Kerala Court June 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.
Nalini B.V. Saraf Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-2005
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Ker)539; [2005]279ITR278(Ker); 2005(3)KLT943
Siri Jagan, J.1. The question posed in this Original. Petition is as to whether the Revenue is liable to pay interest on the amount due as refund of estate duty which became payable on account of orders of the Appellate Tribunal, in the absence of any specific provision in the Estate Duty Act, 1953 for payment of interest on refunds.2. Although facts are not in dispute, some essential facts necessary for disposal of the case may be noted. The petitioner is the accountable person in respect of the property which passed on the death of late Vithal Govinda Rao Saraf who passed away on 18-10-1984. She filed a statement showing (-) Rs. 6,45,345/- as the principal value of the estate of the deceased. The respondent determined the principal value of the estate at Rs. 70,93,950/- and determined the estate duty payable thereon at Rs. 49,94,200/- and interest under Section 53(3) at Rs. 1,74,797/-. This assessment was later revised at Rs. 57,29,355/- and Rs. 39,66,126/- respectively. Against the ...
Thomas Philip Vs. Asst. Registrar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-09-2005
Reported in: [2006]131CompCas842(Ker); 2005CriLJ3204; 2005(3)KLT387; [2006]71SCL344(Ker)
R. Basant, J.1. This application is filed by the petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 to 3, in a criminal prosecution under Section 628 of the Companies Act initiated against them by the first respondent. They pray that the prosecution may be quashed invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.2. The petitioners are Directors of a company. To put it in a nut shell, the principal allegation against them under Section 628 of the Companies Act is that there were fictitious entries in the books of accounts and the balance sheet for the period 1995-96. The balance sheet relates to the period ending 31.3.1996. According to the petitioners - and there is no dispute on that aspect --. the balance sheet was filed before the Registrar on 24.12.1996. The Registrar/his subordinate officials had allegedly held an inspection during the year 1999 (19.2.1999, it is clarified in the counter statement filed). When such inspection report was forwarded to the Regional Director, Madras, the Directorate obs...
Devammadas Vs. Ramachandran Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT647
ORDERR. Bhaskaran, J.1. This revision is filed at the instance of the landlord who sought eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and (iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Rent Control Court allowed the application under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iv), while disallowed the claim under Section 11 (4)(ii) of the Act. In appeal, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of eviction on all the grounds and dismissed the Rent Control Petition.2. The respondent obtained the petition schedule building from the revision petitioner/landlord as per rent deed executed in 1984. According to the landlord, the tenant did not pay any rent subsequently. She wanted to demolish the building and construct a residence-cum-commercial complex for increasing her income and for her better living. It is further stated in the Rent Control Petition that since the landlord wanted the tenant to vacate, he became inimical towards ...
John Decruz Vs. Richard
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT702
K.R. Udayabhanu, J.1. The writ petitioner was the respondent in RCP 345/1999 whose application in the execution proceedings to recall the warrant of delivery on the basis that he obtained purchase certificate of the premises in the meantime, was turned down concurrently by the courts below. The issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the above orders is the relief sought for. During the pendency of the post adjudication proceedings in the Rent Control Court, the tenant/writ petitioner had independently initiated proceedings before the Land Tribunal and obtained purchase certificate contending that he is a hutment dweller (kudikidappukaran). The validity and legitimacy of the above detached and independent proceedings before the Land Tribunal after squarely the issue of the right to eject him from the premises was held against him in the Rent Control proceedings is the point put forward for consideration of this Court right now. Aside front the above question, the reliance placed by t...
Bhaskaran Vs. Sub Registrar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-08-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker278; [2006]132CompCas183(Ker); 2005(3)KLT150
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The petitioner availed a loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) from the Kerala Financial Corporation for the construction of a building for business purposes. Though the petitioner could complete the ground floor of the building he could not complete the entire structure due to paucity of funds and he had to abandon the idea of completing the project. Finding that he would not be able to repay the amount in time, he thought of selling the property and settling the whole amount due to the Corporation. The petitioner approached the Corporation and the latter agreed as per Ext.Pl dated 26.7.2001 to settle the loan account on remittance of Rs. 36,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs) by the petitioner. As per Ext.P2 dated 28.12.2001, the petitioner wanted some reduction to be made in the matter of payment of interest. Meanwhile, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated as per Ext.P3. The petitioner approached the Corporation with Ext.P4 representation praying to ...
Prasad Vs. Philipose Mar Dilshus U.P. School
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT487
J.B. Koshy, J.1. All the three Writ Appeals were filed against the common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Writ Appeal No. 1163 of 2002 is filed by a party with leave as he was not a party in the Original Petition. W.P.(C) No. 35254 of 2003 is filed by the manager to drop the proceedings to recover the loss suffered by the Government. For describing the parties, we will refer to the parties mentioned in the judgment in O.P.No. 3409 of 1999 and exhibits mentioned therein unless otherwise stated.2. Second petitioner as well as fifth respondent and appellant in W.A.No. 1163 of 2002 were members of the teaching staff in the first respondent's school. A post of headmaster arose on 1.6.1994. The management appointed the second petitioner on 12.1.1996 with effect from 1.6.1994. The Assistant Educational Officer rejected the appointment by order dated 15.5.1995. The District Educational Officer allowed the appeal filed by the management and this Court in O.P.No. 13249 of 1995 direc...
Principal Secretary to Government Vs. Gopala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT190
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner (respondent in this appeal) retired from Government service while working as a Tahsildar on 30.9.2000. He joined the Revenue Establishment as Village Assistant on 17.8.1967. He was promoted as Village Officer on 22.12.1972. Later, he was promoted as Revenue Inspector on 14.7.1978. Thereafter, 10 years grade promotion was granted on 14.7.1988. Again he was granted 25 years grade promotion from 17.8.1992. He retired from service on 30.9.2000. The audit department raised an objection that grant of 25 years grade promotion with effect from 17.8.1992, even after two regular promotions and one grade promotion was not correct and it was ordered to be recovered from the D.C.R.G. Learned single Judge quashed Ext.P9 holding that refixation of pay of an employee not due to his mistake cannot be recovered after his retirement. This is challenged by the Government. According to the Special Government Pleader, 25 years grade promotion granted to the employee was not corre...
Muhammed Ali Vs. S.i. of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT527
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by accused 4 and 6 in Crime No. 199/05 of Perinthalmanna Police Station registered under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 8 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act to quash the proceedings as against him under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sub Inspector of Police, Perinthalmanna, as authorised in writing by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Perinthalmanna conducted the search at M.A. Tourist Home and arrested accused 1 to 6 male accused and 7 to 9 female accused on the allegation that they committed offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 8 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The accused was produced before the learned Magistrate after registering Crime 199/05 of the Police Station. Petitioners contended that the Sub Inspector of Police is not a Special Officer as provided under Section 15 of the Act and therefore he is not authorised to conduct...
Kunju Kunju Chandran Vs. Raghavan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker317; 2005(3)KLT644
ORDERJ.M. James, J.1. The Decree holder in E.A. No. 16/2001 in E.R. No. 2/1998, O.S. No. 231/1994, on the file of Munsiff Court. Mavelikkara, is the revision petitioner, A decree of mandatory injunction was granted to the revision petitioner, directing the Judgment Debtors to restore the decree scheduled property to its original position. E.P. No. 2/1998 was filed for compliance of the decree. The E.P. was dismissed, for no commission report was appended with the decree to prove prior position of the scheduled properties and therefore, it was not possible to execute the decree granted. Against that, a review application. E. A. 16/2001, was filed. That also was dismissed. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. 2. I heard both sides. The main contention of the Judgment Debtor, respondent, in this revision is that, as there is no plan or commission report forming part of the decree, it will not be possible to identify the pathway in question as on 1/7/1994. Hence, the decree cannot be execu...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ushakumari and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-2005
Reported in: 3(2005)ACC813
M.N. Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the award passed in O.P. (MV) 89/99 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara. The brief facts are as follows. According to the claimant, while he was travelling m a tempo van bearing Reg. No. KRA-8608 from east to west and when it reached Amaravila it hit with a lorry bearing Reg. No. KEV-5353 driven by the 2nd respondent and thereby the petitioner sustained injuries. The petition is filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. On the other hand it is contended by the Insurance Company that the petition is barred by limitation and the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tempo van driver and the petitioner is not entitled to claim compensation. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company contended before me that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had gone wrong in allowing the application mainly on two grounds. It is submitted that the accident took place in the year 1992, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »