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.
Sebastian Chokkatu Vs. Industrial Development Bank of India and anr. a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2006
Reported in: [2006]132CompCas539(Ker)
V.K. Bali, C.J.1. By this common judgment we dispose of three connected writ appeals bearing Nos. 1564 of 2004, 1672 of 2004 and 1674 of 2004. Learned counsel appearing for the parties also suggest likewise.2. These writ appeals need to be disposed of while keeping in mind two settled judicial norms, namely that as far as possible a citizen is entitled to have a decision of his cause on the merits, and that unless his conduct may be contumacious and the grounds pleaded be wholly insufficient or patently false, the delay in bringing about a cause should normally be condoned.3. The appellant, petitioner in the original lis, was a guarantor of the loan availed of by a company from the Industrial Development Bank of India. The company was later liquidated and its entire assets were taken over by the official liquidator. The first respondent-bank however initiated proceedings for realisation of the amount of Rs. 5,27,86,994.50 together with interest thereon by filing an application before t...
Sebastian Chokkattu Vs. State Bank of Travancore and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC200
V.K. Bali, C.J.1. By this common judgment we dispose of three connected writ appeals bearing Nos. 1564 of 2004, 1672 of 2004 and 1674 of 2004. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties also suggest likewise.2. These writ appeals need to be disposed of while keeping in mind two settled judicial norms, namely that as far as possible a citizen is entitled to have decision of his cause on merits, and that unless his conduct may be contumacious and the grounds pleaded be wholly insufficient or patently false, the delay in bringing about a cause should normally be condoned.3. The appellant, petitioner in the original Us, was a guarantor of the loan availed by a Company from the Industrial Development Bank of India. The Company was later liquidated and its entire assets were taken over by the official liquidator. The first respondent Bank however initiated proceedings for realisation of the amount of Rs. 5,27,86,994.50 together with interest thereon by filing an application before the Deb...
Gramox Paper and Boards Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2006
Reported in: (2007)7VST528(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner is challenging exhibit P2 whereunder interest is demanded by the assessing authority under Section 23(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97 on the tax payable on the purchase turnover of fuel, raw material, etc., used by the petitioner for manufacture of products. According to the petitioner, the petitioner claimed exemption on purchase turnover of fuel and other items based on decision of this Court in Vattukalam Chemical Industries v. State of Kerala reported in [2001] 124 STC 233 (SC) at page 234 (Ker) : [1998] 6 KTR 66. However, the Supreme Court has reversed this decision in the decision in State of Kerala v. Vattukalam Chemical Industries reported in [2001] 124 STC 233 : [2000] 8 KTR 103 whereunder the Supreme Court held that industries granted sales tax exemption are not entitled to exemption from tax on purchase turnover of goods on which they are liable to pay tax under Section 5A of the Keral...
Mohanakumaran Nair Vs. Vijayakumaran Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker243; 2006(2)KLT293
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Where does a person 'actually and voluntarily reside'? Can a person employed abroad and residing there in connection with his employment be said to be residing actually and voluntarily at the place where he has his permanent residence in India as to attract territorial jurisdiction of a civil suit? Is there any change in law after the dropping of the 1st Explanation in Section 20 of the CPC? These interesting questions arise for consideration in this case.2. This revision petition is directed against the order on issue No. 1 in O.S. No. 58/02 passed by the Subordinate Judge. Attingal. There is no dispute on the fundamental facts. The plaintiff and the defendant are both employed in Saudi Arabia. Both of them have their place of permanent residence in India. A promissory note was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 8.5.99 at Saudi Arabia. The amount due under the promissory note has not been paid and discharged. The plaintiff had, in these circum...
Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. General Secretary, Federal Bank Staff Union
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-2006
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR1176]; 2006(2)KLT434; (2006)IIILLJ129Ker
S. Siri Jagan, J. 1. On 23-2-2006, when the matter came up in the petition list, I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and dictated judgment allowing the Writ Petition. However, thereafter on that day itself, counsel for the 1st respondent-Union requested that he also may be heard before finalising the judgment. Accordingly, I posted the case again on 1-3-2006 and after hearing both sides, in view of the arguments advanced by the counsel for the 1st respondent which merit acceptance, I have decided to recall the earlier judgment and pass the following judgment. 2. Petitioner in this case is the; management in I.D. No. 6/2005 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Labour Court, Ernakulam. The issue referred for adjudication is: whether the punishment of reduction of basic pay by one stage imposed on Shri. K. Hashim for alleged misconduct by the Federal Bank Limited is justified? If not, what relief is the workman entitled to. The punishment imposed by the management ...
Smt. Annamma Ouseph (Decd.) (by Legal Representative) Vs. Assistant Co ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Ker)90; [2006]284ITR298(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Heard senior counsel Sri P. Balachandran, appearing for the petitioners, and standing counsel appearing for the Income-tax Department for the respondents. The petitioners are legal heirs of the original petitioner who is no more. Some landed properties of one Mr. P.O. Kuriakose was acquired by the Government which entitled him for compensation and interest thereon. The land owner died after filing returns for 1994-95 and 1995-96. However, in the course of assessment the Assessing Officer noticed receipt of capital gains by the land owner and therefore he issued notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act. The widow of the assessee filed returns disclosing capital gains which were accepted by the Department by completing the assessment under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96. However, later when the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme was introduced by the Finance Act, 1997, the son of Mr. P.O. Kuriakos...
Rojo George Vs. Deputy Superentendent of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT197
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The petitioner Shri Rojo George, S/o.George is a suspect in Crime No. 292/2005 of Alappuzha North Police Station, re-numbered as Crime No. R.C. 1 (S)/2006/CBI/ SCB/MUM/CHE. The case centres around the missing of a seven year old boy, by name Rahul from Alappuzha. The boy was found playing in a play ground wherein some other children were also playing. From the play ground he had gone to drink water from a nearby water tap. Thereafter he vanished into the thin air. Initial investigation was conducted by the local police. They were not able to get any clue. The investigation was handed over to the Crime Branch. The Crime Branch was also not able to get any clue regarding the missing of the boy. Subsequently as per the order of this Court the investigation was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation and now the case is investigated by the CBISCB, Chennai.2. In the Writ Petition it is averred that the CBI is harassing the petitioner and compelling ...
CelIn Vs. Thomas Johnson
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker297; 2006(2)KLT141
R. Basant, J.1. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in a suit filed by them against respondents 1 and 2. The suit is one for permanent prohibitory injunction. An application for temporary injunction was filed. The said application was allowed and confirmed after hearing the parties. The respondents 3 and 4 later got themselves impleaded on the allegation that the petitioners plaintiffs had filed the suit without showing them on the array of parties, They contended that they were essential and necessary parties considering the nature of the relief claimed. That petition was considered and the court allowed their impleadment. Thereafter, respondents 3 and 4 filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. to modify/vary/set aside the order passed earlier - at a time when they had not come on record, against respondents 1 and 2. The court below considered the said petition and by the impugned order produced as Ext.P9 invoking the powers under Order 39 Rule 4 o...
Geetha Shetty Vs. Premalatha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT137
R. Basant, J.1. The petitioner a successful candidate in the election held under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, has come before this Court for the second time in an attempt to ensure premature termination of the Election Petition filed against her by the 1st respondent - an unsuccessful candidate. The present attempt is to contend that there is no proper verification of the Election Petition and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed.2. It will be advantageous, first of all, to refer to Section 91 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act with emphasis on Clause 1(c).91. Contents of petition.--(1) An election petition-(a) xxxxxxxxxxxx(b) xxxxxxxxxxxx(c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings:Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation o...
Sees John Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT837
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner is challenging Ext. P5 demand notice for recovery of arrears of sales tax and interest for the assessment years 1986-87, 91-92 and 92-93.2. According to the petitioner, petitioner was entitled to refund of Rs. 6,821/- vide Ext.P1 dated 27-2-1991, which is an order in appeal issued by Deputy Commissioner of Sales tax (Appeals) against an order of penalty levied on the petitioner Under Section 29A(4) of the KGST Act. Petitioner's case is that refund to him should have been adjusted towards arrears of tax due for the above three years in terms of Section 44(3) of the KGST Act and after failing to adjust the amount, the assessing officer cannot demand interest for non-payment of tax for the said three years.3. Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that Section 44(3) of the Act authorises adjustment of refunds by the assessing officer and since the assessing officer was not aware of the refund granted by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »