Kerala Court October 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.
Zeena Jomon Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-2006
Reported in: (2007)10VST376(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question arising in the Appeal filed under Section 40 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 against the order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued under Section 37 of the KGST Act, is whether appellant is liable to pay interest levied in the assessment under Section 23(3) of the KGST Act for the differential tax assessed over the compounded tax paid under Section 7(1)(a) of the KGST Act. The appellant who is a dealer in jewellery, applied for payment of tax at compounded rate under Section 7(1)(a) of the KGST Act for the year 2001-2002. The tax payable under Section 7(1)(a) of the Act during that year was 120 per cent of the compounded rate of tax paid by appellant for the preceding year or 120 per cent of the tax payable based on the return or accounts in that year, whichever is higher. The appellant made application in Form No. 21 under Rule 30 of the KGST Rules offering to pay an amount of Rs. 3,51,907 being tax, according to her, payab...
Somanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT127
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Doubting the correctness of the decision reported in Mohammed Kutty v. State of Kerala 2002 (2) KLT 300 this matter was referred to Division Bench by the learned Single judge (Justice Mr.K.M.Joseph), The question is whether legal representatives of 'an individual educational agency' of an aided private school can be treated as an 'individual educational agency' or a 'corporate educational agency'. According to the dictum in Mohammed Kutty's case when a person who is entitled to run a School in his own right dies and his legal representatives continue in management, it will not become a 'corporate educational agency' but it will continue as an 'individual Educational Agency'. In Mohammed Kutty's case it was observed as follows:A reading of Rule 1 of Chapter III would indicate that in the case of a Corporate Educational Agency, the right of Management would be vested in two or more persons jointly by a written registered agreement or vested in a Board, Association or cre...
Elsy Vs. Raju
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT890
V. Ramkumar, J.1. Defendant Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 7 in O.S. No. 15/86 on the file of the first Addl. District Court, Ernakulam are the appellants in this appeal. The proceedings before the court below originated as probate O.P. 61/1986 filed by invoking the testamentary and intestate jurisdiction of the District Judge under Sections 266 and 268 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The first respondent V.K. Raju was the petitioner in the above probate O.P.2. The case of the petitioner in the lower court can be summarised as follows:Late E.A.Thomas, S/o. Augustine, was permanently residing in Amaravathy, Fort Kochi. He died on 7-1-1980 at building No. X/602, Amaravathy, Cochin. The said Thomas had duly executed from the aforesaid house his last will and testament on 9-2-1985 produced along with the O.P. The petitioner is the executor named in the will. The petitioner has truly set forth in Schedule No. I all the properties and credits which the ...
A.S. Sajith Vs. the Director of Technical Education and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ913; 2008(2)KLT732
A.K. Basheer, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner was entitled to get promotion as Professor, IInd Grade in Painting in Fine Arts College, Trivandrum with effect from April 12, 2005.2. The Departmental Promotion Committee took the view that petitioner was not entitled to be promoted since he did not possess the requisite minimum seven year's teaching experience at the higher education level in the field concerned, as provided under the Special Rules for the Kerala Technical Education Service. At the same time, the Committee held that respondent No. 5 was eligible for promotion since he satisfied the above condition in the Special Rules. Accordingly, Ext.P8 select list was finalised.3. Petitioner preferred Ext.P4 revision petition against the above decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee which was rejected by respondent No. 2 on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation. Ext.P5 is a copy of the order passed by respo...
Philip Vs. Kinhimohammed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT998
M.N. Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the decree in O.S.No. 126 of 1990 of the Sub Court, Kozhikode and also as against the counter claim filed by the defendant in the said case. The suit was one for return of advance amount of Rs. 14,000/- and some other amount due to the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant agreed to sell a Jeep bearing Regn. No. KED 3290, a 1987 model and therefore he agreed to purchase it for Rs. 1,00,500/-. As per the agreement, an amount of Rs. 14,000/- was paid as advance on the date of agreement. An amount of Rs. 61,000/- was to be paid on 31.1.1990 and the balance amount of Rs. 25,500/- was to be paid on 28.2.1990. As the plaintiff wanted to raise some loan he got the document particulars from the defendant and forwarded to the financier and thereafter the financier informed him that the vehicle was a 1986 model. The plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the defendant bona fidely believing that the jeep is of 1987 ...
Nabeesa Vs. Kuhnami
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT757
M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. What is the proper jurisdictional value to be shown in a suit for partition, where the prayer is for partition and separation of joint possession of the plaint schedule properties?. It is the question to be settled in this petition.2. Petitioners are the defendants and respondent the plaintiff. The suit is for partition of the plaint schedule properties comprising 12 items in different survey Numbers. Plaintiff has valued the properties as provided under Section 7 of the Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and shown the total market value at Rs. 2,25,000/- and value of his 1/3rd share at Rs. 75,000/-. Fixed court fee of Rs. 50/- under Section 37(2) of the Act was paid. Petitioners in their written statement contended that the plaint schedule properties are not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction and if properly valued, the same will be out of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff Court. Under ...
Lekha Vs. Manickan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT800
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Is the battle lost for want of the horse shoe nail? Does the innocuous defect made by the counsel while describing the name of the petitioner in the notice of demand result in the loss of this legal battle for him? These are the questions that fall for consideration in this Revision Petition, directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 2.25 lakhs. It bears the date 14.11.1996. The petitioner now faces a sentence of S.I for a period of three months. There is a further direction to pay an amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs as compensation and in default to undergo S.I for a period of three months.3. Signature in the cheque is admitted. Notice of demand, which was duly received and acknowledged, succeeded only in evoking Ext.P6 reply. No payment was made. The complainant in these circumstances came to court after observing the statutory time table scrupulously. H...
Pampara Philip Vs. Koorithottiyil Kinhimohammed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ker69
M.N. Krishnan, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred against the decree in O.S. No. 126 of 1990 of the Sub Court, Kozhikode and also as against the counter claim filed by the defendant in the said case. The suit was one for return of advance amount of Rs. 14,000/- and some other amount due to the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant agreed to sell a Jeep bearing Regn. No. KED 3290, a 1987 model and therefore he agreed to purchase it for Rs. 1,00,500/-. As per the agreement, an amount of Rs. 14,000/- was paid as advance on the date of agreement. An amount of Rs. 61,000/- was to be paid on 31-1-1990 and the balance amount of Rs. 25,500/- was to be paid on 28-2-1990. As the plaintiff wanted to raise some loan he got the document particulars from the defendant and forwarded to the financer and thereafter the financer informed him that the vehicle was a 1986 model. The plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the defendant bona fidely believing that the jeep is of 1987 ...
P.R. Lekha Vs. K.N. Manickan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC570
1. Is the battle lost for want of the horse shoe nail? Does the innocuous defect made by the Counsel while describing the name of the petitioner in the notice of demand result in the loss of this legal battle for him? These are the questions that fall for consideration in this revision petition, directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 2.25 lakh. It bears the dale 14.11.1996. The petitioner now faces a sentence of S.I. for a period of three months. There is a further direction to pay an amount of Rs. 2.5 lakh as compensation and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of three months.3. Signature in the cheque is admitted. Notice of demand, which was duly received and acknowledged, succeeded only in evoking Ext. P6 reply. No payment was made. The complainant in these circumstances came to Court after observing the statutory time-table scrupulously. He examined himsel...
Ayisha Beevi Subaida Beevi Vs. Ibrahim Kunju Shamsudeen and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ163
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. This appeal is by the 1st defendant, the only contesting defendant before the trial court.2. The suit was one for redemption of the plaint scheduled property. It was dismissed on the ground that the suit, at the instance of the plaintiff, was barred in terms of Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the earlier suit filed by the mother the original mortgagor was dismissed for default. The plaintiff carried the matter in appeal. The appellate court found that the suit being one for redemption, the cause of action was a recurring one as in the case of partition suit, the bar under Order IX Rule 9 was not attracted. Consequently, as there was no much dispute with regard to the right of redemption, the suit was decreed. The value of improvements was also computed applying the provisions contained in Section 16 in the Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, finding that the property was over cultivated. This appellate decree is under challenge mainly r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »