Kerala Court April 2006 Judgments
intelligence Decisions Systems (India) P. Ltd. Vs. Chief Election Comm ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-18-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker229; 2006(2)KLT454
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. In this Writ Petition, a Company stated to be affected by the direction issued by the Election Commission to the Government of Kerala that signing/execution of agreement for setting up of 'Smart City' at Kochi between the Dubai Technology and Media Free Zone Authority (TECOM) and the Government of Kerala, be deferred till completion of election, challenges the said direction. The short facts necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition as stated by the petitioner are as follows.2. During the second week of December, 2004, the TECOM submitted a proposal for setting up a project named 'Smart City' at Kochi with a project outlay of US $ 300 million covering an area of about 1000 acres of land in and around the premises of Infopark set up by the Kerala State IT Mission, a society incorporated by the Government of Kerala. Negotiations between the Government of Kerala and TECOM were held in January and April, 2005 wherein broad terms for the memorandum of understanding wa...
Tag this Judgment!Damodara Nayak Vs. Narayana Naika
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker260; 2006(2)KLT581
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Question that arises for consideration in these cases is whether realization of mesne profits in a decree for recovery of possession and mesne profits is hit by Section 10 of the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on Alienation of Land and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act, 1975 (hereafter called the Act).2. CRP. 1379 of 1997 arises out of the order in EP. 3 of 1997 in O.S. 68 of 1974 and CRP. 1354 of 1997 arises out of the order in EP. 4 of 1997 in O.S. 30 of 1974 of Subordinate Judge's Court, Kasaragode. In E.P. 3 of 1997 the decree holder seeks recovery of an amount of Rs. 21,747.97 while in EP. 4 of 1997 the amount claimed is Rs. 42,992.10. Decree holder seeks to realize the above amounts by attachment and sale of properties of the judgment debtors. Judgment debtors have already surrendered possession as per decree but did not pay the mesne profits decreed. When execution petitions were preferred for recovery of mesne profits contention was raised ...
Tag this Judgment!Peekay Re-rolling Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessmen ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT687; (2007)5VST241(Ker)
K.M. Joseph, 1. A seminal issue arises for our consideration in these Writ Appeals filed by the same person. The appellant is a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Act'). The appellant purchased goods which are declared goods within the meaning of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act'). Sales tax is imposed on the said goods at 4 per cent under Section 5(1) of the State Act. However, by virtue of an exemption granted under Section 10 of the State Act, the dealer who sold the goods to the appellant stood exempted from payment of tax under Section 5(1) of the State Act. The appellant filed the Writ Petitions challenging Ext.P1 notice issued purporting to be under Section 19(1) of the State Act alleging that purchase turnover of ingots taxable under Section 5A has escaped assessment for the year 1994-1995 and proposing to assess to the best of judgment and Ext.P2 notice callin...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Wahab Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Customs
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT324
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The second accused in C.C. No. 22 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Ernakulam is the revision petitioner in this Criminal Revision Petition. This Crl. Revision Petition is filed challenging an order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner pleading discharge under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the Crl. Revision Petition are as follows:2. The first accused in the case imported a car purporting to be a 3200 cc Mercedez Benz Car Model S-320 from Dubai by Airway Bill No. 098 7307 5693 098 7307 5693 dated 12.1.1998. M/S. Navabharath Enterprises was engaged for clearing the cargo. They filed a bill of entry M 374 for clearance of Model S-320 Mercedez Benz Car. Reliable information was received by the Intelligence Officer of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to the effect that the documents produced for cle...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Suresh
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ262; 2006(4)KLT333
K.K. Denesan, J.1. Does the law require that to avail the benefit of Clause (b)(i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the owner of the goods or his authorised representative who dies or sustains bodily injury caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place while travelling as passenger in a goods carriage, should be shown to accompany the goods, at the time of the accident? In other words, does the statute require that not only the owner of the goods or his authorised representative but the goods also should be carried simultaneously in the vehicle which gets involved in a motor accident causing death or bodily injury to that passenger2. The above issue has come up for consideration in this appeal filed by the 2nd respondent-Insurer in O.P. (MV) No. 2484/99 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. It is admitted case that the 1 st respondent-claimant was travelling in a goods autorickshaw...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Atul Commodities Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(202)ELT392(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. These appeals have been preferred by the Commissioner of Customs. Common questions arise for consideration in all these appeals and hence we are disposing of these cases by a common judgment. Question posed is whether second-hand photocopiers are capital goods or consumer goods and whether the import of second-hand photocopiers require licence and whether the import is governed by paragraph 2.17 of the Export Import Policy 2004-2009. Conflict of opinions were expressed by various Benches of the Tribunals and consequently the matter was referred to a Full Bench of CESTAT. CESTAT took the view that second-hand photocopiers are capital goods within the meaning of paragraph 9.12 and freely importable under paragraph 2.17 and are not consumer goods within the meaning of Exim Policy for the year 2004-2009 Commissioner of Customs is aggrieved by those orders and has preferred these appeals. For disposal of these appeals we may refer to the facts in CUA. No. 11 of 200...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Abdul Wahab Vs. Deputy Commr. of Cus.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: 2007(211)ELT372(Ker)
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The second accused in C.C. No. 22 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Ernakulam is the revision petitioner in this Criminal Revision Petition. This Crl. Revision Petition is filed challenging an order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner pleading discharge under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the Crl. Revision Petition are as follows:2. The first accused in the case imported a car purporting to be a 3200cc Mercedez Benz Car Model S-320 from Dubai by Airway Bill No. 098 7307 5693 098 7307 5693 dated 12-1-1998. M/s. Navabharath Enterprises was engaged for clearing the cargo. They filed a bill of entry of M 374 for clearance of Model S-320 Mercedez Benz Car. Reliable information was received by the Intelligence Officer of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to the effect that the documents produced for c...
Tag this Judgment!Vishalakshi Vs. Bank of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker255; 2006(2)KLT488
V. Ramkumar, J.1. In this appeal filed under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 the petitioner who is the sole legal heir and successor of deceased P.K. Hymavathy, challenges the order dated 14-10-7005 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam in Succession O.P. 20/05. The said original petition was filed under Sections 371 and 372 of the Indian Succession Act praying for a succession certificate in respect of certain bank deposits totaling to Rs. 1,95,695.73 and in respect of 6 cents of landed property with a building thereon. Even though the court below as per the impugned order held that the appellant is the sole legal heir of the said Hymavathy who died intestate on 29-1-2004 and allowed the original petition granting a succession certificate in respect of the bank deposits which were detailed in Schedule I of the Original Petition, that court disallowed relief in respect of the immovable property described in I schedule to the said original petition. It is aggrieved b...
Tag this Judgment!CochIn Shipyard Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR732]; 2006(2)KLT825; (2006)IIILLJ736Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. A workman employed as a Machinist in Cochin Shipyard Limited, a public sector undertaking, was caught by the security personnel when he was trying to take out surreptitiously, 1.75 litres of oil, in the tool box of his scooter. He admitted his guilt to the security personnel and gave a written statement to that effect. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and a charge sheet was issued to him. He submitted his explanation denying the charges. Though he earlier admitted the theft committed by him, he denied the same in his reply. Charge memo reads as follows:It has been reported that on 4th October, 1994 at about 20-05 hours, you were caught redhanded by the CISF personnel on duty at North Gate, while you were taking out unauthorisedly about 2 litres of oil belonging to the company. The oil of the value of approximately Rs. 100 was found in two bottles kept in the tool box of your scooter bearing Reg. No. KDE 3134. Also you are reported to have admitted th...
Tag this Judgment!Vinodini Vs. Gopinathan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT602
R. Basant, J.1. The petitioner/wife has come to this Court aggrieved by Ext. P4 order. Her husband, the respondent herein has filed an application for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against her. In as much as the period of one year prescribed under Section 14 of the Act has not elapsed from the date of the marriage, he has filed an application for leave to entertain the petition even before the lapse of the period of one year.2. While that petition was pending, the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. She prayed that she may be awarded maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings. By the impugned order, a copy of which is produced as Ext. P4, the court below has not considered the prayer under Section 24 on the short ground that no proceedings are pending to justify invocation of the provisions of Section 24. The Family Court it would appear did not reckon the proceedings under Section 13, while a petition f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »