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.
Westfort Hi-tech Hospital Ltd. and anr. Vs. V.S. Krishnan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-14-2006
Reported in: (2007)2CompLJ143(Ker); [2007]76SCL185(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. These appeals are filed questioning the correctness of the order of the Company Law Board dated 5.6.2006 under Sections 397, 398, read with Sections 402 and 403 and Schedule XI of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') [since reported as V.S. Krishnan and Ors. v. Westfort Hi-tech Hospital Ltd. and Ors. (2006) 8 Comp LJ 118 (CLB)]. Both sides relied on various decisions in support of their arguments. Whether and how the ratio of those decisions will be applicable in this case, can be considered only after considering the facts of this case. The apex court in Uttaranchal Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Mansaram Nainwal : (2006)IIILLJ505SC observed as follows at paragraph 13:A decision is a precedent on its own facts. Each case presents its own features. It is not everything said by a Judge while giving judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing a Judge's decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and...
E.K. Jeevaraj Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-14-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ713
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. The petitioner laces indictment in a prosecution under Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had assaulted his brother-in-law who along with the wife of the petitioner took objection to the petitioner-a married person, moving around with another lady in the park. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the final report submitted by the police. Proceedings are still pending before the learned Magistrate.2. The petitioner wants the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate to be quashed. What is the reason? The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife has been settled amicably and the parties have agreed to give quietus to all the disputes between them. Accordingly, it has been agreed that the prosecution under Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC can also be brought to termination. Accordingly, it is prayed that powers under S...
Gupta Enterprises Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-14-2006
Reported in: (2007)10VST680(Ker)
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Are purchases of sandalwood billets, roots, etc., for complying with export orders for sandalwood chips permitted for export, to be deemed to be in the course of such export, for the purpose of Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('the CST Act', for short) This, pithily, is the issue in these writ petitions.2. Stated to be to satisfy existing orders for export, the petitioner, engaged in the export of sandalwood, participated in, and successfully bid, different forest auctions held by the Kerala Forest Department. When called upon to pay the entire sales tax due under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('the KGST Act', for short) along with the balance consideration, the petitioner claimed exemption under Section 5(3) of the CST Act. These writ petitions are filed for a direction to release the goods without collecting sales tax, on furnishing documents in support of the claim of exemption.3. The respondents contend, inter alia, that (i...
Elamgulam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Gopinathan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT147
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The Elamgulam Service Co-operative Bank, the 3rd respondent in O.P.No. 623 of 2000 is the appellant herein. The Original Petition was filed by respondents 1 and 2, two employees of the Bank, challenging disciplinary proceedings against them whereby by Ext. P3 notice, the administrator, who is in management of the Bank, called upon those employees to offer their comments on the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, who conducted the enquiry into the charges of misconduct levelled against the employees as a prelude to imposition of penalty on the respondents 1 and 2.2. Relying on certain decisions of this Court, namely, President,Pudupariyaram Service Co-op. Society v. Rugmini Amma and Ors. 1996 (1) KLT 100, Achamma Cyriac v. K.F.C. and Ors. 1996 (1) KLJ 756 and Kunhammed v. Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies 1998 (1) KLT 60 and Rugmini Amma's case (supra) in particular, the learned Single Judge accepted the contention of respondents 1 and 2 that if the fi...
Malankara Plantations Ltd. Vs. Edavetti Grama Panchayat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-10-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT321
ORDERKurian Joseph, J.1. Whether profession tax is to be paid even if there is no incomeis the question to be decided in this case. It is the contention of the petitioner that during the year 2001-02 and 2002-03 not only that the petitioner Company did not have any income for the purpose of assessment under the Agricultural Income Tax Act, but had suffered huge loss also. Since the assessment of income is to be based on the income as assessed under the Agricultural Income Tax Act, it is submitted that petitioner is not liable to pay profession tax for those years.2. Section 204 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 provides for profession tax. To the extent relevant, the same reads as follows:204. Profession tax:1) The profession tax shall, subject to such rules as may be prescribed be levied every half year in every Village Panchayat area on,-i) every company which transacts business in such Panchayat area for not less than sixty days in the aggregate in that half year and ii) every p...
Duroflex Ltd. Vs. Johnny Mathew
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-09-2006
Reported in: (2008)2CompLJ314(Ker); [2007]75SCL569(Ker)
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. An application (appeal) was filed by the first respondent before the Company Law Board, South Region Bench under Section 111(2) of the Companies Act (for short 'the Act') as the company refused to register the transaction of 67,300 shares inherited by him from his deceased mother by virtue of a Will dated 21-12-1987. He filed an application on 25-7-2002 for registration of the transmission of the above shares. From a communication dated 31-5-2003 forwarded by the company he came to understand that the above application was rejected. Hence, application was filed under Section 111 of the Act with a petition to condone the delay of 45 days. The appellant company contended that the application for registration of transaction was made on 25-7-2002. Since no notice or communication was given by the company, appeal should have been filed within four months from the date of application and the delay is 285 days and not 45 days. It was contended that communication dated 31...
Johnson Vs. Ouseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-09-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ker175
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order dated 25-8-2006 refusing leave to file the suit as an indigent person. The appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit against his father for realisation of money. The court-fee payable in the suit is Rs. 29,750/-. The contention of the appellant is that he has no property or income except the properties shown in the schedule to the application for leave to file the suit as an indigent person. Item No. 1 in the C schedule is his residential property and item No. 2 of C schedule is the property assigned to the appellant by his father. The B schedule properties are the movables belonging to the appellant. He contended that except those mentioned in B and C schedule, he has no other properties, assets or income.2. The respondent contended that the appellant is a person having sufficient means to pay the court-fee. A commission was taken out to disprove the contentions raised by the appellant. The Commissioner filed Ext. C1 report. The...
P.C. Velayudhan and ors. Vs. P.M. Joseph and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-09-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ217
ORDERA.K. Basheer, J.1. Is the tenant liable to pay interest on the arrears of fair rent from the date of his re-induction into the reconstructed building or does the liability arise only from the date when the fair rent is fixed by the court2. When the above contentious issue came up for consideration, the Rent Control court held that the tenant would be liable to pay interest on the arrears only from the date of fixation of fair rent. However, the Rent Control Appellate Authority took the view that the landlord was entitled to get interest from the date of reinduction itself. The above order passed by the appellate authority is under challenge, at the instance of the tenant, in this revision petition filed under Section 20 of the Kerala Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act').It is not in dispute that the building was reconstructed at the intervention of the Rent Control Court under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act. At the time of reinduction, the landlord demande...
Jose Vs. Ouseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ker77; 2006(4)KLT991
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Can the presumption that a legacy to an attesting witness is void under Section 67 of the Indian Succession Act be rebutted by the legatee establishing that he had signed the will not as an attesting witness but acknowledging the obligations he has to discharge under the will, is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. O.P.No. 40 of 1991 was filed by one of the legatees seeking Letters of Administration of a Will executed by his mother late Kathreena. In response to the notice, first respondent alone entered appearance and contested and the O.P was then numbered as a suit O.S 5/1993 and was tried by the District Court, Thrissur. Kathreena is the mother of plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6. First defendant is the grandson of Kathreena and the son of Antony. Kathreena had executed a Will on 29.08.1957 and got it registered as document number 53 of 1957 of the Sub Registry Office, Thrissur on 30.8.1957. She had signed the document in the pres...
Venugopalan Vs. Beena
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT936
M. Ramachandran, J.1. K. Venugopalan, appellant herein, had married respondent K.V. Beena, on 30-12-1993. A daughter, Raveena, was born to them on 02-07-1996. For the last about five years, Raveena was residing along with her father, as the couple had separated a few years back. The mother craved for the company of her daughter, and had moved the Family Court for custody of the minor daughter. Order passed by the Family Court, Malappuram dated 13.07.2006 in O.P.(G & W).No. 45 of 2006 directs that the father of minor Raveena should handover custody of the child to the mother, respondent herein. Visitorial right, however, had been reserved in favour of the father so that he can see the child and spend time with her for two hours on every alternate Sundays. The appeal has been filed by the father feeling aggrieved about the orders so passed.2. We had heard Sri. S.V. Balakrishna Iyer, who appeared on behalf of the appellant and had also occasion to hear Sri. K. Ramachandran, appearing for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »