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.
Rajesh Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1022; 2007(1)KLT234
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The petitioner is accused No. 5 in S.C. No. 1588 of 2001, on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The allegation against the petitioner and the other accused persons is that they committed offences under Sections 143, 147, 452, 294(b) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is alleged that the accused persons trespassed into the residential house of the defacto complainant, who is a member of the Scheduled Caste, and insulted him by calling his caste name.2. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which is a Special Court for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner filed an application, Crl.M.P. No. 2535 of 2003, before the Special Court under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal P...
Sajida Book Shop Vs. Kaumudi Exporters (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-2006
Reported in: [2007]135CompCas273(Ker); 2006(4)KLT763; [2007]80SCL221(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Creditor of the Company in liquidation has filed an application under Sections 542 and 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking an order that respondents 2 to 8, the ex-directors and officers of the company by name Kaumudi Exporters (Private) Limited had misapplied, retained or become liable or accountable for any money or property of the company or were guilty of misfeasance or breach of trust in relation to the company. Further applicant also stated that respondents 2 to 8 were former Managing Director or Directors of the company and they had retained or misapplied or misappropriated the funds of the company and had become liable or accountable to refund an amount of Rs. 5,54,910/- to the company and their action in the matter of retention or misapplication or misappropriation of amounts is due to misfeasance or breach of trust in relation to the company. In order to establish the applicant's case P.W. 1 was examined and produced Exts. Al to A10 documents. N...
Reena George Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ker101
M. Ramachandran, J.1. Delay in filing the writ appeal is condoned.2. A learned single Judge had disposed of O.P. No. 22330 of 2001 on 16-3-2006, whereby a direction had been issued to the Principal, College of Engineer, Thiruvananthapuram (2nd respondent) to take action on Ext. P7 for settling the grievances urged within three months. By Ext. P7 dated 14-7-2000, the appellant/petitioner had requested the said respondent to refund the deposits that had been made by him towards security. The appeal has been filed submitting that positive directions were required to be issued, as a simple examination of the grievances would not have resulted in any advantage.3. The appellant/petitioner is the proprietor of a business and had responded to the notification issued by the second respondent for supply of certain electrical goods to the college. Contracts had been entered into and during the year 1989-1990, goods had been supplied. As required, a total sum of Rs. 14,787/- had been deposited as ...
Kerala State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Additional Commiss ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-2006
Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Ker)499; [2008]298ITR367(Ker)
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner challenges Ext. PI order, which is a rectification order relating to the asst. yr. 1997-98, insofar as it directs the petitioner to pay interest for the month of December, 1997, for the reason that it paid income-tax only on 1st Dec, 1997. Normally, the petitioner should have paid the income-tax on 30th Nov., 1997. The. contention of the Revenue is that since the tax was paid on 1st Dec, 1997, interest has to be charged for December also. So, for the delay of one day, one months' interest is computed and levied. The petitioner filed a revision against it. The revision was dismissed by Ext. P3 order. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:The reliance placed by the assessee's representative on Section 10 of the General Clauses Act to argue that the tax paid on 1st Dec, 1997 should be treated as having been paid on 30th Nov., 1997 is misplaced. The object of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act is to enable a person to do what he cou...
Mohanan Vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT807
K. Thankappan, J.1. Similar issue involved in this Writ Petition, has already been considered by this Court in W.P.(C).No.27196/2006 and this Court found that as per Rule 44A the Administrator is fully justified in nominating a member of a Primary Cooperative Society as delegate to the District Co-operative Bank and nominate him as delegate to the State Co-operative Bank. The contention now raised by the petitioners is that after the amendment brought to Section 33 on 1.1.2000, on supersession of the committee of a Co-operative Society or an apex society, the Registrar shall appoint more than one administrators not exceeding three. If the amendment is taken into consideration, appointment of a single administrator to manage the day today affairs of the committee of the Society or the Bank is irregular and illegal.2. This Court heard the learned Advocate General and the counsel for the petitioners and also the counsel for the State and District Co-operative Banks. On reading the amendme...
Candid Indstries Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-17-2006
Reported in: (2007)5VST381(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 62(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with Rule 80(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 against the order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated March 2, 2006 holding that super glue imported and marketed by the appellant is taxable at the rate of 12.5 per cent coming under serial number 3(8) of SRO No. 82 of 2006.2. The appellant is importing and distributing Sticko brand super glue, which, according to the appellant, is manufactured from organic chemicals and is mostly used as industrial input particularly in the automobile industry. The appellant has been collecting 12.5 per cent till July 2005 when they have obtained certificate from the Cochin University of Science and Technology stating that the Sticko brand super glue marketed by the appellant is methyl cyano acrylate which is an ester of unsaturated a cyclic monoacid which comes under HSN Code 2916.19.50. The appellant then ...
State of Kerala Vs. Athulya Liquors
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-17-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST414(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in the revision filed by the State is whether the Tribunal was justified in reversing the order of the first appellate authority and refbdng the sale price of arrack at Rs. 255 per litre for the purpose of fixing unaccounted first sales of arrack by the respondent-assessee. The respondent-assessee was licencee for sale of arrack in Cherthala range during the year 1991-92. Being a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 respondent was liable to maintain proper books of account. The Intelligence Officer of the Department conducted inspection on February 26, 1992 and it was noticed that respondent was not maintaining any books of account in the place of business. When stock was verified, shortage of 70 litres of arrack was noticed. Further, respondent had not accounted purchase of any soda, soft drinks, arishtam, etc., which according to the assessing officer are indispensable in the line of business carried on by the...
P.K. Ali Haji Vs. Board of Revenue (Taxes)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-17-2006
Reported in: (2008)15VST165(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. The appellant-assessee had filed annual return in form 8 declaring total and taxable turnover of Rs. 58,37,320 for the year 1990-91 on April 30, 1991 and he paid tax amounting to Rs. 4,53,998 and surcharge on Rs. 27,538 along with return on self-assessment. The appellant is a dealer of arecanut and it is taxable at the last purchase point under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. It is the case of the appellant that after verification of records and after collecting details of various purchases through different agents, he found out that turnover was higher and he filed a revised return on June 1, 1994 declaring total and taxable turnover of Rs. 83,60,300 and according to the revised return he was liable to pay the balance tax amount to Rs. 1,73,025 and Rs. 12,591 as surcharge. He paid the above amount with the revised return. This was done without any demand notice or instructions of the assessing authorities. In the assessment order, revised return was accepted b...
Thomas Vs. Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-16-2006
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)35; 2006(4)KLT739
M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. The trial court decreed the suit with cost. It was challenged in the appeal by defendant. The appeal was allowed in part modifying the decree. The judgment of the appellate Court did not provide for cost either of the appellate court or trial court. The question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the proportionate cost for the confirmed portion of the decree as granted by the trial Court, whether there is merger of the trial court decree regarding the cost with the appellate decree and if riot whether the decree holder is entitled to realise the proportionate cost awarded by the trial court.2. Petitioner is the decree holder. He instituted the suit seeking a decree for realisation of Rs. 4,54,510/- with interest and cost. Suit was decreed on 10.4.02. Under Ext.Pl decree petitioner was allowed to realise it with interest at 6% on 2,26,011/-from 26.4.99 till realisation and costs of the suit. Respondent judgment debtor challenged the appeal in A.S.375/02 ...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Davis and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-16-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1617; [2007(112)FLR778]
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Is an insurer, who had issued a policy of insurance governed by Section 147(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.V. Act'), liable to satisfy an award made under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'the W.C. Act'), granting compensation to a workman for injuries sustained while driving a motor vehicle, though he was not employed specifically as a driver? This is the short issue, a substantial question of law, that arises for decision in this appeal by the insurer.2. The claim, before the Commissioner, was on the ground that the applicant was employed by his brother, the opposite party No. 1 in his business of selling fish and in the course of such employment, the applicant was injured while riding the motor cycle to Pariyaram from Chalakudy for selling fish. The opposite party No. 2, the insurer contested. The Commissioner framed issues, including as to whether the applicant was a workman as defined in the W.C. Act ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »