by this Court, it becomes necessary for the High Court to re-examine the matters which have been decided and which are in appeal before this Court. The orders of the High Court...
Kathrikutty Vs. Pappoo
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT63
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. These appeals are directed against the judgment in O.S.No. 1/84 granting probate at the instance of the first respondent in respect of Ext.A1 and A2 wills executed by one Mathew J. Kollamparambil. The facts of the case are as follows:2. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 1/84 filed O.P.No. 1874/79 claiming himself to be the executor in terms of Ext. A2 Will dated 16.11.78 and seeking probate in his capacity as the executor. Sri. A.A. Joseph, Advocate filed O.P. No. 1327/1980 seeking probate in respect of Ext.A1 Will dated 16.11.1972 stated to be executed by the very same testator. Respondents, the natural heirs of the unmarried testator, contested the petition contending that there was suspicious circumstances surrounding both the Wills. Consequently the petitions were converted as suit; O.S.Nos. 1/84 and 2/84. Both the suits were later consolidated and tried as O.S.1/84, where the contentions of all the parties were dealt with. The learned Single Judge granted 'probate t...
M.C. Sunil Vs. Regional Transport Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker221
Kurian Joseph, J.1. The appeals are at the instance of the same petitioner in both the writ petitions. The issue is whether the petitioner's goods carriage vehicle, bearing No. KL-9/C 2968, which has been issued a national permit as per Ext. P1 in O.P. No. 12791 of 2001 is liable to pay authorisation fee and composite fee in respect of the years covered by the period of the national permit, in case the authorisation has actually not been issued.2. The vehicle No. KL-9/C 2968 was issued national permit under Section 88(12) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 87 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and Rule 235 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The validity of the permit was from 22-11-1995 to 21-14-2000. The petitioner initially applied for authorisation in respect of ten States, as can be seen from Ext. P3, and the required authorisation fee was also paid. It is the case of the petitioner that though there was permit, owing to unavoidable circumstances, he could...
Rajappan Nair Vs. Stephen Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT345
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. W.P.(C) No. 39412 of 2003 was preferred for enforcing the order dated 23.8.2003 passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies rescinding the resolution dated 18.9.2002 passed by the Board of Directors of a Society reinstating the petitioner. Second respondent had submitted before the learned Single Judge that the order of Registrar has been appealed against before the Government. Learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition on 31.3.2004 by issuing the following directions:'The second respondent will produce a copy of this judgment before the Secretary to Government Co-operative Department along with a copy of the Writ Petition within a period of one month from today. In case there is no interim order as of now against the implementation of Ext.P2, the second respondent will implement Ext.P2 by reinstating the petitioner subject to the result of the appeal.'Second respondent Co-operative Society aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge fil...
Mohan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT119
ORDERK.P. Balachandran, J.1. Petitioner a Public Servant being a Psychiatrist in service under the State Government has sought for an order taken pursuant thereto, seeking protection of the inhibition under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The question of legal importance for consideration in the case is as to what is the alternate remedy available to the aggrieved party when the offender seeks shelter from prosecution under the bar provided in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) in the absence of a complaint filed under Section 340 Crl.P.C. by the Court concerned.3. The petitioner is the second accused in Annexure 'A' F.I.R. in Crime No. 602 of 2002 of Thalassery Police Station registered for offences under Section s 465, 466, 468 and 471 I.P.C. read with Section 34 thereof. The investigation in the case is already over and the police have submitted final report also in the case. The case has been registered also on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Thal...
Don Bosco Vs. Partech Computers Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT1003
J.M. James, J.1. The following aspects of daily importance have been raised for consideration of this Court:(i) whether notice to the respondent, accused, is necessary in an appeal, filed from the dismissal of the complaint by the Court below, when the accused did not appear at all before that Court;(ii) whether the Magistrate can dismiss a complaint and acquit the accused under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C., even when the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary before that Court; and(iii) whether the Magistrate, within the scope of Section 256 Cr.P.C, could dismiss the complaint without recording any reason for such dismissal.2. The facts show that the appellant, hereinafter referred to as the complainant filed S.T.No. 1700/2000 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kozhikode under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in short 'the Act', against respondents 1 and 2, hereinafter referred to as the accused. The first accused is a company registered under t...
S.T.S. Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(Ker)557; [2008]296ITR171(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P5 whereunder the CIT has rejected an application for waiver of penalty filed by the petitioner under Section 273A of the IT Act for the asst. yr. 1990-91. The CIT rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that the petitioner does not satisfy the conditions required for waiver namely, Section 273A(1)(b) of the IT Act. Even though counsel for the petitioner submitted that the CIT has rejected application on account of non-filing of appeal by the petitioner against penalty order, I do not think the CIT was led by the said fact because he has considered and decided the claim of waiver on merits, even though there is an observation in the order that petitioner has not chosen to file appeal against the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Moreover, on going through the assessment and penalty orders, it is seen that after failing to prove cash credit in the name of one Sukumaran the petitioner later chang...
S.T.S. Enterprises Vs. Assstt. Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: (2006)198CTR(Ker)557
C.N. Ramachawdran Nair, J.The petitioner is challenging Ext. P5 whereunder the Commissioner has rejected an application for waiver of penalty filed by the petitioner under section 273A of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1990-91. The Commissioner rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that the petitioner does not satisfy the conditions required for waiver namely, section 273A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. Even though counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Commissioner, has rejected application on account of non-filling of appeal by the petitioner against penalty order, I do not think the Commissioner was led by. the said fact because he has considered and decided the claim of waiver on merits, even though there is an observation in the order that petitioner has not chosen to file appeal against the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Moreover, on going through the assessment and penalty orders, it is seen that after failing to prove cash cred...
Faizal Kollali Vs. Vadakkengara Ali
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT1026
A.K. Basheer, J.1. Petitioner claims that he is a 'public spirited person' who is engaged in social and charitable activities for the unliftment of the downtrodden and rural community. He has filed this Writ Petition praying for instituting an enquiry against respondent No. 1 who has recently retired from service as a Lower Primary School Teacher. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 1 had corrected his date of birth and continued in service for two years in excess of what he could have been actually entitled to. It is contended by the petitioner that respondent No. 1 had changed his date of birth from July 1, 1947 to July 1, 1949. This was done by him while he had joined Pulickal Arabic College. In fact, going by his actual date of birth, he ought to have retired from service in the year 2002; but he managed to continue till 2004. Thus he drew salary and other benefits on the basis of this alteration made in his date of birth. Therefore the petitioner prays that respondents 3 a...
Abdussalam Vs. Bhaskaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT71
ORDERM.N. Krishnan, J.1. This is a revision preferred against the judgment in R.C.No. 136 of 1997 of the I Additional District Court and Appellate Authority, Kozhikode. R.C.P.No. 151 of 1995 was filed for eviction of the petition schedule premises under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. It is the contention of the landlord that the respondent has acquired possession of a building having Assessment No. 39/439 at Bhatt Road, West Hill, Kozhikode, which is more spacious and accommodative compared to the petition schedule building and that he is conducting printing and binding works in the name and style 'Hema Printing Works'. It is further contended that as the said premises is more than reasonably sufficient to satisfy the need of the tenant, eviction may be ordered under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. The tenant would contend that Hema Printing Works is a partnership business and it is conducted in a portion of the tarwad house and that he ha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »