Kerala Court March 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.
Mini Vs. Director
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT550
Kurian Joseph, J.1. The issue raised in this Writ Petition pertains to admission to the reserved category of teachers for the Post Graduate course in Ayurveda as per Ext.Pl prospectus. The prospectus is issued on 9.12.2005 by the Government. As per Clause 2(b) 'Fifteen (15) seats are reserved for teaching staff of Ayurveda colleges in the State subject to a maximum of one seat in each speciality.' The dispute is whether the expression 'teaching staff of Ayurveda colleges in the State' has to be understood in the restricted sense of teaching staff in Aided and Government Ayurveda colleges, as contented by the learned Government Pleader. It will be profitable to refer to the chronology of events in order to appreciate the contentions. The prospectus was issued on 9.12.2005. The interview was on 6.3.2006. Classes commenced on 15.3.2006. There were only seven candidates from the Government and aided colleges. Petitioner is a member of the teaching staff of a Government approved and Univers...
Abdul Kareem Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT408
R. Basant, J. 1. The short but interesting question arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether an application under Order 41 Rule 3-A of the C.P.C. must invariably be accompanied by an affidavit of the appellant concerned. 2. The fact situation is simple. The petitioner wanted to prefer an appeal under Section 61-D of the Kerala Forest Act. There was a delay of 162 days in filing the appeal. According to the petitioner, he had done the needful and had entrusted his counsel to file the appeal. But unfortunately the appeal could not be filed in time as the counsel had misplaced the case bundle. It was traced only two days prior to the actual date of filing the appeal. The petitioner/appellant, in these circumstances, prayed that the appeal may be entertained after condoning the delay in filing the appeal. That petition was filed by his counsel on his behalf. That petition filed by his counsel on his behalf was supported by an affidavit filed by the counsel wherein the coun...
Karim Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT874
M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Appellant in Crl. A. No. 162/99 was convicted for the offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as E.C. Act) by Special Judge for E.C. Act cases, Thrissur in S.T. No. 16/1995. Appellant in Crl.A. No. 463/99 was convicted for the same offences by the same court in S.T. No. 8/95. Case against the appellant in Crl. A. 162/99 was that he unauthorisedly stored 225 litres of diesel in violation of Clauses 6 and 7 of Kerala Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil (Maintenance and Regulations of Supplies) Order 1979 and thereby committed the offences. Case against appellant in Crl.A. 463/99 was that he being the proprietor of grocery shop stored 1029 kgs. of rice, 477 kgs. of cereals and pulses, 66 Kgs of sugar and 120.65 kgs. of baby food without any license and without keeping the accounts and stock register and without displaying the price list and stock board and thereby violated the provisions of Clause 3 of Kerala F...
Mathai K.V. Vs. State of Co-operative Election Commission and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ194
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. In this writ petition a member of a society is challenging the notification issued for election to the Board of Directors of the Society on the ground that although the bye-laws of the Society specifically stipulates that election shall be on ward basis, without delimitation of the wards for which election is to be conducted by the general body which alone had the jurisdiction to do so, the present Director Board has adopted a resolution to conduct the election and to request the State Cooperative Election Board to appoint a returning officer which delimitation on the basis of which the election notification has been issued. The facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition which are not at all in dispute, may be summarised as under.2. The period of office of the present Director Board of the 4th respondent Society which is a Federal Society, expires on 1-4-2007. On 27-1-2007, the present Board of Directors adopted a resolution to conduct the election to the nex...
A. Sudhakara Menon Vs. Intelligence Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-2006
Reported in: (2007)9VST645(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner is challenging exhibit P7 order whereunder the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has sustained penalty levied on the petitioner under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 for the year 1992-93. The petitioner was engaged in execution of works contract. During the year 1992-93 the petitioner received an amount of Rs. 15,36,875.70 from UTI for the work executed for them. When the Intelligence Officer of sales tax called for and examined accounts, he found omission to return the turnover and pay the tax by the petitioner during the year 1992-93. However, petitioner took the stand that turnover was returned and tax paid during 1993-94 when the final bill was raised. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner was that since there is no evasion of tax, levy of penalty is not tenable. However, petitioner's contentions were overruled and penalty was levied by the Intelligence Officer which is sustained in two rounds of revision agains...
Noushad Vs. Kayamkulam Municipality
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT319
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner is a resident of Ward No. XX of Kayamkulam Municipality. He has filed this Writ Petition for direction to the 1st respondent-Municipality to take immediate steps to close down the toddy shop run by the 4th respondent in the unauthorised building constructed by the 3rd respondent.2. The case of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent obtained Ext. P1 building permit from the 1st respondent-Municipality for construction of a residential building in Ward No. XX of the Municipality which is a residential area. However, the 3rd respondent instead of constructing a house constructed a building suitable for running a toddy shop and leased out the same to the 4th respondent wh6 is running a toddy shop there from June 2004 onwards. Since the building is an unauthorised construction, 1st respondent-Municipality has not issued completion certificate or occupancy certificate, and so much so, the toddy shop should not be permitted to be run in the building,...
Mohamad Sadik Vs. Tahsildar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT271
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exhibit P3 order of the First respondent Tahsildar, levying building tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The petitioner submits, he has already paid the amount due under Exhibit P3. The said order also imposes luxury tax of an amount of Rs. 2,000/- per year, under Section 5 A of the above said Act. Since the challenge against Exhibit P3 is highly belated, it is repelled. But, the luxury tax has to be paid every year. So, even assuming, he has suffered the payment of luxury tax for earlier years, he is entitled to challenge the order of demand made as per Exhibit P6. It is declared so. The petitioner may invoke the appellate remedy against the demand of luxury tax for the year 2005-06, made as per Exhibit P6. In that event, the appellate authority shall dispose of the same, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner may pay the amount unde...
Kerala Jesuit Society Vs. Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Office ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT828
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner is challenging Exts. P1 and P2 orders where under the first respondent has levied interest under Section 37(4) of the Agricultural Income Tax Act. 1991, hereinafter called the 'Act' for non-payment of advance tax for the year 1996-97. Petitioner, a religious institution, filed agricultural income tax return declaring a loss for the assessment year 1996-97. However, in the course of assessment, the assessing officer disallowed the claim of retrenchment compensation paid by the petitioner on sale of an estate during the previous year. Disallowance led to positive income and tax liability even after granting exemption for expenditure on religious and charitable purposes. Consequently, the assessing officer levied interest under Section 37(4) for non-payment of advance tax with reference to assessed income and tax. The case of the petitioner is that interest under Section 37(4) is payable only if there is non-payment of advance tax on eighty per cent...
Parthakumar Vs. Ajith Viswanathan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CTC353; 2006(2)KLT250
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Can a bonafide denial of title be raised under the second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by a person against whom eviction proceedings is initiated, even when he disputes the assertion of the landlord that he is a tenant? In order to raise such a contention, is it essential and invariable that he must first admit that he is a tenant? Does the decision of the Division Bench in Charulatha v. Manju 2004 (1) KLT 290 deserve reconsideration? These are the interesting questions that arise for consideration in these revision petitions referred to us by a Division Bench of this Court comprising of Justice R. Bhaskaran and Justice K.R. Udayabhanu.2. An attempt shall first be made to summarise the relevant skeletal facts in which the question referred arises for determination. For the sake of easy reference, the parties shall be referred to as the tenant and the landlords.3. The tenan...
Kamalam Vs. Devaki
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker248; 2006(2)KLT499
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. This second appeal is filed by defendants 1 and 3 to 5 in O.S. No. 94 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Vadakara. The suit was for partition of plaint A and B-schedule properties and allotment of 1/10 share in plaint A-schedule and 1/16 share in plaint B-schedule to the plaintiff. The suit was filed on the basis that the property described in plaint A-schedule belonged to the father of the plaintiff Pokkinan. He executed a Will on 25-9-1952 bequeathing the property in favour of the plaintiff and her children, who are defendants 6 to 8 and 11 to 15. According to the plaintiff, all the children of Pokkinan are entitled to equal share in plaint A-schedule property and therefore 1/10 share was claimed by the plaintiff. Plaint B-schedule property was admittedly set apart to the thavazhi of the plaintiff and her children as per partition deed of the year 1954 and the plaintiff prayed for partition of 1/16 share, defendants 1 to 15 being the other member...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »