Kerala Court June 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.
Santhosh Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT439
ORDERK.P. Balachandran, J.1. This Transfer Petition (Crl.) is one filed under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code for a direction being given to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom to commit C.C. No. 192/2004 pending on the file of his Court to the Sessions Court, Kottayam Division for trial. It is submitted that Section C. No. 83/2006 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Kottayam, is counter case to C.C. No. 192/2004.2. This unnumbered transfer petition has come up before me consequent on the note made by the Registry that a transfer petition seeking for committal of a criminal case to the sessions division has first to be moved before the concerned Sessions Court and unless such an application has been rejected by the Sessions Court, no application can be filed before the High Court in view of proviso to Section 407(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 408 of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with power...
Nanjundappa Vs. Hanumantharayappa
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-26-2006
Reported in: IV(2008)BC643
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The respondent-accused had issued a cheque Ex. P-1 for Rs. 2,50,000/- towards the discharge of debt liability in favour of the complainant. Ex. P-1 on presentation was dishonoured. Statutory notice is issued and a private complaint filed.2. Per contra, the accused denies existence of any debt liability. It is submitted that the accused had handed over a signed blank cheque to his wife which was given to the daughter of the accused and from whom the cheque is taken by the complainant and after fabrication; a false complaint is filed. The accused has produced an endorsement issued by his Banker marked at Ext. D-10 to show that the cheque in the first instance was presented on 3.6.1998 and it was dishonoured on the ground 'account closed by the drawer'. The complainant represented the cheque on 25.6.1998 through Syndicate Bank for collection, the cheque is dishonoured again on the ground that 'account closed'.3. The Counsel Mr. C.V. Nagesh relying on the decision of ...
K.S.i.D.C. Ltd. Vs. Parisons Milling Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT287; (2007)9VST519(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1959 has any precedence over the provisions of Section 26A and B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. We may for the disposal of this case refer to the parties according to their status in the Writ Petition, Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., for short the K.S.I.D.C. additional fifth respondent in W.P.(C) No. 23355 of 2003 has filed this appeal aggrieved by the direction of the learned single Judge that it is open to the Government to proceed against K.S.I.D.C. for the recovery of sales tax arrears from the consideration received by the sale of the mortgaged properties by the fourth respondent in the Writ Petition. Fourth respondent, namely, Star Agro and Wheat Roller and Flour Mills (P) Ltd., had availed of a loan of Rs. 88 lakhs from K.S.I.D.C. for which 1 acre 01 cents and 0.985 sq. links of land and the build...
Khalid Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT226
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. A learned single judge of this Court in Kunhipokku v. District Executive Officer (1993 (2) KLT Short Notes (Case No. 4), while dealing with the power of condonation of delay in Sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') felt that in case Government is not entertaining the appeal filed beyond the period prescribed therein, the aggrieved party can invoke clause 83 of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Scheme, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme') which confers power on the Government to remove difficulties. The learned Judge felt that power under clause 83 is akin to what is possessed by Section 19-A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 which enables removal of difficulties arising under the said Act.2. Petitioner felt that his petition filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under Sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the A...
Travancore Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Ker)18; [2007]292ITR609(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the IT Act. Following are the questions of law referred for consideration:(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in holding that the balance of Rs. 21,33,069 remaining in the suspense account is part of sale price and not to be treated as amounts repayable to the parties as and when demanded by them?(ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, should not the Tribunal have held that the balance in the suspense account collected as deposited from the purchasers belongs to purchasers and not to the assessee especially when the amounts were systematically refunded to the parties as and when demanded in subsequent years?(iii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in holding that assessee is entitled to deduction of the amounts as and when refunded to the parties after treating the balance amount in the sus...
Parry Agro Industries Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Ker)510; [2007]292ITR542(Ker); 2006(4)KLT689
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961. Following is the question of law that has been referred for the decision of this Court:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in holding that miscellaneous income such as agency commission, duty drawback, service charges and rent received cannot be included in the profit for the purpose of computation of relief under Section 80HHC of the IT Act Assessment year in question is 1991-92. Assessee claimed deduction on export profit under Section 80HHC of the IT Act. While taking the GP of Deckiajuli Estate for the purpose of computation of relief under Section 80HHC(3)(b) the assessee has taken into account the following items of income:Agency commission Rs. 6,46,630Duty drawback Rs. 1,42,313Service charges Rs. 6,95,697Rent Rs. 2,36,253The assessing authority held that the abovementioned items are not export profits and are income in the nature o...
Gajendran Vs. R.T.O.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KarLJ1006
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner is a physically challenged person. Aspiring to drive an autorickshaw, he applied for a learner's licence. He moved this Court since his application was not granted, Ext.P1 judgment was issued directing consideration of his case on the basis of relevant materials. Following this, petitioner produced Ext.P3 medical certificate. Thereupon, Ext.P4 was issued, whereby the petitioner was issued a learner's licence for invalid carriage. Challenging the same, the petitioner insists that he is entitled to be permitted to ply an autorickshaw and is eligible to be issued a learner's licence for an autorickshaw.2. Ext.P3 medical certificate is issued by a doctor, an Eye and ENT Specialist. He has certified that the petitioner is medically fit to hold a driving licence despite post polio paralysis of both legs. The certificate also states that it has been personally ascertained that the movements needed for driving a vehicle is adequate. Armed with t...
Kurup Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT265; (2007)ILLJ989Ker
V. Ramkumar, J.1. These Original Petitions have come up before us upon a reference by a learned Single Judge (Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph) who was of the view that the Division Bench of this Court which decided the case in Mohandas v. Bank of India ILR 2005 (3) Kerala 476 had not considered the rulings of the Apex Court in Bank of India v. Swaranakar AIR 2003 SC 858 : 2003 (1) KLT (SC)(SN) 136 and Punjab and Sindh Bank v. S. Ranveer Singh Bava and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 2334.2. We heard Adv. Sri. V. Rajendran, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Adv. Sri. A.S.P. Kurup, the learned Counsel appearing for the Union Bank of India.3. The case of the petitioners can be summarised as follows:All the 34 petitioners in these Original Petitions were employees of the Union Bank of India. On 31.10.2000 the Director Board of the Union Bank of India approved a scheme titled as 'Union Bank of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000-01'. The above Scheme was circulated among the employees of th...
George Vs. Thodupuzha Municipality
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT609
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The Petitioner in WPG No. 32831/04 and his wife are the owners of certain buildings within the limits of Thodupuzha Municipality. Sometime in 1997, they objected to the revision of property tax of one of their buildings, a commercial one, that is, a lodge, hereinafter, the 'assessed building,' for short and stated in opposition to the demand that the rate at which revision has been made, is unreasonable and exorbitant. They also contended that some of the rooms in that building were left unoccupied. As of now, all those issues are concluded by Ext.Rl (a) in W.P.C No. 32831 of 2004, the judgment dated 17/9/2004 in O.P.No. 32528 of 1999, by which this Court dismissed that Writ Petition after noticing, inter alia, that, following the quinquennial revision in 1997, the petitioner made a representation and on 12/11/1997, the revenue inspector of the Municipality visited the building and placed a report; that thereafter, the petitioner was heard through the ...
Joseph Master Vs. Secretary, B.P.O.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT512
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Sri. Murali Purushothaman appears for the first respondent and Sri. N. Nandakumara Menon appears for the second respondent. Heard counsel for parties.2. Petitioner took charge as the Vice President of the second respondent Vallathol Nagar Grama Panchayat on 5.12.2005. On 1.6.2006, before the expiry of six months of the petitioner assuming office, a notice of a motion expressing want of confidence in the petitioner (Vice President) was given to the officer authorised by the State Election Commission for such purpose, who received the same and took action in terms of Sub-section 3 of Section 157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', by issuing Ext. P1, convening a meeting to consider the said no-confidence motion. However, by Ext. P2, the authorised officer rejected the notice of motion, which formed the foundation for the issuance of Ext. P1 notice, and as a consequence, the meeting scheduled to 14.6.2006 as per Ext. P1 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »