Kerala Court September 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.
A.P. Aboobacker Musaliar Vs. Inspector of Police, Cbi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-08-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ491
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J. 1. Whether an order summoning a person who is not an accused to be tried along with the accused in a Sessions Case invoking the power under Sub-section (1) of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a revisable order. Whether a Court is to invoke the power under Section 319(1) as and when a witness during the course of his examination deposes the involvement of a person who is not an accused in the case. Whether the Court is competent to invoke the power under Section 319(1) of the Code on the evidence of a witness before permitting the accused to cross-examine that witness. These are mainly the points to be decided in the revision.2. A brief factual, matrix of the case is necessary for deciding the questions involved in the revision. Charges were framed against eight accused by the special Judge, CBI, Ernakulam for the offences under Section 120B read with Sections 364, 302 and 201 of IPC. The charge against them is that they conspired together ...
Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. A.B. Sivankuty and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-08-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC38
ORDER1. The interesting question of vast legal importance which comes up for consideration before us upon a reference by a Division Bench is the following:Whether the insurer is liable to pay compensation to the injured in a motor vehicle accident even if it has cancelled the policy issued in relation to the offending vehicle for non-payment of premium (the cheque issued towards payment of premium having been dishonoured) in respect of accident that has taken place within the period specified in the policy but that has taken place after the cancellation2. The Referring Bench was of the view that the principles laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Raghu II (2002) ACC 552 (DB) : 2001 (3) K.L.T. 515, required reconsideration by a Larger Bench on analysing the provisions of Sections 147(5) and 149(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur and Ors. II (1998) ACC...
K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Kerala State Transport Employees Co-op. Society Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT662
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. A white elephant has a mahout. He has helpers. The mahout and helpers ate, belched and slept. They never cared for the elephant. For, it belonged to a great lot of people; the commoners, urchins, the rich and the poor, the bold and the meek, the fleecing and the righteous; yet the citizens of a great nation, living in the 'God's Own Country'. They, unfortunately, by compulsions of their collective living, had to entrust the elephant to be cared for, by hands, chosen not by them. The elephant lost, not only its tiers and tyres, but also, its trunk, tusk, tummy, et al. The helpers changed as they aged. The mahout changed at the trustee's will. Followed the true owners, apparently, faithfully. For, they couldn't but. And, hadn't the will, but not to follow. As a bedtime one, this tale would shudder even an infant. As a truth, this stares at the citizenry. This is but, the story of the petitioner, the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter re...
Vinod Babu Vs. District Collector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT412
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether an incoming partner could be made liable personally for the arrears of sales tax accrued prior to his induction as a partner of the firm is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. Petitioner is a partner of M/s. Capital Builders, a registered partnership firm. Partnership firm was registered on 3-11-1993 by two partners by name Anitha Paul and Latha. Latha ceased to be a partner on 1-11-1996 and the petitioner was inducted as the partner on the said date in the partnership firm.W.A. No. 1754 of 2005. Decided on 7th September, 2005.3. The Tahsildar (RR), second respondent herein, issued a demand notice dated 2-5-2005 under Section 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act calling upon the petitioner to pay sales tax arrears of M/s. Capital Builders for an amount of Rs. 13,25,062/- for the assessment year 1995-96. Petitioner came to know about the demand notice only on 27-5-2005 when the notice was affixed on the petitioner's building at Kari...
Anthroyose Vs. R.T.O.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-07-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC224; 2005(4)KLT659
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of the stage carriage KL-5/N 902, operating on the route Kalkoonthal Kottayam. He proposes to transfer the said vehicle, along with its regular permit, in favour of the 3rd respondent herein. A joint application was filed for the transfer of the permit before the R.T.A., Idukki. The said application was allowed by the R.T.A., by Ext.Pl decision, subject to clearance of tax arrears in respect of the stage carriage KL-06/A 3299. The said order reads as follows:'Heard the applicants. Transfer allowed subject to the clearance of tax arrears in respect of S/C KL-06/A 3299 which is owned by the first applicant.'The stipulation in the above order, regarding clearance of tax arrears concerning another vehicle, is challenged in this Writ Petition.2. The petitioner submits, the vehicle KL -06/A 3299 has been sold by him to one Mr. Moidu, S/o. Bava, Moolayil House, Pezhakkappilly, Mulavoor, Muvattupuzha. The arrears of tax relates to the peri...
Pudunagaram Grama Panchayat Vs. Saleem
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT415
V. Ramkumar, J.1. The Secretary, Pudunagaram Grama Panchayat who was the complainant in S.T. Case No. 2305/96 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittur, is the appellant in this appeal. The first respondent herein who was the accused in the said case was prosecuted by the appellant under Section 74 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 read with Rule 26 of the Kerala Panchayats (Taxation and Appeal) Rules, 1963.The Prosecution case2. The case of the prosecution can be briefly stated as follows:The accused was the highest bidder in the auction held by the complainant/ Panchayath to conduct the fish market in the said Panchayath for the one year period commencing from 1-4-1995 and ending on 31-3-1996. The total bid amount was Rules. 30,100/-. On 20-3-1995 he deposited Rs. 10,040/-. He ought to have paid the balance amount on or before 30-9-1995. But he committed default in the payment of the balance amount. As on 30-9-1995 a sum of Rs. 20068.75 including no...
Mathew Joseph Vs. Dy. Tahsildar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-06-2005
Reported in: I(2007)BC393; 2005(4)KLT587
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. Appellants challenged Exts.P2, P2(a) and P2(b) notices issued under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act in the Original Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned single Judge dismissed the Original Petition.2. A loan was availed by the appellants from Canara Bank, Vythiri Branch. Amounts are due to the Bank and it is not disputed. The contention raised by the appellants is that the loan was availed in the year 1985 and the revenue recovery proceedings were initiated only in 1999 and therefore, the revenue recovery proceedings are not legal as barred by limitation. The appellants relied on the decision in State of Kerala and Anr. v. V.R. Kalliyanikutty and Anr., : [1999]2SCR372 . The Bank contended that there was acknowledgment of the debt as evidenced by Ext.R2 series of acknowledgments and, therefore, recovery of the loan is not barred by limitation. The learned single Judge held that there was valid acknowledgment and, therefore, the p...
Sebastian Vs. Mathai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT791
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. The defendants in O.S.No. 103 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam, are the appellants in the appeal. The basic facts stated in the plaint are as follows.2. The plaintiff is a native of Meenachil Taluk. He was working as lecturer in St.Thomas College, Palai, from 1959 to 1961. In 1961, he went to Canada for higher studies. He took his master degree in Mathematics from the University of Toronto and took his Ph.D. He joined as Assistant Professor in Mathematics and Statistics in Mcgill University, Montreal in Canada and now he is the senior most Professor in that University. The defendants 2 to 4 are the wife and children of the 1st defendant who was working as attender in St.Thomas College, Palai. The 2nd defendant is a distant relative of the plaintiff and defendant also belong to Meenachil Taluk. The plaintiff used to come to India every year and in 1985 he accepted the post of Director of Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Thiruvananthapuram, an...
Suresh Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-06-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT78
V. Ramkumar, J.1. Accused Nos. 1 to 9 in Sessions Case No. 143/98 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc I), Thalassery are the appellants in this appeal. They challenge the conviction entered and sentence passed against them by the aforesaid Court for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 I.P.C. read with Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:On 10-3-1995 at about 9 p.m. the accused who are C.P.M. loyalists, out of their enmity towards Chembattarathinmel Kelu, P.W.1 (Krishnan), P.W.3 (Raveendran) and C.W.3 (Gopi) who are workers and sympathisers of B.J.P., formed themselves into members of an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to commit rioting armed with deadly weapons, to cause hurt to the aforesaid persons using country bombs and to commit the murder of the said persons who were sitting on the steps leading to Koovendavalappil house at K.C. Mukku in Puthur amsom, Kootter...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Malabar and Pioneer Hosiery P. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-06-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Ker)287; [2006]280ITR260(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. These cases arise under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessment years are 1985-86 and 1986-87. The assessments for these years were completed under Section 16(1) of the Act. Later on, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax revised the assessments under Section 25(2) of the Act. This was challenged before the Income-tax Tribunal. The Income-tax Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax and restored the original assessment. A petition was filed to recall that order as there were some mistakes. It was allowed. Subsequently, the Tribunal heard the appeal again and the Tribunal passed the order in favour of the assessee. Hence, the Revenue has come in appeal.2. The assessee is conducting business in hosiery and handloom goods. For this purpose, the assessee has got a weaving shed. But the weaving shed was given on rent to the Civil Supplies Corporation and another portion of the building was converted into a kalyana...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »