Kerala Court May 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.
Abhaya Vs. Raheem
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker233; 2005(3)KLT891
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. Counter petitioners 1 to 3, 5 and 7 to 9 in O.P. (Trust) No. 129 of 2003, a petition filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave to file a suit in a representative capacity before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram are the revision petitioners. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging an order passed by the I Additional District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram granting leave to the respondents 1 to 6, who were the petitioners therein, to institute a regular suit for the reliefs made in the petition.2. The 1st petitioner is a Society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act (Act XII of 1955), (hereinafter referred to as 'Act XII of 1955') with registration No. 71 of 1986 and having registered office at 'Varada', Nandavanam, Thiruvananthapuram, 2nd petitioner is the President and the 3rd petitioner is the Secretary. Petitioners 4 to 8 are office bearers of the 1st pe...
Ganapathy Iyer Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT122; (2007)8VST41(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. These three tax revision cases filed by the assessee arise out of the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. Even though the assessee has raised three common questions for all the assessment years, we feel in substance there is only one issue to be decided and therefore we consolidate and redraft the question to be decided as follows:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in sustaining assessment of purchase tax under Section 5A of the K.G.S.T. Act on the turnover of local purchase of cashew kernels by the assessee from unregistered dealers which were sold to exporters within and outside Kerala for export to foreign buyers2. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. On going through the orders of the Tribunal we find that the second appeals filed by the assessee on the above ques...
Madras Pack Marine Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-24-2005
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(Ker)517; [2005]278ITR85(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair J.1. This case referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, arises from the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1989-90. Even though the assessee sought reference of several questions of law for decision of this court, the Tribunal has consolidated the issue and referred the following question for decision by this court, as according to the Tribunal, the single question will cover the entire gamut of controversy raised by the assessee :'Was the Appellate Tribunal justified and correct in law in the facts and circumstances of the case, in holding that the cancellation of registration was valid under the provisions of the Income-tax Act?'2. We have heard Sri Kochunni Nair, senior counsel appearing for the assessee and Sri P.K.R. Menon, senior standing counsel appearing for the respondent. The short question to be considered is whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining t...
National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. Narayanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT748
J.B. Koshy, J.1. When order of terminating the probationary service was received by the petitioner, petitioner approached this Court challenging the same. Petitioner was appointed by Ext.P1 appointment order. Condition No. 1 in Ext.P1 appointment order reads as follows:'1. You will be on probation for period of two years from the date of your joining the post. The probation period may be extended, at the discretion of the appointing authority. During the probation period the appointment will be liable to termination on one month's notice and thereafter on three months notice on either side or pay with allowances in lieu thereof. Continuance in service after the probation period is subject to satisfactory performance.'According to the petitioner, even though the order issued is an order simpliciter, it is actually a punitive order issued without conducting an enquiry and without complying with the rules and, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. The learned single Judge allowed the a...
Fr. Jacob Kuruvila Vs. Ver. Rev. Baby Eachiravelil Vikar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT48
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The accused in Petty Case No. 560 of 2004 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case to quash a complaint filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Mulanthuruthy and all further proceedings.2. The first petitioner is the Vicar of St. Ignatious Church, Ponnurunni and the second petitioner is working as Vicar of St. Mary's Church, Vadakara. He is stated to be a Hindi teacher, working in Upper Primary School, Edackattuvayal. According to them, they are Parishioners of St. George Simhasana Church situated at Perumpally and members of the General Body of that Church. It is averred that the 1st respondent is the Vicar of St. George Simhasana Church, Perumpally and the 2nd respondent is his relative. It is averred that there were lot of complaints against respondents 1 and 2. It is averred that a meeting was scheduled to be held at 11 am at St. George Simhasana Church on 17.10.2004 and at that time a former trustee...
Sujesh Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT221
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. In an open bid followed by drawing of lots, the petitioner was allotted Toddy Shop No. 33 of Kanjirappally Excise Range on 15.4.2005. Pursuant to the allotment, he remitted the kist amount for one year, advance contribution for Worker's Welfare Fund etc. But, the grant of licence in his favour was not confirmed, in view of Ext.P1 order passed by the Excise Commissioner on 16.4.2005. The brief facts which led to the passing of Ext.P1 are the following.2. Mr. M.R. Vijayan Nair was the licensee of the above said toddy shop during the financial year 2003-04. The licence in his favour was not renewed for the year 2004-05, for the reason that he was an accused in the abkari case. Later, he committed suicide on 10.2.2005. The 4th respondent, widow of the said Vijayan Nair filed a representation on 23.3.2005, praying to renew and transfer the licence of T.S.No. 33 in her favour. This Court on 12.4.2005 directed the Excise Commissioner to consider the same. In the mea...
John Idiculla Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-23-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2935; 2005(3)KLT20
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. An interesting question arises in this case. Can the so-called 'second wife' of the husband who married her during the subsistence of his earlier legal marriage, be treated as 'the relative of the husband', for the purpose of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short)? If so, under what circumstances? Will an offence under Section 498A of IPC lie against such a 'second wife' if she inflicts cruelty on the legally-wedded wife of the husband.2. Here are the relevant factual details, as unfurled from the records: second respondent herein filed a complaint/Annexure-I against the petitioners as accused 1 and 2, and also against four other members of the husband's family as accused 3 to 6 alleging offences under Sections 498A, 494 and 34 of IPC before the Magistrate's Court. The complaint was forwarded by the lower court to Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. Police after investigation, registered a crime and filed charge sheet Ann...
Ramu Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-23-2005
Reported in: III(2007)BC177
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The decree holder challenges the order in E.A. No. 1106 of 1999 in E.P. No. 169 of 1997 in O.S. No. 293 of 1992, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Irinjalakuda, by which the Court below recorded full satisfaction of the decree.2. The revision petitioner instituted the suit for realization of the amounts due to him from the respondent State on account of the contract work undertaken by the plaintiff. The second defendant in the suit is the Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W.D. (Roads and Bridges), Sub-Division, Irinjalakuda. The plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 26,332/- inclusive of interest up to the date of suit, the date of suit being 23.5.1992. The rate of interest claimed in the plaint is 18% per annum from the date of suit till realization.3. From the judgment, it is clear that there was no full-fledged trial. The judgment reads thus:Govt. Pleader filed statement by the 2nd defendant that the defendants will pay the amount of Rs. 22,243.95 (Rupe...
Suresh Kumar Vs. Travancore Devaswom Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT723; (2006)ILLJ401Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. The appellant/petitioner was dismissed from service while he was working as Head Clerk in the Assistant Devaswom Commissioners Office, Nanthancode. It was alleged that in a surprise check made by the Finance and Accounts Officer on deputation to the Board (PW6 in the enquiry), it was discovered that a cheque for Rs. 15,421/= prepared for presentation in the bank and intended for recoupment in the Devaswom account was missing. It was verified from the bank concerned that the cheque had been encashed by the petitioner and misappropriated. In the charge sheet it is alleged that he has signed the cheque and received the amount on 1.6.1996. On 29.6.1996 through one Ramachandran Poti (PW7), who is a Santhi in a temple attached to the Devaswom, the amount was paid back by the appellant. Ext.P1 is the charge sheet issued to him. Pursuant to the charges, an enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Commissioner of the Travancore Devaswom Board. Petitioner was allowed to cross examin...
Narayan Murti Vs. Thankamma Sebastian
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT102
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The question of law involved in this Revision is whether the contention of the respondent in a Rent Control Petition that he has entered into an agreement for sale of the petition schedule building with the erstwhile landlord could be termed as a denial of title of the landlord coming within the meaning of the second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The further question is whether the respondent in the Rent Control Petition who admittedly attorned to the landlord and agreed to pay revised rate of rent after the landlord purchased the building, could set up a case that the tenant is a mortgagee in possession and whether it would amount to denial of title of the landlord, under the second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act.2. The facts in brief are the following: The respondent in this Rent Control Revision filed R.C.P.No. 98 of 2003, on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam against the petitioner herein unde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »