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.
T.A. Abdul Khader Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-16-2006
Reported in: (2007)208CTR(Ker)173; [2008]296ITR20(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The common question referred to us by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, under Section 27(1) of the WT Act arising from the order of the Tribunal in the Wt Appeals of the petitioner for the asst. yrs. 1983-84 to 1986-87 is the following:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty proceedings were valid in view of Section 42C inserted in the WT Act2. Petitioner who did not file WT returns for the above assessment years was served with separate notices under Section 18(2) of the WT Act proposing to levy penalty under Section 18(1) of the said Act. Since petitioner did not respond to notices, fresh notices were issued on 16th Oct., 1989, against which petitioner filed replies stating that he could file returns only by 23rd Oct., 1987 on account of search in his business premises by the IT Department. Even though petitioner requested to drop the penalty proceedings no contention was raised t...
Radhas Printers (Corrugated) Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-16-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST550(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The common question raised in all these tax revision cases is whether the petitioner is entitled to sales tax exemption as an industrial unit set up by harijans under notification SRO No. 969 of 1980 dated October 21, 1980. We have heard senior counsel Dr. K.B. Mohammed Kutty appearing for the petitioner and Special Government Pleader Sri. V.V. Asokan appearing for the respondent.2. Notification SRO No. 969 of 1980 provides among other things sales tax exemption on products manufactured by small-scale industrial units set up by harijans. Even though the benefit under the notification is generally available for industrial units set up after April 1, 1979, under the first proviso to notification, exemption was available to mini industries, women industrial units and small-scale industrial units set up by harijans even before April 1, 1979, but the exemption will be available only from April 1, 1979 to the date on which such industrial units complete six years...
Chandran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT550
ORDERJ.M. James, J.1. The petitioners are accused 1 to 3, in crime No.74/2006 of Kolavalloor Police Station, for the offence punishable under Ss.341, 323 and 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.2. The learned Counsel submits that the Sessions Court, Thalassery, had dismissed the prayer for an order, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the investigation is not over. The offence under Sections 341, 323 and 324 IPC are bailable. Though the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 2005, Act 25 of 2005, had been implemented from the appointed date, 23.6.2006, all the provisions contained thereunder, had not been brought into force. The Gazette of India Extraordinary dated 21.6.2006 contains S.O.No. 923(E), notifying that though 23.6.2006 is appointed as the date on which the provisions of Act 25 of 2005 would come into effect the provisions of Sections 16, 25, 28(a), 28(b), 38, 42(a), 42(b), 42(f)(iii) and (iv) and 44(a) have been excluded.3. Under Section 42(f)(iii) against Section...
Sarojini Prabhu and ors. Vs. Pappikutty Adiesiar and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-13-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ker44
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Petitioners are challenging the dismissal of the application filed by them for passing of a final decree in O.S. 9/67. A preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into 10 equal shares and for redemption of their 1/10 shares on payment of proportionate share of the mortgage amount covered by the registered mortgage deed was passed by the Sub Judge. It was challenged before District Court in A.S. 171/ 72. The appeal was partly allowed modifying the decree. It was challenged before this Court in S.A. 368/76. This Court set aside the modified decree passed by the appellate Court and restored the decree of the trial Court. On the death of the original plaintiff, his legal heirs filed I.A. 3139/95 for passing a final decree. An objection was raised with regard to the maintainability of the final decree contending that it is barred by time. The learned Sub Judge overruled the objection and appointed a Commissioner to value the improvemen...
Reliance Infocom Ltd. Vs. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ker33; 2006(4)KLT695
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Use of mobile phone is a common phenomena throughout the country and has made drastic changes in the peoples' life style. Users range from a common man to multimillionaire and this tiny instrument has revolutionized the medium of communication throughout the world. Constant use of mobile phone, it is reported, may have its own adverse ill effects on human health as well. Mobile phones produce radio-frequency. Magnetic energy moving through space is generally called radio frequency electro magnetic radiation (EMR). EMR is of course a part of everyday life. EMR is emitted by natural sources like the sun, the earth and the ionosphere and also by artificial sources such as electrical and electronic equipments, radar facilities, broadcast towers and mobile phone base stations etc. EMR absorbed in human body is measured in units called the specific absorption rate (SAR) which is usually expressed in units of watts per kilogram (w/kg.) or milliwatts per gram (mw/g.). ...
Omanakutty Amma Vs. Mathew
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT356
M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Petitioner was one of the candidates who submitted the nominations for the election of Constituency No. 13 of Thazhakkara Grama Panchayat. Her nomination paper was rejected at the time of scrutiny. The election was conducted on 24.9.05. Respondent is the elected candidate. Petitioner filed Ext. P5 petition under Section 87 of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, to declare the election of respondent as returned candidate is void on the ground that the nomination submitted by petitioner for the election was improperly rejected. Case of the petitioner was that she submitted her nomination paper to the Returning Officer on 5.9.05 and it was accompanied by a certificate issued by the Electoral Registration Officer authenticating that she is a voter whose name is included in the electoral roll of the said Constituency. She also submitted a detailed information in Form 2 A as contemplated under Section 52(1A) of the Act and every entry the...
K. Muralidharan Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ417
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. Petitioner is the de facto complainant in V.C. No. 21 of 2000 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Palakkad. The following are the prayers in the amended Writ. Petition : (1) to quash the direction for further investigation ordered in V.C. No. 21 of 2000, (2) to accept the earlier factual report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Palakkad, (3) to reject the factual report submitted by the 5th respondent, (4) to direct the 6th respondent, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi to take over the investigation of V.C. No. 21 of 2000 and (5) to quash Exhibit P3 order passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode in V.C. No. 21 of 2000 accepting the final report submitted by the 5th respondent.2. Petitioner is the proprietor of Bhasker Soap Works, Karipodu, Palakkad which is engaged in the manufacture of soaps. Petitioner filed a complaint against the 7th respondent alleging that he has demanded an amount of Rs. 3,...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jabbar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1371; 2007(1)KLT331
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Alleging that he suffered certain injuries in a motor accident, the respondent applied for compensation under Sections 163-A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short), alleging negligence on the driver, though none was impleaded in that capacity.2. The owner did not contest.3. The appellant-insurer disputed the liability and also challenged the maintainability of the composite application, filed invoking Sections 163-A and 166. Faced with such objections, the claimant applied for deletion of Section 166 from the application.4. The documentary evidence was, thereafter, taken on record. No oral evidence was adduced.5. The Tribunal did not find that the claimant suffered any permanent disablement. Nor was on record, any certificate, by the competent, to that effect. Bereft of that, the application was unsustainable under Section 163-A. The claimant pleaded his monthly income as Rs. 5,000/-, that is, an annual income of Rs. 60,000/-, we...
Varghese Mathew and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ165
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellants herein question the conviction and sentence against them in Crl. Case No. 1 of 1997 passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code. First accused in the above case was then Superintending Engineer, KIP Circle, Kollam, from 5.10.1990 till his retirement on 30.4.1991. Second accused was a contractor. Third accused was former Executive Engineer (13.7.1990 to 25.3.1994), fourth accused was former Assistant Executive Engineer (22.3.1989 to 22.12.1991), fifth and sixth accused were former Assistant Engineers, seventh accused was the former Chief Engineer from 2.2.1990 to 31.12.1991 and eighth accused was the Superintending Engineer who took charge after the retirement of the first accused from 3.5.1991 to 16.1.1992. The second accused undertook the contract for the formation of Left Bank (LB) main canal Ch.5...
Zeenath Vs. Kadeeja
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ600; 2006(4)KLT905
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Under what circumstances can the power under Section 97 and/or Section 98 of the Cr.P.C. be invoked by a Magistrate in a dispute regarding custody of minor children? This is the crucial question that arises for consideration in this Revision Petition directed against an order under which the petitioner's application praying for action under Section 97 or 98 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the court below. The young counsel Mr. Thomas M.Jacob and Mr. Vinod Madhavan have researched the question in detail to assist, this Court.2. To the skeletal facts first. The petitioner is a 23 years old mother of two minor female children aged 4 years and 1 1/2 years respectively. Her husband was employed abroad. She was residing in her matrimonial home along with the relatives of her husband including the respondent herein - her mother-in-law. She would allege that there was ill-treatment at the matrimonial home and she hence decided to leave the matrimonial home and take up empl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »