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.
Retnakaran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-05-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1488; 2006(4)KLT978
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. Can the appellate court allow the appellant to furnish suitable security in lieu of payment of fine by him during pendency of appeal? This question arises for consideration in this petition.2. Petitioner filed an appeal against the conviction and sentence passed against him for offence under the Abkari Act. In the said appeal, this court suspended the sentence of imprisonment alone, on an application filed by appellant. The sentence of fine was not suspended but this court granted time for payment of fine. According to petitioner, he is not able to deposit the huge amount of fine of Rs. 1 lakh which is imposed on him, being the minimum fine for offence under Section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act.3. Petitioner is stated to be a coolie, getting a meager income of Rs. 1,000/- which is not sufficient to meet even his daily needs. Petitioner is not having any landed property, except the house where he is living with his family. He is also a heart patient. He has also tak...
P. Jithendranadh Vs. Walson Laboratories and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-05-2006
Reported in: [2007]138CompCas752(Ker); 2007(1)KLJ10
J.B. Koshy, J.1. The appellant who is the complainant in a petition filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed this appeal against the acquittal of the respondent/accused under Section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His case was that the accused persons had borrowed Rs. 3,00,000 from him for the purpose of the first respondent M/s. Walson Laboratories, Kozhikode, and the second respondent issued a cheque dated July 26, 1993, towards the liability. The second respondent is the managing partner. Respondents Nbs. 3 and 4 are the partners of the registered firm. The cheque was signed by the second respondent. Since there was no sufficient money in the account of the second respondent, the cheque was dishonoured and he approached the court. The magistrate's court after considering the evidence found that the complainant failed to prove that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt and also found that if a deemed date is taken as the da...
infoseek Solutions Vs. Kerala Law Times
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-04-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ker1; 2006(4)KLT311; 2007(34)PTC231(Ker)
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal is against an order of temporary injunction passed on an application under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their principal officers, directors, agents, franchisees, servants, licenses and all other persons acting for and on behalf of the defendants from publishing, advertising, reproducing, storing in any manner in any medium now known or in the future being developed, transmitting, offering for sale, selling, distributing, issuing to the public, licensing, renting, allowing access either through their website or CD-ROMS either free or for a fee, judgments which are identical, of a substantial and/or colourable reproduction of the text of the judgments of the Kerala Law Times (including head-notes, short notes, long notes, editorial notes, citations, various copy editing inputs described therein), as published in the KLT, or in any other p...
Somarajan Vs. R.T.A.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-04-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ker75; 2006(4)KLT628
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The point that arises, for decision in this case, is the validity of the Circular issued by the State Transport Authority, directing the Regional Transport Authorities, not to consider any application for grant of regular permit, without settling its time schedule, in advance. The brief facts of the case are as follows:2. The petitioner has approached this Court, feeling aggrieved by the delay from the part of the R.T.A., Ernakulam, to consider and pass orders on Ext.Pl application for regular permit, on the route Kodungalloor-Ernakulam, High Court Junction. He also attacks Ext.P3 Circular issued by the State Transport Authority dated 21-12-2005, concerning the procedure for finalising the time schedule of stage carriages.3. Ext.Pl application for regular permit was submitted by the petitioner along with Ext.P2 covering letter. The same contained the time schedule proposed by him for his permit. But, the R.T.A. did not consider Ext.Pl or Ext.P2, for the reaso...
Swarna Prabha Vs. R.T.A.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT735
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The point that arises for decision in this case is, whether the R.T. A., while granting a permit or subsequently, can attach a condition to it, to the effect that the same shall not be transferred for a period of five years. The brief facts of the case are the following:2. The petitioner purchased an autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KL-13 E 816 from one Shaju.V. It is already covered by a permit, valid upto 2009. It has been allowed to park within the Kannur municipal limits. The petitioner, along with the said Shaju submitted a joint application for transfer of the permit before the respondent on 1-4-2005. The said application is produced as Ext.P2. Later, that application was returned, stating that the permit of the vehicle, which was allowed to park in the municipal area, cannot be transferred, before the expiry of five years from the date of grant of the permit. The petitioner approached this Court, challenging the said stand of the respondents by fil...
Kairali Marketing and Processing Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. Pullengadi Se ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-04-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC520; 2007(1)KLT287
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. What precisely is the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act? On what date can the offence be held to be committed? These questions arise for consideration in these Revision Petitions which are directed against the concurrent verdicts of guilty, convictions and sentences imposed in two separate prosecutions between the same parties under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The complainant in both these prosecutions is a Co-operative Society. The first accused in both cases is also a co-operative society. The second accused is the president of the first accused co-operative society, a named individual. The third accused is arrayed with the description that he is the secretary of the first accused Co-operative society. It is significant that the complaint is not against an individual acting as the Secretary. The third accused is shown as the Secretary of the Society. The incumbent functioning as the Secretary is not named as the thir...
Dayananda Babu Vs. Vijaya Automobiles and General Engineering Works
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-03-2006
Reported in: IV(2007)BC52; 2006(4)KLT825
J.M. James, J.1. The right of the appellant-complainant in proceeding with an appeal, preferred after obtaining special leave, challenging the order of acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in short 'the Act', even after the death of the accused, is the point that is raised for consideration of this Court.2. The appellant was the complainant, in C.C. No. 316/1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Varkala. After appreciating the evidence adduced by both sides, the trial Court found the accused not guilty and therefore, acquitted him. On obtaining special leave, the appellant came before this Court preferring this appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in short Cr.P.C.3. During the pendency of the appeal, it is conceded by either side that the accused died. A question therefore, arose whether an appeal could be pursued by the complainant, appellant, after impleading the legal representatives of the de...
State of Kerala Vs. Smt. Thressiammaskariah
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-03-2006
Reported in: (2007)12VST325(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The common question raised in the two revisions filed by the State against the common order of the Tribunal in the case of the same assessee for the two assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 is whether the Tribunal was justified in cancelling assessment under Section 5A on the purchase turnover of timber from agriculturists by the respondent-assessee for use in manufacture of furniture for sale in the State. Even though assessment was sustained in first appeal, the Tribunal held that timber is an item coming under the Fifth Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 taxable at two points and therefore, assessment under Section 5A is not possible. The Tribunal further held that when the item falls under Fifth Schedule, it cannot be assessed under residuary entry of the First Schedule for the purpose of levy of tax under Section 5A. The Government Pleader contended that Section 5A applies even in respect of commodities falling under the Fifth Schedule ...
K.M. Babu Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-03-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST516(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Question raised is whether the Tribunal is justified in confirming levy of tax under Section 5A on purchase turnover of thulasi leaves by petitioner for manufacture of cough syrup.2. Petitioner is an ayurveda doctor. He is engaged in manufacture of ayurvedic drug preparations. Cough syrup is one such product manufactured by petitioner using, among other items, thulasi leaves which are purchased from unregistered dealers. While the case of the department is that petitioner is liable to pay tax under Section 5A on the purchase of thulasi leaves from unregistered dealers, petitioner contends that leaves are entitled to exemption under entry 59 of the Third Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The Tribunal, however, held that since petitioner's product is a manufactured product, petitioner is liable to pay purchase tax on the raw material. We are unable to interfere with the order of the Tribunal because the petitioner is not entitled to exemptio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›