Kerala Court September 2005 Judgments
Sreekumary Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT144
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner is threatened with prosecution for the alleged violation of the provisions of the Kerala (Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 (Act 11 of 1996). So, this Writ Petition is filed, seeking appropriate reliefs. On the strength of Ext.P5(a) certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Kunnathur taluk in April 1986, the petitioner got employment in V.S.S.C. on 22.05.1987 as Tradesman 'B', in the vacancy reserved for the members of the Scheduled Tribe community. The said certificate showed that the petitioner belonged to Mala Araya Hindu community, which is treated as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Kerala. Later, the V.S.S.C. asked the petitioner to produce a fresh caste certificate from the Tahsildar, Thiruvalla, where she was permanently residing. The Tahsildar, on 26.10.1991, declined to issue any caste certificate, holding that as per the report of the KIRTADS. there are no members of the Mala A...
Tag this Judgment!Xavierkutty Vs. Sunnymon
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-2005
Reported in: II(2006)BC513; [2006]132CompCas399(Ker); 2006CriLJ1742; 2005(4)KLT432
K. Thankappan, J.1. This appeal is filed by the complainant in S.T.No. 926 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kottayam.2. The appellant filed the compliant alleging that the accused - first respondent herein committed offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to the appellant, the first respondent failed to pay the amount covered by Ext.Pl cheque, which was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, inspite of the notice served on him. The trial court took cognizance of the offence. On the side of the appellant, himself and another witness were examined as PWs. 1 and 2 respectively and Exts.Fl to F7 were produced. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the defence. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the first respondent denied having issued Ext.Pl cheque in favour of the appellant. After trial, the court below found that t...
Tag this Judgment!Nissa Hassan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT783
M. Ramachandran, J.1. Mr. AH Hassan, Pavathethu Vadakkethil, Puliyoor Vanchi North, Thazhava P.O., Karunagappally, Kollam District has been directed to be detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram by order of the Additional Chief Secretary & Principal Secretary to Government, issued on behalf of the Government of Kerala, in exercise of powers conferred on him by Section 3(1) (ii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA Act). Ext.P-1 dated 10-1-2005 is the order of detention, which is presently challenged at the hands of his wife Nissa Hassan. Along with Ext.P-1 order, the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu has been produced and separately marked as Ext.P-2. The petitioner has also challenged Ext.P-5 dated 26-3-2005, whereunder the Government had confirmed the detention, in exercise of powers under Section 8(f) of the COFEPOSA Act, directing that the detention shal...
Tag this Judgment!Sasidharan Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT724
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. These Writ Petitions arise out of a common judgment in four Original Applications decided by the Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The issue raised before the Tribunal was with regard to the eligibility for promotion to the post of Train Clerks/Ticket Collector in the scale of pay of Rs. 3050-4590 in Group 'C' in the Railways. Applications were invited for selection to the said posts against the quota of 33 1/3% set apart to the incumbents working in Group 'D' posts like Pointsmen Grade 1 as is revealed from Annexure A1 before the Tribunal in O.A No. 551 of 1004. The O.A. with Annexures are marked in W.P.(C) No. 8147 of 2005 as Ext. P2. The said notification spells out that categories like PM I/CM I/LM USr. GK in the scale of pay Rs.3050-4590 come within the field of choice. PM I mean Pointsman Grade I. Therefore, applications are invited from them as well. All the petitioners are Pointsmen Grade I. They participated in the selection proces...
Tag this Judgment!Sharon Susa Kurian Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT235
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. These Writ Petitions are filed, challenging the method of selection of candidates, for filling up the Management quota seats for M.B.B.S. course, in the Academy of Medical Sciences, Pariyaram and the Co-operative Medical College, Kochi. So, they are heard and disposed of by a common Judgment.2. The facts of the above three cases, necessary for their disposal, are summarised below:WP(C) No. 23200/053. The petitioner was a candidate, who applied for admission to the MBBS course, pursuant to the prospectus issued by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, Kerala. In the rank list published by the Commissioner, the petitioner was Rank No. 1366, in the medical stream. But, he could not get admission in any of the Government Medical Colleges or in any of the merit quota seats in the self-financing colleges. He was desirous of getting admission in the Management quota seats, in the Colleges of respondents 1 and 2, namely, Academy of Medical Sciences, Pariyaram a...
Tag this Judgment!Presteege Textile Enterprises Vs. Controller, Legal Metrology
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT762
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioners are running a textile showroom in Ernakulam. They made renovation of that showroom and made an advertisement in Mathrubhumi daily dated 15.2.2000 regarding the re-opening of the showroom. In the said advertisement, it is stated that the plinth area of the showroom has been increased from 3600 sq.ft. to 6200 sq.ft. On coming across Exhibit P1, the second respondent issued Exhibit P2 notice to the petitioners stating that the measurement regarding the area of the showroom has not been expressed in standard unit and therefore, the same is in violation of the provisions in Section 11 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985. They were called upon to show cause why they should not be prosecuted. The petitioners submitted Exhibit P3 objection. The said objection was considered and rejected by the second respondent by Exhibit P5 decision dated 29.6.2004. It was followed by Exhibit P6 order, issued by the first respondent, gran...
Tag this Judgment!Jency Vs. Biju Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-22-2005
Reported in: I(2006)DMC189; 2005(4)KLT766
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The petitioner, who is the wife of the respondent, prays for a transfer of O.P.No. 754 of 2004 pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam to the Principal Family Court, Chennai. The Transfer Petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Though Sections 22 and 23 are mentioned in the Tr.P.C., these sections are seen struck off. The O.P. was filed by the respondent for dissolution of marriage.2. The material facts are not in dispute, though these facts are not stated either in the Transfer Petition or in the counter filed by the respondent. Counsel appearing for both sides submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized at Ernakulam, within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Ernakulam. It is also submitted that the petitioner and the respondent were residing together in Dubai for quite sometime. It is averred in the O.P. for dissolution of marriage filed by the respondent that the parties last resided t...
Tag this Judgment!C.K. Sudhakaran Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Ker)677; [2005]279ITR533(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The appellant is a dealer in steel wares in Trichur under the name and style 'Cherakulam Vessels'. The assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 1998-99 declaring a total income of Rs. 55,920 and agricultural income of Rs. 50,000. The return of income was accepted under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act. Since survey under Section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on September 8, 1997, the case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of survey under Section 133A an agreement dated May 12, 1997, executed between the promoters of City Centre Shopping Complex, Round West, Trichur, and the assessee was obtained. As per that agreement the assessee had agreed to purchase shop room No. 115 measuring 688.53 sq. ft. with proportionate common facilities in City Centre, Trichur, for a sum of Rs. 49,91,842. Further as per the agreement, the assessee had paid Rs. 12,50,000 being the token value at the time of ex...
Tag this Judgment!Cryptom Confectionaries (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT463; (2007)8VST21(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Both these revision petitions arise out of the common order passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam in TA.557 of 2003 and TA.558 of 2003. Following questions of law raised by the revision petitioner for consideration.i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that the second sale of 'CRYPTM' branded confectionery items effected by the petitioner was liable to tax under the KGST Act;ii) Ought not the Appellate Tribunal to have found that the purchase by the petitioner was of branded goods in respect of which the seller too had a right in respect of the use of the brand name and consequently the seller was to be regarded as a brand name holder for the purposes of Section 5(2) of the KGST Act.Assessee is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of confectioneries under the brand name 'Cryptms'. An agreement dated 1.4.1995 was executed betwe...
Tag this Judgment!P.P. Ummerkutty Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Ker)1
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Original petition was preferred by the appellant seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P4 show-cause notice dt. 21st May, 2002 imposing penalty of Rs. 18,39,420 and Rs. 55,18,260 under Section 158BFA(2) of IT Act, 1961 and also for a declaration that the penalty provision in Sub-section (2) of Section 158BFA is illegal, oppressive and punitive.2. Learned single Judge dismissed the Writ petition since the assessee had already challenged the penalty proceedings, before the Asstt. CIT. Learned single Judge felt, validity of Section 158BFA also could be raised before the CIT, if so advised. Assessed took up the matter in appeal and obtained a stay of the proceedings. While the matter was pending before this Court, appellate authority has already passed final order imposing total penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs. Assessee has already taken up the matter before the Tribunal and the same is pending consideration.3. We are in this case concerned only with the legality of S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »