Kerala Court November 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.
Ahammedkutty Haji Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT68
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. The question raised is one of territorial jurisdiction in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottapalam. Petitioner without and before entering appearance before that court has come to this Court to complain that the forum at Ottapalam was chosen by the respondent/complainant with the sole intention of vexing and harassing the petitioner. No part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court at Ottapalam. In these circumstances initiation and continuation of the prosecution at Ottapalam is a transparent abuse of the process of the Court. The complaint deserves to be quashed. This in short is the plea.3. The learned Counsel for the respondent resists the prayer in the Crl.M.C. He contends that even if the contentions were accepted in to...
U.K. Ahammedkutty Haji Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC609
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. The question raised is one of territorial jurisdiction in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottapalam. Petitioner without and before entering appearance before that Court has come to this Court to complain that the Forum at Ottapalam was chosen by the respondent/complainant with the sole intention of vexing and harassing the petitioner. No part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court at Ottapalam. In these circumstances initiation and continuation of the prosecution at Ottapalam is a transparent abuse of the process of the Court. The complaint deserves to be quashed. This in short is the plea.3. The learned Counsel for the respondent resists the prayer in the Crl.M.C. He contends that even if the contentions were accepted in to...
E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Kannapuram Weavers Industrial Co-op. Society
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-21-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR769]; 2007(1)KLT55; (2007)IILLJ34Ker
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Can caveats be lodged before Employees' Insurance Court2. ESI Corporation lodged a caveat before the Employees' Insurance Court ('Court', for short), in terms of Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC', for short). The Court refused the lodgment, taking the view that Section 148A of CPC is not applicable to the Court and that neither Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('Act, for short) nor the Rules framed thereunder, invests the Court with power to entertain a caveat. Hence, this appeal by the Corporation.3. The refused lodgment was on the apprehension that the respondent, who allegedly owes substantial amounts by way of contribution etc. under the Act, is likely to move the Court and obtain interlocutory order against the Corporation which deals with public funds and is constituted to achieve social welfare goals.4. Section 74 of the Act provides for the constitution of the Court. Sub-section (3) of Section 75 provides exclusion of juris...
K. Chathukutty and ors. Vs. K.S. Prasanna Venkitesan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-21-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC488; 2007CriLJ1120
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. This appeal is filed by the complainant in C. C. No. 396/1995 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery challenging the judgment passed by the Court below acquitting the respondent.2. Petitioner filed a private complaint alleging that respondent borrowed an amount of Rs. One lakh and issued Ext. P1 cheque on 25-6-1995 in discharge of that legally recoverable debt. Appellant presented the cheque for collection on 19-5-1995 through Mamtaaram Branch of the Syndicate Bank. Cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement that the account was closed. It was also alleged that respondent had no sufficient funds also in the account maintained by him with the bank. Notice was issued demanding repayment of the amount covered by Ext. P1 cheque. Respondent issued Ext. P8 reply denying his liabilities. Hence the complaint alleging that respondent committed offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code....
Windsor Castle Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT18
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976. This Writ Petition is filed by it, mainly feeling aggrieved by Ext. P 15 order passed by the second respondent, appellate authority, dismissing its application for stay of collection of luxury tax, for the assessment years 2000-01 to 2003-04. According to the appellate authority, there is no provision in the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 enabling it to stay collection of tax, pending appeal. The petitioner attacks the said order.2. I heard the learned Government Pleader for the respondents also. The appellate authority which is having the power to set aside an order has incidental or ancillary power to grant stay of the same, during the pendency of appeal. This legal position is well settled in view of the decision of the Apex Court in I.T. Officer v. Mohd. Kunhi 1968 KLT 794 (SC) : AIR 1969 SC 430 and also the decision of this Court in Dy. Conservator, Forests v. Sarojini 1981 KLT 1...
A. Rajalakshmi and ors. Vs. the Calicut Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ420
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The appellants-plaintiffs, their sister and a brother owned an item of property within the limits of the respondent corporation which proceeded to attach the properties of the plaintiff on alleged default to remit property tax. The plaintiffs sued contending that there was no demand for property tax and therefore neither the plaintiffs nor the other owners are defaulters, to be proceeded against distress action.2. The courts below found that the defendants did not produce any material to show that any demand was made on the alleged defaulters. Yet the suit and the plaintiffs' first appeal were dismissed by taking the view that since the plaintiffs have paid a portion of the tax, it cannot be treated as a case where there was no demand on them.3. Chapter V in Part III of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as the 'Act') relates to taxation. Sections 101 to 112 deal with property tax. Section 138 provides that the rules ...
Manjubash Vs. Beena Mohandas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ker99; 2007(1)KLT65
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Whether the beneficiary of an order under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is entitled to get interest for the delayed disbursement of the amounts awarded in the order, if not otherwise originally provided for, is the issue to be considered in this case.2. The District Forum passed the order dated 1.6.99, ordering damages and costs. However, the same could be executed only in 2003, The Forum ordered interest at the stage of execution and hence the Writ Petition. The 1st respondent is the complainant before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur in O.P. No. 2/97. The complainant was disposed of by order dated 1.6.1999. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:In the result, this complaint is allowed and the second opposite party is directed to deposit (Rupees two lakhs only) in the name of the minor Aswin Mohandas in a nationalised bank as a fixed deposit. The mother of the child is permitted to draw interest on the deposit amoun...
Favaz Timber Industries Vs. Intelligence Officer (investigation Branch ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-2006
Reported in: (2007)8VST429(Ker)
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that arises for decision in these writ petitions is as to what, if any, is the time-limit for returning the documents produced following a notice issued in terms of Section 28(1) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('the Act', for short).2. A notice in form 51, under Rule 72, of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 ('the Rules', for short), was issued to the petitioner, a dealer, directing production of books of account for the year 2003-04. He produced books of account on November 25, 2005. According to him, the first respondent verified the books of account and, issuing exhibit P3 receipt, seized them, without any authority. Contending that the said documents are not returned and that, at any rate, they cannot be retained indefinitely, W.P. (C) No. 15616 of 2006 is filed seeking a direction for releasing the seized records. Pending consideration of that case, a notice under Section 45A of the Act, proposing imposition of penalt...
Shoukathali Vs. District Collector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT86
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Whether the vehicle accompanying a lorry involved in illegal transportation of sand can be confiscated is the main issue to be considered in this case. The Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, is intended to protect the river banks and river beds from large scale dredging of river sand and to protect their biophsical environment system and regulate the removal of river sand and for matters connected therewith.Section 20 provides penalty for contravention of this Act, which reads as follows:20. Penalty for contravention of this Act: Whoevercontravenes any of the provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder shall, on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term of which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees or with both and in case of continuing contravention with an additional fine which may extend to one thousand rupees for every day during which such contravention cont...
Secretary K.S.E. Board and ors. Vs. Jayapalan K. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ51
M. Ramachandran, J.1. This appeal arises from the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Thalassery in O.S. No. 3 of 1996. The suit had been filed by the parents of deceased-M. Reshma. who had been electrocuted on 14-3-1995. At about 3.30 p.m. on the day she had treaded upon a live electric wire, which was lying on the ground, near her residence unaware of what lay in store.2. The plaintiffs had contended that the Kerala State Electricity Board had failed to take reasonable care/precaution in the installation and maintenance of electric lines and were responsible for the tragic loss, which befell on them. The minor girl, who was a high school student, possessed leadership qualities and the loss of expectation, which had resulted because of the accident, according to them, required to be compensated. The claim was for payment of Rs. 3 lakhs, coming under various heads. A decree had been passed on 25-8-2000, awarding Rs. 2 lakhs.3. At the time of admission, an interim order...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »