Kerala Court February 2006 Judgments
In Re: Mariamma Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT11
K.M. Joseph, J.1. Letters of Administration was ordered to be issued to the petitioner by order dated 19-12-2005. Annexure 7 was the affidavit of the daughter of the deceased. The daughter has not raised any objection to the grant of Letters of Administration in favour of the petitioner, her mother and it was on that basis the Letters of Administration were granted.2. As per Section 291 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Rule 18 of the Indian Succession Rules (Kerala) 1968, every person to whom any grant of Letters of Administration, other than a grant under Section 241 is committed, should give a bond to the Registrar General with one or more sureties, engaging for the due collection getting in and administering the estate of the deceased. A memo was filed by the counsel for the petitioner praying that since the instant case is a non-contentious proceeding and the court has allowed the petition without specific direction regarding the execution of bond and as there is no con...
Tag this Judgment!Varghese Vs. Padappu Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangham Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR687]; 2006(2)KLT116; (2006)IILLJ1052Ker
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The workman involved in an application under the Payment of Minimum Wages Act, has filed this appeal aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 7007/1998, by which the order passed by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was set aside by the learned Single Judge, holding that the Padappu Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangham Ltd. in which the appellant was working as a Milk Tester is not an industry coming within any of the industries enumerated in the schedule to the Minimum Wages Act, thereby excluding the application of the provisions of the said Act to the said establishment. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows:2. The 1st respondent is a co-operative society engaged in the business of collection of milk from small farmers and selling the same to the public. Complaining about nonpayment of minimum wages applicable to the employees in dairy farms, the appellant filed an application before the ...
Tag this Judgment!Siraj Vs. R.T.O.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT502
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner, in this Writ Petition, challenges the constitutional validity of Section 15 and also Sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 4 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976. The brief facts of the case are the following:2. The petitioner is a stage carriage operator, operating on the route Cheranellur-Fort Kochi, on the strength of a regular permit, granted to his vehicle KL-7/AN-6074. The tax in respect of the said vehicle for the quarter ending on 31.03.2006 has to be paid on or before 31.01.2006. A grace period is allowed upto 14.02.2006, i.e., for operating the stage carriage or keeping it in operation, he has to pay the tax on or before 14.02.2006. If tax is not paid within the said time limit, he will be liable to pay penal interest. Apart from that, non-payment of tax is an offence, punishable under Section 16 of the above said Act. If there is default to pay tax, the same can be recovered, invoking the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Re...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. R. Lakshmi Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Ker)462
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner is challenging Ext. P14 order whereunder the CIT has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the orders of the AO declining to rectify income-tax assessments applied for by the petitioner under Section 154 of the IT Act for the years 1992-93 to 1996-97. Assessments for these years were originally completed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act granting depreciation based on the WDV declared by the petitioner in the returns. However, assessments for two preceding years namely, 1990-91 and 1991-92 were under contest before the CIT(A) and Tribunal, respectively wherein the issue involved was WDV of some items, such as plant, machinery, furniture, etc. for the purpose of depreciation. Consequent upon orders of these two authorities, WDV after granting depreciation for 1990-91 and 1991-92 changed and therefore WDV for granting depreciation for 1992-93 and later years had to be modified. As a consequence of change in WDV of eli...
Tag this Judgment!Paul Vs. Pradeep
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT20
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The revision petitioner, the tenant, challenges the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under Sections. 11(2) (b) and 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The Rent Control Petition was filed by the respondent under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act. The Rent Control Court rejected the claim under Section 11 (4)(ii). The landlord has not challenged the order of the Rent Control Court in appeal and, therefore, the decision under Section 11(4)(ii) has become final. The case of the landlord is that he acquired the property in the year 1978 and the building was entrusted to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- on 1.1.1994. The tenant defaulted payment of rent for the period from 1.1.1995 and in spite of notice, he did not pay the arrears of rent. The landlord contended that he bona fide requires the petition schedule building for conducting pho...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskaran Vs. Dy. Tahsildar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT6
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging revenue recovery proceedings initiated to recover court fee.2. The petitioner suffered a decree in O.S. No. 236 of 1997 filed against him by the second respondent herein, before the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur. He challenged that decree in A.S. No. 228 of 2004 before the Court of the Additional District Judge, North Paravur, on being permitted to sue as an indigent person, for the purpose of Order XLIV read with Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. That appeal was allowed on 14-11-2005, as per Ext.P2 decree of which Ext.Pl is the judgment.3. By the force of Rule 1 of Order XLIV, Order XXXIII applies to appeals. Rule 10 of Order XXXIII provides that where the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, the court shall calculate the amount of court-fees which would have been paid by the plaintiff if he would had not been permitted to sue as an indigent person and that such amount shall be recoverable by the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Jose George Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT188
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The accused in L.P. 32 of 2004 which arises from C.C. 584 of 2005 on the file of JFCM, Koothuparamba has filed thisCrl. M.C. The petitioner sought for pre-arrest bail by filing B.A.548 of 2006. This court, as per order dated 2.2.2006, granted pre-arrest bail. According to the petitioner, when he appeared before the court, he was told that since there is no specific direction issued to the Magistrate, he will be remanded and the bail application filed was returned. Hence this Crl.M.C for a direction to the JFCM, Koothuparamba to release the petitioner on bail in connection with L.P. 32 of 2004 in C.C.584 of 2005. 2. Heard both sides. After hearing both sides, I am of the view that it is absolutely unnecessary to issue any such directions. It is true that there is no specific direction to the Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail. If the Magistrate is taking a view that such directions are to be issued by this court in every bail applications, the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Shaji Vs. Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC294; 2006(2)KLT289
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This revision is filed by the second accused who was the secretary of a Cooperative Society against the order rejecting his request for discharging him from CC. 243 of 1991. The Managing Director of Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited had filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging that the accused have committed offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. First accused is the Kalayapuram Girivarga Service Co-operative Society and A2 and A3 are the Secretary and President respectively of that society.2. The second accused preferred an application for discharging him from the criminal case stating that he has not issued the cheque in his personal capacity and that the cheque was issued as security by the first accused society. He has also averred that he is no longer the Secretary of the society and he may be discharged. Complainant filed objection to the application statin...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ahammadkutty Haji Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Ker)247; [2007]288ITR304(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner is challenging Ext. P16 order issued by the Chief CIT declining petitioner's demand for interest under Section 244A(2) of the IT Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', over and above the amount granted under Ext. P14.2. Petitioner remitted advance tax for the years 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91. However, returns were filed declaring loss but with substantial delay. While delay in filing returns for 1988-89 and 1989-90 was around three years, for the year 1990-91 the return was delayed by around five years. Since returns filed were belated, those returns were not acted upon by the AO. Therefore, petitioner filed application for condonation of delay in filing the returns before the CIT, who rejected it by Ext. P4 order dt. 26th Feb., 1996. Thereafter, petitioner filed another petition. Ext. P5, on 31st May, 1996, requesting the CIT to reconsider Ext. P4. Then, CIT allowed the petition to condone the delay. Since Ext. P5 was not considered for a ...
Tag this Judgment!Trivandrum Taluk Taxi Drivers Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT986
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext. P10 order of the Government confirming Ext. P4 order by which the Joint Registrar directed the third respondent Assistant Registrar to conduct an enquiry in terms of Section 68(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The ground that was urged at the hearing of this Writ Petition was as to whether the petitioner was entitled to be heard before issuing Ext. P4 decision and further, whether such action of issuing Ext.P4 is in violation of the procedure provided in Rule 66(5) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules ('the Rules', for short).3. The issue whether the petitioner is entitled to be heard before the Registrar authorises another officer to enquire into the conduct of the petitioner or its members stands answered in the negative by the decision of this Court in Murali's case : 2005(3)KLT69 , the relevant portion of which reads as follows:The issue raised i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »