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.
Wahab Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT755
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner who is engaged in operation of stage carriages, contract carriage vehicles, vehicles with all India permits etc., is challenging validity of Section 3(4) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (hereinafter called 'the MVT Act') which authorises the officer at the Check Post to grant a temporary licence for a vehicle coming from outside State for use of the vehicle in the State for not exceeding seven days and thirty days at a time on payment of tax specified in Sub-section 5 of Section 3. The petitioner has produced Ext.Pl which is the receipt for Rs.7,933/- issued by the Motor Vehicles Check Post official at Thalalppady, Manjeswaram to a visiting vehicle towards tax for 30 days use of the vehicle in the State. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for respondents.2. The case of the petitioner is that MVT Act is made in exercise of powers conferred on the State under Entry 57 of List II in the VIIth Schedule to the...
Sreejith Vs. Intelligence Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT260
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner who has succeeded to the business after death of his father is challenging notice issued by the 1st respondent to produce books of accounts for verification and simultaneous notice proposing penalty if books are not produced and proved correct with reference to business transactions noticed on inspection held during the life time of petitioner's father. Petitioner's father was carrying on business after taking registration under the KGST Act. The business premises was inspected by the Intelligence Squad of Sales tax Department on 5-11-1998 and shop inspection report was prepared. Even though notice was issued for production of books of accounts during life time of petitioner's father, he did not produce the books of accounts. Petitioner's father died on 9-3-1999, and thereafter notice was issued in the name of the business concern calling for books of accounts to compare the same with the data gathered during shop inspection and recorded in the s...
T.C. Sreejith Vs. Intelligence Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-2006
Reported in: (2007)8VST268(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair J.1. The petitioner who has succeeded to the business after death of his father is challenging the notice issued by the first respondent to produce books of account for verification and simultaneous notice proposing penalty if books are not produced and proved correct with reference to business transactions noticed on inspection held during the lifetime of the petitioner's father. The petitioner's father was carrying on business after taking registration under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The business premises was inspected by the Intelligence Squad of Sales Tax Department on November 5, 1998 and shop inspection report was prepared. Even though the notice was issued for production of books of account during lifetime of the petitioner's father, he did not produce the books of account. The petitioner's father died on March 9, 1999, and thereafter notice was issued in the name of the business concern calling for books of account to compare the same with t...
Alexander Vs. C.B.i.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT240
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner, a retired Director General of Police, approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging Annexure C order passed in Crl. M.P. No. 239 of 2001 in C.C. No. 4 of 1995 on the file of the Special Judge (SPECBI) -1, Ernakulam and court charge (Annexure D) framed against him in C.C. No. 4 of 1995. According to Annexure D charge sheet, he was found in possession of assets worth Rs. 62,81,737-38 during the period 30-4-1980 to 20-9-1991 which are disproportionate to his income. It is the contention that the above charge sheet is baseless, illegal and irregular. Final report of the Police (Annexure A) itself and documents produced along with the police report, will prove that the charges are 'ground less' and nothing is going to be gained by asking the petitioner to face the trial of Annezure D charge except wasting the valuable time of the court and causing unbearable hardship and irreparable injury to the petitioner which are ...
Hassankunju Vs. Asst. Excise Commissioner
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT417
Kurian Joseph, J.1. What is the concept of ownership under the provisions of Section 67 C of the Abkari Act, in the matter of confiscation of the vehicle, is the question to be considered in this case. Petitioner, by profession a driver, claims to be the owner of an Ambassador Car bearing registration No. KLN-1859. According to him he purchased the vehicle in the month of July 1999. 'on 08-06-2000. the petitioner handed over the vehicle to the 5th respondent on executing an agreement for sale' as per Ext.P1. The value was fixed at Rs. 75,000/- of which Rs. 20,000/- was received in advance, the possession was handed over; of the balance Rs. 55,000/-, Rs. 25,000/- was to be paid within ten days and the remaining in 14 monthly instalments. It is seen from Ext.P1 agreement itself that the petitioner was liable for all the liabilities in respect of the vehicle and also all cases till the date of such handing over and thereafter the liability was of the 5th respondent. According to the petit...
Shibu Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT747
ORDERK.P. Balachandran, J.1. The petitioner is the accused in S.T.2581 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Aluva taken cognisance of for offence under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was found riding motor cycle No.KL-7/J-5257 from north to south along the road from Kakkanad to Pattupura junction at about 8.50 p.m. on 18.1.2002 after having consumed alcohol and thereby committed offence under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The report of the Sub Inspector registering the crime suo motu seen from Annexure-I as also the attested copy of the vehicle mahazar dt. 18.1.2002 submitted before me for perusal by the counsel for the petitioner shows that the petitioner had not been subjected to breath test using a breath analyser in compliance with Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act but that the petitioner was being arrested on the belief of the detecting officer that the petitioner has consume...
Harikumar Vs. Special Tahsildar (L.A)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT277
K. Hema, J.1. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act', for short) was rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer, as per Ext. P6 order. The ground stated therein is that the application was filed after expiry of six weeks from the date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. Exhibit P6 order shows that the notice under Section 12(2) was received by the petitioner on 24.6.2005, but the application was filed only on 7.9.2005, after the period of six weeks prescribed under the Act.2. The petitioner herein seeks to quash the said order since the order is illegal and is not consistent with the provision contained in Section 18 of the Act. learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no notice was received by the petitioner under Section 12(2) of the Act as stated in Exhibit P6 and therefore, the rejection of the application on the ground stated in Exhibit P6 is illegal. Learned Government Pleader argued that notice is d...
Joseph Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker191; I(2007)DMC421; 2006(2)KLT67
V.K. Bali, C.J. 1. Janaki K.M., it appears is striving to be called a legitimate and legally wedded wife of Gopalan Nair. She was also clamouring for her daughter to have a name of her father so that the child, a female, is not called illegitimate. This effort she is making for a long time, it appears, primarily to do away the social stigma which is haunting her and her daughter. In her pursuit to achieve the desired result she, prior in point of time, filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was however dismissed for default in 1992. She then filed a petition Ext.P3 dated 24.4.2000 before the Kerala Women's Commission claiming that her husband had deserted her and her daughter. She claimed a declaration being the wife of Gopalan Nair and in consequence thereof a further declaration that her female child was the legitimate daughter of her husband. Gopalan Nair appeared before the Commission and filed a counter statement. He was then served with notice...
John Vs. Kalamassery Municipality
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT386
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioners own 9 cents of property in Edappally North Village. They have constructed a well in the said property on the basis of Exts. P1 and P2, approved plan and permit issued by the Municipality. According to the petitioners, they carry on business in the name and style 'Aqua Line Fresh Water' and are extracting water from the said well and supplying the same to various institutions in the public and private sectors. 2. By Ext. P3, the petitioners are notified by the Municipality to stop drawing of water in excess of what is stated therein. Ext. P3 refers to a report of the Health Inspector and also Ext. R2(b) report of the Ground Water Department.3. It appears that there were different complaints regarding the excessive drawing of water by the petitioners resulting in water scarcity in the area in question. The said complaints, which gained the attention of the District Collector, were forwarded by the Collector to the Ground Water Department alon...
Haridas Vs. Labour Court
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT641; (2006)IIILLJ63Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellants challenge Ext.P14 order of the Labour Court passed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Respondents 2 and 3 approached the Labour Court contending that their services were terminated with effect from 31-12-1997 due to superannuation. The claimants were served with Ext.Pl notice dated 28-12-1997 that their services are terminated due to superannuation with effect from 31-12-1997 and they can collect their salary upto 31-12-1997 and retiral benefits from the office. They contended that they were illegally terminated, as there is no retirement age in the establishment. Therefore, they cannot be superannuated at the age of 60. The claimants had filed claim petitions for gratuity before the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. As stated in the petition, they filed representations before the Labour Officer alleging denial of employment. On his advice the claim petition was filed before the Labour Court. But, petition was filed o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »