Kerala Court November 2006 Judgments
Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Bharanikavu Branch and anr. Vs. Krishnamo ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ker64; IV(2007)BC207; [2007]139CompCas256(Ker); 2007(1)KLJ165
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Petitioners are the defendants in O.S. 195/2005 on the file of Munsiff Court, Sasthameottah. Respondent is the plaintiff. Respondent filed the suit seeking a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining petitioner bank from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or transferring the property to third parlies, admitting that respondent is a borrower from the petitioner bank. Petitioner filed written statement contending that suit is not maintainable by virtue of Section 34 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). As per order dated 12-4-2006, Munsiff dismissed I.A. 883/05 filed by petitioners challenging the maintainability of the suit and held that suit is maintainable. It is challenged in this revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and respondent were heard....
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Sundaran Vs. V.N. Reji and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ389
J.B. Koshy, J.1. In Arbitration Request No. 39 of 2001, this Court appointed a retired District Judge as arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the appellant and first respondent relating to 'Kochukarippal Jewellery' which was stated to be a firm constituted by the appellant and first respondent. According to the first respondent, a partnership deed was executed for conducting business in the manufacture and sale of jewellery items on 14-1-1999. It was intended to be run in a shop room which had been used by the appellant as a proprietary concern for the business conducted by him. The total capital of the proposed firm was agreed to be Rupees Five lakhs to be contributed equally by the appellant and first respondent. The value of the machineries, furniture and other rights of the proprietary concern of the appellant worth Rs. 2,50,000/- was agreed to be treated as share capital of the appellant and first respondent advanced cash of Rs.2,50,000/- towards his share of capital. They pu...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Rathikumar Vs. N.K. Santhamma and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-2006
Reported in: IV(2008)BC15; 2008(1)KLJ175
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Does the admission that the cheque was issued as security for repayment of the loan take the transaction out of the sweep of Section 138 of the N.I. Act? This is the relevant question that falls 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. 20,000/-. It bears the date1-1-2001. The petitioner now faces a sentence of S.I. for a period of two months. There is also a direction to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of one month.3. The signature in the cheque is admitted. The notice of demand was duly received and acknowledged. But no reply is produced and proved. It is undisputed that a reply was sent and received by the counsel for the complainant. The complainant examined herself as PW1 and proved Exts. P1 to P7. In the reply notice and in thecourse of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-2006
Reported in: (2007)6VST390(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Common questions arise for consideration in all these cases and hence we are disposing of these cases by a common judgment.2. Appellant in O.T.A. No. 6 of 2006 is the petitioner in W.P.C. No. 16721 of 2006. Appeal was preferred under Section 62(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with Rule 80(1) of the Rules challenging the clarificatory order dated April 7, 2006 passed under Section 94 of the VAT Act by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Trivandrum. W.P.C. No. 16721 of 2006 was preferred seeking a declaration that serial number 66 inserted as per exhibit P2 notification dated January 21, 2006 is inoperative and unenforceable so far as it varies from HSN Code 8516.79.20.3. Appellant, hereinafter referred to as 'the company', is engaged in the manufacture, sale and marketing of household insecticide, pesticides such as Mortein mosquito coils, mat vaporisers, liquid vaporisers, multi-insect killers and disinfectants such as Harpic and Lizol and Det...
Tag this Judgment!A.P. Abdul Gafoor Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-2006
Reported in: (2008)14VST341(Ker)
K.P. Balachandran, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in lime shell. These revisions relate to the assessments under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 respectively for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000.2. The petitioner did not submit returns for both the assessment years. The inquiry conducted by the assessing authority revealed that during the assessment years in issue, the petitioner had effected inter-State sales of lime shell. Despite notices issued, the petitioner disclosed only local sales of lime shell and suppressed inter-State sales and the value disclosed in the bills was also found to be very low. As many as nine lorry loads of inter-State sales were detected during the period of two months, namely, during January 1999 and February 1999 during the assessment year 1998-99 and the value shown in the bills was also below rupees two thousand, when the value shown for similar sales by co-operative societies was rupees eight thousand and nine thousand. It was also detected that the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Muraleedharan T.P. and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ29
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Are there circumstances justifying the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in this case? Under what circumstances can such powers be invoked? Without and before claiming discharge, can the indictee be permitted to raise the plea for premature termination of proceedings as a matter of course before the High Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.? There questions arise for consideration in this Crl. M.C. The manner in which such pleas for premature termination are lightly raised before this Court obliges this Court to consider these questions in this Crl. M.C.2. The petitioners are the accused in a prosecution under Section 420 read with 34 I.P.C. Proceedings have been initiated on the basis of a complaint filed by the defacto complainant. It is submitted that the complaint was filed initially before the Chief Minister and that complaint was forwarded to the police. It is thereafter, the police filed the final repor...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nirmala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1810; AIR2007Ker103; 2007(1)KLT38
M.N. Krishnan, J.1. The first three Writ Petitions mentioned above had been referred by the learned Judge of this Court by his order dated 9th November, 2005. The scope of reference is to consider whether the dictum laid down in Sobha Mohankumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2002 (3) KLT 293 requires reconsideration. The contention is whether Order 21 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to the execution proceedings of an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and whether Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act and other provisions bars application of Order 21 of CPC and further whether the decree holder is entitled to interest on interest. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these Writ Petitions are as follows. O.P. 22527/04 is filed against the order of the Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha in E.P. 26/02 in OP(MV) 295/89. The executing Court held that the costs and interest have to be adjusted first and the contention of the judgment debtor that it has ...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Vs. Sankaranarayanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT20
M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. A document styled as an agreement, whereunder the executant undertakes to repay the amount borrowed earlier with interest within the period provided under the document, is a bond or an agreement, is the question to be decided in this petition. Relying on a decision of this Court in Gopakumar v. Easwar Pillai 2006 (1) ILR Ker. 140, learned Munsiff held that the document is a bond and therefore it is insufficiently stamped and impounded the document. It is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India.2. The document is styled as an agreement executed by respondent in favour of petitioner. The recitals in the document show that respondent had borrowed Rs. 80,000/- from petitioner earlier to enable him to go to outside India. Under the agreement, respondent agreed to repay the same with interest at 12% within one year from the date of execution of the agreement. It also provides that on the failure to repay, petitioner is entitled...
Tag this Judgment!Vikraman @ Diksoo Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ169
V. Ramkumar, J.1. The 2nd accused in S.C. No. 1969/2002 on the file of the Court of the IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Kollam challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him by that court for offences punishable under Sections 55(a) and 55(i) of the Abkari Act.2. The case of the prosecution can be summarized as follows:On 24-12-1999 at 5.30 p.m. a police party from Kottiyam Police Station headed by the Sub Inspector PW. 4 while on patrol duty found both accused Nos. 1 and 2 at the residential property of the 1st accused situated near Kay avil culvert in Akkolil cheri of Mayyanadu village. The police party found the 1st accused holding a glass and the 2nd accused holding a plastic kit containing 35 covers, each containing 100 ml. of illicit arrack. The accused has thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 55(a) and 55(i) of the Abkari Act.3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against them by the court below for the aforementioned offenc...
Tag this Judgment!Ouso Vs. Cheekku
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2391; 2007(1)KLT61
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. This Crl. R.P. filed by the accused was not numbered by the Registry, taking the view that the revision is barred by limitation. The counsel for the petitioner submitted in reply to the note made by the Registry that there is no delay and the revision was filed within 90 days from the date of receipt of the free copy of the judgment in the Crl. Appeal. The Registry was not satisfied with this reply. It was noted that the free copy of the judgment dated 28.7.2006 was issued on 11.10.2006 and the date when copy was ready is not mentioned in the judgment.2. The judgment was pronounced on 20th July, 2006. The only endorsement on the judgment is that the free copy was issued on 11.10.2006. The revision was filed on 14.11.2006. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that limitation is to be reckoned from the date of issue of the free copy and not from the date of judgment.3. Section 363 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for issue of copy of judgment ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »