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.
Padmanabhan Vs. Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker258; 2006(2)KLT603
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The issues of law arising for decision in all these Writ Petitions are the same. Hence, these Writ Petitions are heard and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The issue posed for consideration is as to whether tax levied on any payment by way of charges received by the proprietor of an entertainment, cinema in these cases, for advance reservation of seat is liable to be included for the purpose of determining the amount on which tax is leviable under the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act, 1961, for short, hereinafter, the 'Act'.3. Before proceeding further, it has to be immediately noticed that the period falling for consideration in these Writ Petitions is from the coming into force of the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainments Tax (Amendment) Act, 1975 but before the coming into force of the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainments Tax (Amendment) Act 16 of 2000.4. Before its amendment in 1975, the charging Section, namely,...
Partha Kumar Vs. Ajith Viswanathan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-2006
Reported in: [2007(1)JCR175(NULL)]
R. Basant, J.1. Can a bona fide 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 tenant2. 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)KLT290 , 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.3. 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.4. The tenant he...
Sivasankaran Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT804; (2007)8VST220(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. These Revision Petitions were preferred under Section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 against an order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in TA. 1 of 2001 and TA. 2 of 2001 respectively. Learned Government Pleader raised a preliminary objection that these revision petitions are not maintainable since the assessee is challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal dismissing a petition for condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 39(1) of the KGST Act.2. Petitioner is an assessee on the files of Sales Tax Officer, Nilambur. For disposal of these cases we may refer the facts in STRV. 109 of 2004. Assessment order relates to the year 1995-96. Appeal was preferred before the Tribunal with a petition for condonation of delay of 159 days in filing the appeal. Various reasons were stated by the assessee for condoning the delay. Tribunal found no acceptable reasons and dismissed the petition for condonation of delay ...
Balasubramanian Vs. Chandradas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT467
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The cardinal question that has come up for consideration before us is whether we should issue a writ of quo warranto against a duly elected Deputy Chairperson of a Municipality on the sole ground that he could not make and subscribe his oath of office before the Chairperson not due to his fault, but due to non election of the Chairperson.2. Deputy Chairperson was duly elected by the elected councillors of the Municipality and was/is ready and willing to make and subscribe his oath before the Chairperson if elected. Can the mandate of the electorate be ignored for the sole reason of non availability of the Chairperson before whom the elected Deputy Chairperson has to make and subscribe his oath of office. Should the will of the electorate succumb to such man made situations thereby making the democratic process, a mockery. Whether the court should exercise its discretion by issuing a writ of quo warranto to unseat a duly elected Deputy Chairperson of the Municip...
institute of Social Welfare Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT871
J.B. Koshy, J.1. In all these Writ Petitions, challenge is regarding the power of the Government under the-Kerala Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction and Land Development) Rules, 1999 (for short 'the Rules'). The above Rules grant power to the Government for regularising the unauthorised constructions and land developments made in violation of the Building Rules under the Kerala Municipalities Act and Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. It is the contention of majority of the petitioners that the above Rules are invalid and ultra vires of the powers of the Government. Some of the petitioners approached this Court stating that their applications are not considered as per the provisions of the Rules for no reason at all. We note that the above Rules are made only for regularising the unauthorised constructions and land development earned out before 15-10-1999. The power of the Government to make such provisions are upheld by the Apex Court in Consumer Action Group and Anr. v. Sta...
Alukkas Jewellery Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-2006
Reported in: (2007)10VST72(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Original Petition No. 15583 of 2002 was preferred seeking a declaration that the first proviso to Section 7(1)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 is not applicable to the petitioner's case in the matter of fixation of compounding fee for the year 2000-01 and also to quash exhibit P-3 order determining the compounded tax payable for the year 2000-01 at Rs. 85,13,749.2. Section 7(1)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 provides for payment of tax at compounded rates for dealers in gold or silver ornaments or wares, at their option instead of paying tax in accordance with the provisions of the said section. For the assessment year 2000-01 as per Section 7(1)(a) as it stood at the relevant assessment year, compounded rate of tax payable by any dealer in gold was 120 per cent of the tax payable by him as conceded in the return or accounts for the immediate preceding year. It also provides that where any such dealer opens new branches, the compounde...
Mohammed Sulaiman Vs. Director of Medical Education
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT205
V.K. Bali, C.J.1. By this common order we dispose of two connected Writ Appeals arising from a common impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 7th February, 2006 recorded in W.P.(C).Nos. 1590 of 2006 and 2030 of 2006.2. Indian citizens of Kerala origin or those who have been residents of Kerala for a period of at least 8 years alone are eligible to apply for Post Graduate Medical course, qualifying examination of which is M.B.B.S., as per Clause IV(b) of Prospectus, Exhibit P5. The appellants who lost their cause before the learned Single Judge take exception to the clause aforesaid and state that domicile based reservation in Post Graduate courses is wholly impermissible, illegal and unconstitutional. In the context the only question debated before us pertaining to the legality of Clause IV(b) of Prospectus Exhibit P4, the brief facts of the case that need mention would reveal that the petitioners 1 and 2 inW.P.(C). 2090 of 2006, giving rise to Writ Appeal bearing No...
Bar Council of India Vs. Mary Tresa
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT210
V.K. Bali, C.J.1. Priests and Nuns engaged in noble profession of divinity serving God and mankind irrespective of their not earning any salary and being paid maintenance or subsistence allowance alone were ordered to be kept out of noble profession of practising Law as a lawyer. The order passed by the Bar Council of Kerala and the Bar Council of India thwarting their ,entry into the legal profession was successfully challenged by a Roman Catholic Priesl: under the Diocese of Irinjalakuda and two Nuns, not engaged in any kind of a salaried job or activity which may result in any remuneration. The above writs separately filed by them under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been allowed by a Single Judge of this Court in a common judgment recorded in W.P.(C) No. 18312 of 2005-E dated 7th November, 2005. Whereas the Bar Council of Kerala has accepted the judgment of the learned Single Judge and is keen to implement the same, the Bar Council of India, however, takes exception ...
Kuttiah Vs. Federal Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC534; 2006CriLJ3541; 2006(3)KLT418
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is one of the defendants in an Original Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, 'DRT' for short, constituted under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. During the course of the said proceedings, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 petition requesting the DRT to conduct an enquiry against the second respondent therein, the Chief Manager of the Bank, under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and to make a complaint to the Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction to initiate proceedings. That petition was supported by an affidavit. The allegations in the said affidavit require to be referred to, without prejudice to the contentions before the DRT, for the sole purpose of noting the broad features of the allegations of the writ petitioner, which are as follows:Upon production of certain documents, the frau...
Hotel Yuvarani Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Ker)496
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner is an assesses of income-tax on the file of the first respondent. The assessment Of income-tax for the year 2001-02 was completed, as per Ext. P2 proceedings. While so, the first respondent issued a notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, proposing to reopen the assessment for the said year. On the request of the petitioner, the reasons for reopening the assessment were furnished by the first respondent, by Ext. P5 communication. The petitioner filed a detailed objection to Ext. P5, as per Ext. P6. The first respondent considered the said objection and rejected the same by Ext. P7. The petitioner filed a revision against Ext.- P7 before the second respondent under Section 264 of the Act. The said revision is Ext. P8. The CIT heard and dismissed the said revision by Ext. P10 order. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext. P10, on the ground that the petitioner has no other remedy available under law.2. I heard the learned standing counsel fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »