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.
Neelakanta Pillai Bhargava Panicker and anr. Vs. Madhavakurup Dasappan ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ72
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The question involved in this revision is whether the plaintiffs in a suit could be granted permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute another suit on the basis of a cause of action different from the one involved in the suit.2. The revision petitioners filed O.S. No. 16 of 1992, on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Haripad against respondents for permanent prohibitory injunction, for fixation of boundary and for mandatory injunction. The plaintiffs claimed title to an extent of one cent 650 Sq. links of land (plaint A schedule property). They purchased it from a larger area having an extent of 22 cents. The plaintiffs have constructed a building in the property purchased by them and are doing business there. Plaint B schedule item Nos. 1 and 2 admittedly belonged to the first defendant. The first defendant had also purchased B schedule item Nos. 1 and 2 from out of the total extent of 22 cents. The plaintiffs alleged that under the pretext...
Raveendran Nambiar Vs. Prabhakaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-20-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR742]; 2006(3)KLT234; (2006)IIILLJ331Ker
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. Exts. P5 and P6 orders are under challenge in this Writ Petition. Ext. P5 is an order passed under Section 85(1) of the Factories Act making all sections of the Factories Act, 1948 except Section 6(i)(a), (aa)(b) and (c) applicable to manufacturing process in crushing of animal bone including bone meals and other manure industries as a result of which, irrespective of the number of persons working, places engaged in those manufacturing processes shall be deemed to be a factory for the purposes of the Factories Act and the owner shall be deemed to be the occupier and any person working therein a worker. Ext. P6 is the order passed by the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by which the appellate authority reversed Ext. P1 order of the District Labour Officer, Kannur and directing the petitioner herein, who is the employer to the 1st respondent-employee to pay gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act by virtue of Ext.P5 despite the fact that ...
Bineesh Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-20-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ414; 2006(3)KLT364
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. A Learned Single Judge of this Court referred this matter to the Division Bench to consider the question whether under Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Magistrate can issue a production warrant and remand the accused who is already in remand in another case, for the purpose of enabling the police for interrogation. In Bineesh v. State of Kerala 2006 (1) KLT 505 learned single Judge of this Court held that it is not possible as under Section 73 arrest warrant can be issued to a person who is accused in a nonbailable offence only if he is evading arrest and that also can be exercised only against a person residing in the local limits of the Magistrate. Learned Judge held as follows:So the question now is that whether the courts of Perumbavoor and Chavakkad has got the power to issue a production warrant against the petitioner who is already arrested and detained in judicial custody by the Mararikulam Court. The power under Section 73 can be exercised b...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abdul Khader Ahamed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Ker)453; [2006]285ITR57(Ker)
V. Ramkumar, J.1. In this appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Revenue assails the order dated July 27, 2005, of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I. T. A. No. 117/Coch of 2005.2. As per the impugned order the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal partly allowed the respondent assessee's appeal holding that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee under Section 148 of the Act is void ab initio and consequently set aside the reassessment proceedings initiated against the assessee under Section 147 of the Act.3. The substantial questions of law formulated in the memorandum of appeal are the following :(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the satisfaction contemplated under the statute being prior to and for the issue of notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act and the same (satisfaction having been found by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)) on the pe...
Manoharan Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Ker)225; [2007]292ITR281(Ker); 2006(3)KLT330
V. Ramkumar, J.1. In this appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), the following questions of law are raised:1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in not considering and discussing the case law relied on by the appellant (who was the respondent assessee before I.T.A.T.), at the time of final argument and whether such an order shall subsist ?2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was correct in law in remanding the penalty order back to the assessing officer to pass a fresh order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961, after obtaining the approval of the Deputy Commissioner of Income tax and thereby extending the time limit for imposing penalty prescribed in Section 275 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relying on the decision of Guduthur Bros v. C.IT. : [1960]40ITR298(SC) , which order was passe...
Unni Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3887; 2006(3)KLT279
ORDERK.P. Balachandran, J.1. Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No. 7/2003 of Thirupuram Excise Range. The offence alleged as against him is an offence under Section 33(2) of the Abkari Act. The allegation against him is that when an attempt was made to effect arrest and to register a case as against Al for offence under Section 8(i) and 8(ii) of the Abkari Act, obstruction was caused by the petitioner thereto and thereby he has committed an offence punishable under Section 33(2) of the Act.2. Petitioner seeks for an order quashing Annexure-II final report on the ground that Section 33(2) of the Abkari Act is not a punitive section nor does it prescribe any duty on the part of a citizen not to obstruct the Excise Officer, when only Section 33(2) read with Section 63 of the Abkari Act will be an offence punishable under Section 63 of the Act.3. It is worthy to note that Section 63 prescribes punishment for offence not otherwise provided for. The Section is extracted below for easy r...
Raju Vs. Indian Overseas Bank
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker379; 2006(3)KLT387
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The judgment debtor in E.P.No. 65/2003 in O.S.No. 35/2000 on the file of the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta is the petitioner in this Writ Petition. The respondent bank filed the suit for realisation of the money. The suit was decreed. The bank filed E.P.No. 65/ 2003 for realisation of an amount of Rs. 1,79,253/-. One of the modes of execution sought for was arrest and detention of the petitioner in civil prison. The petitioner did not appear before the executing court on receipt of the notice issued to him under Order XXI Rule 37. The decree holder filed an affidavit. Warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner on 22.3.2005. The petitioner was arrested and brought before the executing court on 21.10.2005. On that day the petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 5,000/- and E.P. was posted to 25.10.2005. On that day the petitioner paid another amount of Rs. 3,000/- and the E.P. was adjourned to 13.12.2005. The petitioner filed an objection on 21.10.2005 contending ...
Cherian and Kurian Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker330; 2007(1)ARBLR21(Kerala); 2006(3)KLT344
ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. These arbitration requests filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', are being disposed of by this common order since the parties to these matters are the same, the contentions as regards the requests for arbitration are similar and the requests are made on the strength of identical agreements.2. Agreement No. 5/PD-NH/2000-01 forming the foundation for A.R.28/2003 and Agreement No. 6/PD-NH/2000-01 forming the foundation for A.R.29/2003 were entered into between the applicant and the State of Kerala acting through the Project Director (S.E.), National Highway (ADB) Project Circle, Edappally, Kochi-24, on behalf of the Governor of the State of Kerala, for certain works in relation to N.H.49 - Madura Kochi Road - Special repairs crash programme - Improving riding quality -strengthening the existing surface by providing 50mm BM and 25mm BC. Agreement No. 6 relates to the work between...
Giji Mathew Vs. Kerala State Election Commission
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT141
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner is the President of a Village Panchayat. The second respondent was elected as a member of the said Panchayat from ward No. 5. She was subsequently elected as a member of the Standing Committee for Finance constituted under Section 162(1)(a) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.2. On an allegation that she has incurred the disqualification under Section 35(k) of the Act on account of her alleged absence in three consecutive meetings of the Standing Committee for Finance, the Secretary of the Village Panchayat issued a communication to the second respondent under Section 37(2) of the Act regarding the cessation of membership attributed to her and reported the matter to the Panchayat Committee in its next meeting.3. The second respondent, faced with the aforesaid situation, filed O.P.No. 4/ 2006 before the State Election Commission under Section 36(1) for a decision as to whether she is disqualified.4....
Subramanian Srinivasan Vs. C.B.i.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT489
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. When the matter was placed for admission, the office report pointed out that the appellant in each Appeal has not surrendered and therefore in terms of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 (in short the 'Rules') the Criminal Appeal cannot be taken up. It is pointed out that in each case an application has been filed for staying operation of the impugned judgment and final order dated 12th April, 2006 passed by the Special Court at Bombay constituted under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transaction in Securities) Act, 1992 (in short the 'Act') in Special Case No. 4 of 1996 during the pendency of the appeal and to suspend the sentence of the appellant and the fine.2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appeal is under Section 10 of the Act and the learned Judge of the Special Court has suspended the substantive sentence passed against each of the accused for a period of 10 weeks from the date of judgment. For that purpose each of the accu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »