Kerala Court February 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.
Shoney Sanil Vs. Coastal Foundations (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker206; 2006(4)ARBLR294(Kerala); 2006(1)KLT915
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed invoking Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging Ext.P7, an injunction order issued by the District Court, on an application filed by the first respondent herein under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter-referred to as the 'Act'.2. Respondents 3 and 4, the then owners of an item of property and the first respondent entered into an agreement to build, the first respondent herein being the builder and respondents 3 and 4 being the owners of the land. It appears that respondents 3 and 4 styled themselves as 'M/s. Vilas Constructions', a firm, the second respondent in this Writ Petition.3. As against respondents 2 to 4, a third party filed a suit before a competent civil court and obtained a decree, in execution of which, the item of property in question was brought to sale and the writ petitioner purchased it. He was issued Ext.P1 sale certificate. This was followed by delivery of the prope...
Azeez Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT145; [2006]68SCL561(Ker)
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The question involved in this Writ Appeal is whether a penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 in the year 1996 can be recovered as an arrear of land revenue under Section 70(1)(iii) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, in view of the repeal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act by Section 49 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 19992. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant writ petitioner by the Assistant Director of Enforcement, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, Government of India, Calicut under Section 50 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'FERA') for contravention of Section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Act. Ext.P-1 order was passed by him on 29-1-1996 holding the appellant guilty of the charges levelled against him and a penalty of Rs. 35,000 was imposed on the appellant. In addition to the penalty imposed on the appellant, Rs. 75,0...
Rajan Cashew Company Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT893
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. By this common order we propose to dispose of four connected Writ Appeals bearing Nos. 1635, 1637, 1707 and 1768 of 2005 as they emanate from a common impugned judgment rendered by a learned single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 648 of 2004 and connected cases Rajan Cashew Co., Maranadu and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. dated 24.6.2005. Learned Counsel for the parties also suggested likewise. The brief facts that, however, need necessary mention have been extracted from W.A. No. 1635 of 2005 emanating from W.P. (C) No. 648 of 2004.2. The appellants, as per the case set up by them, are engaged in the export of cashew kernels. Raw cashew nuts are processed in the factories and converted into kernels. This processing involves roasting raw cashew nuts at a very high temperature, shelling, drying in hot chamber, peeling and grading. Thousands of workers are stated to be engaged in the process and the processing is being done in the factories situated at different locatio...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Narayanan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC201; 2007ACJ889; 2006(4)KLT133
K. Hema, J.1. A petition was filed by the insurer under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act, for short), for grant of permission to contest the case on all grounds. The Tribunal, without disposing of the application, allowed the insurer to cross-examine the claimant. Thereafter, an award was passed directing the insurer to pay compensation. The insurer challenges the award on merit. Is it permissible? Can an appeal filed by the insurer challenging the award on grounds other than those are specified in Section 149(2) of the Act be entertained, in the absence of a specific order by the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act, granting permission? This is the precise question which falls for consideration in this case.2. This appeal is filed by the insurer. An award was passed against the insurer, under Section 166 of the Act. According to claimant, the vehicle involved in the accident bears No. KL-5A/6185 which is insured with appellant. The appellant admitted insurance, but con...
A. Kunhikoya Thangal Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: (2007)6VST432(Ker)
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner challenges exhibit P4 notice issued by the competent authority calling upon him to file return under the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is the admitted situation that the petitioner had not filed returns in terms of Section 7(1) of the Act when the goods in question, namely, a vehicle was brought into the State. Nor did the authorities insist on his payment of tax while registration was granted within the State of Kerala. May be that Section 18 was ignored by the registering authority in the case of the petitioner at that point of time. The impugned notice is issued by the authority under the Motor Vehicles Act noticing that there had been no remittance under the Act.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, challenging the impugned notice, urged that going by the provisions in Section 8(5), the impugned notice is time-barred. It is also urged that even if Section 9 is resorted...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›