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.
Mohandas Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT173
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The sole accused in Crime No. 128 of 2006 of Guruvayoor Police Station registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act which was reregistered as V.C. 1 of 2006 of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau is the petitioner in this Crl.M.C. This Crl.M.C is filed to quash Annexure III, F.I.R in Crime No. 128 of 2006 of Guruvayoor Police Station and all further proceedings.2. The following are the averments in the Criminal Mis.Case. On 20.12.2005, the District Collector, Thrissur had passed an order holding that building tax of 6117 buildings at Chavakkad Taluk was not assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Building Tax Act. 9 squads were appointed for assessing the tax of those buildings. The petitioner was the leader of the Squad No. 3. He, along with other officials of the Squad visited a lodge by name Gayathri situated on the western gate of Guruvayoor temple on 8.3.2006 in an autorikshaw. One Satyan was the owner of that building. H...
Mulammoottil Consumer Credit Ltd. Vs. Sreenivasan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-2006
Reported in: [2007]139CompCas347(Ker); 2006(4)KLT543
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. His complaint alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the first respondent did not succeed. Therefore this appeal.2. The appellant company is engaged in advancing loan for purchase of house hold articles. The respondent/accused borrowed Rs. 21,300/- for purchase of house hold articles. Thereafter, towards the borrowal so made, Ext. P2 cheque dated 10.12.1997 was handed over to the company. It was presented to the bank on the next day. It bounced for want of sufficient fund in the bank account maintained by the accused. This is evidenced by Ext. P3 memo dated 19.12.97. Thereupon the amount covered by Ext. P2 was demanded back by issuing a written demand in the form of a lawyer notice, Ext. P5 dated 1.1.1996. This was within the time prescribed in Clause (b) of proviso to Section 138. Ext. P5 was duly acknowledged as is revealed by Ext. P7 by the accused; but it was not responded. Therefo...
Bhima Jewels Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Commercial Taxes ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-2006
Reported in: (2008)12VST280(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. In these connected cases filed by sister concerns one in Alappuzha and the other in Ernakulam, the issue is common and therefore the cases are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. The matter pertains to the sales tax assessments of both the assessees for 2000-01 and 2001-02. The petitioners being dealers in gold and silver jewellery claimed benefit of payment of tax at compounded rate under Section 7(1)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Under this section, a dealer in jewellery could settle his sales tax liability for the year 2000-01 by remittance of 120 per cent of the tax payable by him as conceded in the return or accounts for the immediately preceding year or the tax paid for the said year, whichever is higher, which in this case is 1999-2000. Later the percentage of tax payable at compounded rate was increased from 120 per cent to 150 per cent and thereafter from 150 per cent to 200 per cent of the previous year's tax. B...
Kunhikannan Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT469
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The appellant/accused stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh with a default sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. This is under challenge in this appeal.2. According to the prosecution case, at about 9.55 a.m. on 20.6.1998, PWs. 1 and 2 while on patrol duty on getting information about the transaction of banned arrack, found the accused in suspicious circumstances on the public road carrying a big shopper (M.O. 1). He was apprehended and questioned. It was found that the big shopper (M.O. 1) in his hand contained 48 packets of Karnataka made arrack measuring 100 ml. each, which was banned in Kerala State. Accordingly the appellant/accused was arrested and Ext. P1 seizure mahazar was prepared. It is recorded therein that six packets from out of 48 were opened and poured in two bottles of 375 ml. ...
T.K. Moidu Haji Vs. Konnapalarkandy Mariyam and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1633
ORDERA.K. Basheer, J.1. Two interesting questions have primarily arisen for consideration in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by a former husband who has suffered an order under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act').(i) Is consummation of marriage sine qua non for entitlement of reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to a divorced Muslim women?(ii) Is the Court debarred from entertaining an application under Section 3 of the Act before expiry of the iddat period ?The above questions have cropped up in the following facts and circumstances:3. The respondent herein who is the divorced wife of the petitioner, initiated proceedings under Section 3 of the Act alleging inter alia that she had been denied the dues payable under the Act after her divorce. She also claimed that the petitioner had not returned her gold ornaments and cash given to her by her parents and relatives at the time of...
Kalpaka Rubber Plantations (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT487
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in confirming the disallowance of interest alleged to have been paid on the loan amount.2. This Tax Revision Case arised out of the order passed by the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode in Agrl. Income-tax Appeal No. 21/1995. The assessment relates to the year 1977-78. An assessment order was passed under Section 18(3) of the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991, fixing a total agricultural income as proposed under Section 18(2) notice issued to the tune of Rs. 2,52,403.44. Out of the said amount an amount of Rs. 1,76,367.24 was allowed as expenses towards bank interest paid and another amount of Rs. 28,659/- was allowed as rehabilitation allowance and thereafter the total agricultural income was rounded up to Rs. 47,377/-. An amount of Rs. 44,594.41 was claimed by the assessee being the interest paid to its sister concern...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›