Kerala Court January 2006 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.
Kerala State Contract C.B.O. Association Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT95
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The petitioners who are either Associations of vehicle owners or individuals operating contract carriages, trucks, mini buses, etc. with National, inter-State or State permits, are challenging notification SRO 584/2003 issued by the Government of Kerala under Section 3(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 (hereinafter called 'the Act') whereunder rates of motor vehicle tax payable for vehicles covered by Entries 3 to 13 of the Schedule to the Act have been increased by around 50% of the existing tax with effect from 1.7.2003. While all the petitioners challenge the validity of above referred notification on the ground that increase of tax is excessive, arbitrary and impermissible, petitioner in W.P.C.No. 22083 of 2003 is challenging the constitutional validity of Section 3(2) of the Act on the ground that the authority conferred on Government suffers from excessive delegation or delegation of essential legislative power which is violative of ...
Nirmala Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT761
V. Ramkumar, J.1. The appellants in these appeals are accused Nos. 2 and 1 respectively in S.C. No. 217/1998 on the file of the Sessions Court, Manjeri. Nirmala (A1), a woman then aged 44 years and her husband's assistant Manoj Kumar (A2), then aged 30 years were charge-sheeted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Malappuram for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 I.P.C.The case of the Police2. The case of the prosecution as narrated in the police report (charge-sheet) can be summarised as follows:--On 10-12-1995 at or about 2 p.m. inside the 2nd room from the north (bearing Room No.IX/199 of Vengara Panchayath) of the line building used as residential quarters and standing in the ownership of Nallattuthodika Moideen Haji @ Poochi Haji and situated on the north of the Malappuram-Kooriyad public road passing through the Vengara bazaar and situated on the west of the Vengara Post Office, the two accused persons out of their enmity towards Abdul Latheef who p...
Abdul Latheef Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT361
A.K. Basheer, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the petitioner in an Arbitration proceeding pending before the District Court, Ernakularn. During the pendency of the proceeding, the petitioner moved an application praying for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 herein to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,06,30,047/- (Rupees One crore six lakhs thirty thousand and forty-seven only) towards payment allegedly due to him from respondent No. 3. The court below dismissed the application. Hence, this appeal under Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996.2. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is an agent of respondent No. 2 and, if so, whether the appellant is entitled to enforce his claim by invoking the arbitration clause against respondents 1 and 2 by virtue of Section 194 of the Indian Contract Act.3. Respondent No. 1, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Kochi Marketing Terminal (for short the Corporation') had appointed FAC...
Suresh Babu Vs. Asst. Superintendent of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT647; (2006)IIILLJ377Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner is running a parcel service business. The activities of the petitioner's are mentioned in para 3 of the Writ Petition which is as follows:-The parcel service business is one where the goods collected by the petitioner, have to be transported to various places as destined by consignors and consignees and vice versa. Apart from the lorries belong to Alleppey Parcel Service, hired lorries of the Alleppey Parcel Services and other goods vehicles are also coming to the petitioner's establishment. So also the goods already collected are transported through the same or various vehicles. The business parties are bringing goods to the petitioner's establishment vide various vehicles like box auto, tempo van, hand carts and also lorries. All the goods coming to the premises of establishment, vide various vehicles, are unloaded by the petitioner and his attached workers. So also the loading of goods after releasing from the establishment.2. The main case of the petitio...
Suresh Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-11-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT669
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This Writ Petition relates to the election of the Standing Committees of the Poovachal Grama Panchayat. Being a Village Panchayat, it should have three Standing Committees, one for Finance, another for Development and yet another for Welfare.2. The elected members of the Panchayat, collectively called 'Panchayat Committee', met on 29/10/2005, on a previous notified agenda, for the election of the aforesaid three Standing Committees provided by Section 162 of the Kerala Panchavat Raj Act, 1994, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', since Rule 5 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Standing Committee) Rules, 2000, hereinafter 'SC Rules', for short, provides that such election shall be held in a meeting of the elected members of the Panchayat, convened by the President, for such purpose. Rule 5 of the SC Rules further enjoins that the election shall be in the serial order of the Standing Committees as given in Sub-section (1) of Section 162, that is, in the order...
Mohammed Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-10-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC147; 2006CriLJ1906; 2006(1)KLT970
ORDERK. Thankappan, J.1. Common question involved in these cases is with regard to the power conferred under Section 389 Cr.P.C. on an appellate court to impose condition at the time of suspension of execution of sentence and granting bail. Hence all these cases are heard together and disposed of by a common order.2. All the petitioners who are accused faced trial for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. They were convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for different periods. Some of the petitioners were sentenced to pay fine upto Rs. 2,00,000/- and some were ordered to pay compensation to the complainants in tune with the cheque amounts for which the complaints were filed. Against the conviction and sentence ordered by the trial court, the petitioners filed appeals before the appellate courts along with petition for suspending execution of the sentence ordered by the trial court. The gri...
Subhashchandrababu Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT189
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether the plinth area of a garage or any other erection or structure appurtenant to a residential building used for the purpose of storage of firewood or for non-residential purpose be added on to the plinth area of that building for the purpose of building tax of the luxury tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 is the question that has come up for consideration in these cases.2. Common question arises for consideration in all these cases and hence we are disposing of those cases by a common judgment. For disposal of these cases we may refer to the facts in W.P.C. No. 15526 of 2004 against which W.A. No. 439 of 2005 has been preferred. Writ Petition was preferred seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P3 notice assessing building tax of the petitioner's residential building at Rs. 47,400/-treating the plinth area of the residential building as 600.93 M2. Petitioner referring to Ext. P1 approved plan stated that the area shown in the plan of the porc...
M.A.H. Khan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT411
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner is a member of the Syndicate of the 2nd respondent Kannur University. He was nominated to the Syndicate, as the Principal of a college, affiliated to the University, by Ext.P2 order dated 10.06.2002. The said nomination was made under the Kannur University Amendment Act, 2001, which is produced as Ext.Pl. Section 23 of the Kannur University Act, as amended by Ext. P1, deals with the constitution of the Syndicate. The members are broadly classified as Ex-officio members and other members. Two principals of colleges, affiliated to the University, nominated by the Government, shall be the members of the Syndicate, as per Clause (c) of Section 23 under the heading 'other members'. The term of office of the members of the Syndicate is provided in Section 24. Normally, the term of the members, other than Ex-officio members, is 4 years from the date of their nomination, as per Sub-section (1) of Section 24. The petitioner was nominated on 10.6.2002. S...
Maulana Hospital Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-03-2006
Reported in: 2007(207)ELT189(Ker); 2006(1)KLT681
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.W.P.(C) No.34104/20041. The petitioner is a Multi Speciality Referral Hospital. It imported a Whole Body CT Scanner, availing duty exemption, granted under Exhibit P1 notification, on the strength of Exhibit F2 Customs Duty Exemption Certificate, issued by the Director General of Health Services The Scanner was imported in 1991. After a few-years, the Apex Court, in 1996, in Mediwell Hospital and Health Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India : 1997(89)ELT425(SC) held that the conditions contained in Ext. Pl, concerning free medical treatment to inpatients and outpatients etc. are continuing obligations of the importer and if it is found that those conditions are not complied with, exemption already granted can be withdrawn. Apparently, pursuant to the said decision, the Director General of Health Services issued Ext. P3 communication to the petitioner, calling upon it to furnish certain details mentioned therein. The petitioner forwarded Ext. P4 reply, through the Ker...
Haneefa Vs. United Finance Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-02-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker149; 2006(1)KLT416
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The judgment-debtor in E.P.193/95 in O.S.57/1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Neyyattinkara, is the revision petitioner. The said suit was one for realisation of money. The suit was decreed and in execution of the decree an item of property belonging to the revision petitioner/judgment-debtor was brought to sale and purchased by the plaintiff/decree-holder. E.A. 297/2003 was filed by the plaintiff/decree-holder/auctjon purchaser for delivery of the property purchased by him. The revision petitioner resisted the said application by filing objections to the same. Overruling the objections the court below, as per the impugned order dated 12.8.2005 allowed the application for delivery filed by the auction purchaser. It is the said order which is assailed in this revision petition.2. I heard Advocate Sri. Shinod G.P., the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the decree-holder/auction purcha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »