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.
Baiju Vs. S.i. of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-20-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1346; 2006(3)KLT49
J.M. James, J.1. The first accused, Baiju, in C.C.No. 34/99, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thodupuzha, was convicted and sentenced, along with four other accused, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each for the offence under Sections 143 and 447 IPC, and simple imprisonment for six months each for the offence punishable under Sections 148 and 324 IPC. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence under Section 147 IPC, though found guilty. All the five accused were also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1000/- each to PWs. 1 and 2, the injured, as compensation, with the default sentence of simple imprisonment for a further period of two months each. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The findings of the trial court were challenged in Crl.A.Nos. 18/2003 and 36/2003, the former by the 5th accused, and the latter by accused 1 to 4, before the Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. The appellate court found accused 4 an...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kerala State Cashew Development Corpora ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-20-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Ker)92; [2006]286ITR553(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. CIT is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal interfering with the reopening of the assessment under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961. Questions of law raised by the CIT are consolidated, redrafted and stated as follows:(a) Whether assessee who is following mercantile system of accounting was justified in claiming expenditure for liability which did not. relate to the previous year relevant to the assessment year on the ground that assessee was demanding a waiver from the Government and that the amount paid being disputed ?(b) Whether there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment justifying reopening of assessment and whether reopening of assessment was on the basis of mere change of opinion of the successor officer ?(c) Whether the AO was justified in issuing notice under Section 148 after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year ?2. Assessee is a Stat...
Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-20-2006
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Ker)546; [2007]290ITR374(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner is challenging Ext. P4 whereunder the Chief CIT declined petitioner's request for waiver of interest levied under Section 220(2) of the IT Act for the asst. yr. 1993-94.2. Petitioner is a Government company engaged in advance of loan, conducting Kuries, etc. Petitioner claimed deduction of huge wage arrears paid to the employees for the asst. yr. 1993-94. However, the claim was disallowed holding that the liability arose in the immediately following year. In other words, the disallowance of the claim during 1993-94 entitled the petitioner for claiming deduction of the very same amount in the assessment for 1994-95. While the disallowance in the assessment for 1993-94 led to a huge demand of above Rs. 1.5 crores against the petitioner, the consequent entitlement of claim of deduction in the asst. yr. 1994-95 led to a huge refund to the petitioner which is in the form of advance tax paid. The assessment for 1993-94 was completed on 22nd Jan., 1996 ...
T.K. Barathy Vs. the Principal Secretary to Govt. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-20-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ250
A.K. Basheer, J.1. The petitioner retired from service as a Primary Department Teacher on October 31, 1996. She is now living a New York in the United States of America with her husband and daughter.2. This writ petition has been filed through her power of attorney holder. Her grievance is that arrears of pension payable to her for the period from November 1996 to September 2000 have been denied to her on the ground that she failed to draw the same when it fell due. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that Exts. P3 and P4 orders passed by the Government in this regard are totally illegal and unsustainable. The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorari to quash Exts. P3 and P4 orders. There is a further prayer to issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ order or direction to respondent No. 1 to accord sanction to release the arrears of pension in terms of the relevant rules.3. It is not in dispute that the monthly pension became payab...
Babu Vs. Election Commission of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker226; 2006(2)KLT135
J.B. Koshy, J.1. In these two Writ Petitions, petitioners question the action of the Election Commission directing the State Government to put on hold its decision to implement the recommendations of the Pay Commission from April, 2006. The pay of State Government employees was last revised in 1997. It is contended that as per previous practices, every fifth year there will be a wage revision. If that be so, pay ought to have been revised from March, 2002. Because Of the demands from the Government employees, State appointed a Pay Commission and Pay Commission submitted its report. It was reported that Pay Commission would submit the report in March, 2006. Government decided to implement the Pay Commission report and budget allocation was also made. Paragraph 37 of the Budget Speech 2006-2007 made on 10-2-2006 is as follows:37. Government has already declared that the pay and allowances of the Government employees for the month of March, 2006 will be at the enhanced rates on the basis ...
Moni Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT313
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The B party in M.C.No. 13/2006 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Devikulam, are the petitioners in this Crl.M.C. The challenge in the Crl.M.C is directed against an order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Devikulam, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. On 25.1.2006 the respondents 5 and 6, who are the A party in the Crl.M.C. filed a petition before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The Sub Divisional Magistrate forwarded the copies of that petition to the Dy. S.P., Munnar and the Tahsildar, Devikulam and called for their reports. On receipt of those reports the Sub Divisional Magistrate was of the opinion that the matter is of such urgency as to require an order under Section 144 of Cr.P.C and passed an order under Section 144 of Cr.P.C with intention to prevent the nuisance of apprehended danger. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:The B party is therefore hereby directed to vacate th...
Eapen Vs. Director General of Foreign Trade
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT650
Kurian Joseph, J.1. The Export Import Policy issued under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 provides for duty credit rates for rubber compounded sheets/rings. The credit rates are higher when compared to the rubber moulded goods. The goods exported by the petitioners are rubber mats. The simple question to be considered in these cases is whether rubber mats exported by the petitioners would come under the entry 'rubber compounded sheets'. If the rubber mats come under the 'rubber compounded sheets', the petitioners get higher credit rate under the DEPB Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme. 2. The petitioners are engaged in the export of door mats and other similar products made of compounded rubber. The dispute in these cases pertains only to the duty credit rate of rubber mats. Though in the nature of the view I propose to take in these Writ Petitions it may not be necessary to deal extensively with the factual matrix, for the sake of appreciating the ...
S.N.V. Sadanam Trust Vs. Corporation of Cochin
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT663
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P13 order issued by the respondent, by which property tax exemption claimed under Section 235 and vacancy remission claimed under Section 239 of the Kerala Municipalities Act 1994 hereinafter called the 'Act' are declined. I have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and standing counsel Smt, A.G. Aneetha appearing for the respondent.2. Petitioner who is a trust constructed a four storied building within Corporation of Kochi for providing accommodation to ladies in their old age. Occupancy certificate was issued on 18.4.1994. The building consists often rooms in each of the four floors out of which 34 rooms are available for accommodation and balance rooms for use as Kitchen, Office, Dr's room, etc. The Corporation treated each floor of the building as a separate building and accordingly gave four numbers to it. The petitioner claimed property tax exemption under Section 235(1)(c) and (i) of the Act and in the alternative ...
A.K. Moni, M.L.a and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4337
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The B party in M.C. No. 13/2006 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Devikulam, are the petitioners in this Cri. M.C. The challenge in the Cri. M.C. is directed against an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Devlkulam, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. On 25.1.2006 the respondents 5 and 6, who are the A party in the Cri. M.C, filed a petition before die Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate forwarded the copies of that petition to the Dy. S.P., Munnar and the Tahsildar, Devikulam and called for their reports. On receipt of those reports the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was of the opinion that the matter is of such urgency as to require an order under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. and passed an order under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. with intention to prevent the nuisance of apprehended danger. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:The B party is therefore hereby directed to va...
Fathima Beevi Vs. Stella John
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT285
ORDERM. Ramachandran, J.1. Appellate Authority under the Rent Control Act (District Judge, Trivandrum), by order dated 17-12-2005 in R.C.A No. 43 of 2003 has confirmed the orders passed by the Rent Controller, Trivandrum in R.C.P. No. 34 of 2002. Eviction is ordered under Section 11(3) and 11(4) (iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short Rent Control Act). The tenant has come up in revision.2. The rental arrangement admittedly was in existence for decades. Serious efforts are seen to have been taken for eviction, after a notice issued on 16-05-2002, demanding vacant possession. Scheduled building is a residential house in the heart of Trivandrum city. The landlady had pointed out that she had no other building in Trivandrum. Although she was residing in her own house at Nagercoil, in Tamilnadu, being her native place she wanted to come over to Trivandrum. She had lost interest for Nagercoil, since her husband had passed away and her only child also was no more...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »