Kerala Court July 2006 Judgments
i.T. Johny Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: (2007)10VST19(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The 11 sales tax revision cases filed by the assessee pertain to KGST assessments for the years 1987-88 to 1992-93 and CST assessments for the years 1988-89 to 1992-93. The question involved in both sets of sales tax revisions is whether the petitioner is engaged in sale of doors, windows, etc., made of aluminium, or whether the petitioner is executing only works contracts. The work done by the petitioner was fabrication of aluminium partitioning materials, doors, windows, etc., mostly with glass and fixing the same at the customer's site. On facts, after verifying the orders produced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal found that the petitioner was fabricating and supplying aluminium doors, windows, frames, etc., with glass based on specific orders placed by the customers. In fact, it is seen from one of the purchase orders produced by the petitioner before the Tribunal that the Tribunal found that petitioner was charging price per piece of the items supplie...
Tag this Judgment!Akshaya Enterprises Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST395(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The tax revision cases arise from the common order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, disposing of two appeals, one filed by the assessee and the other by the State, for the same assessment year 1991:92. The assessee was a retail dealer in arrack during the relevant year. Three inspections were held. On all the inspections, petitioner/assessee did not have the proper accounts and, therefore, non-maintenance of accounts was accepted and compounding fee paid on three occasions. In the assessment also, petitioner did not produce any purchase bills and sales bills, but he had only stock register. However, on analysis, the sales turnover accounted for the quantity of arrack purchased and accounted by petitioner, the sale price worked out at Rs. 146 per litre while the prevailing market price on enquiry was found to be Rs. 70 per litre. The quantity purchased by petitioner was only 26975 litres. Since the sale price accounted by petitioner works out about doubl...
Tag this Judgment!K. Balakrishnan Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST374(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. It is seen from the impugned orders that appeals were dismissed as not maintainable because delay condonation petitions filed along with the appeals were also dismissed. We find that Section 41(1) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 provides for revision against orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal passed under sub-sections (4) and (7) of Section 39 of the KGST Act. While sub-section (4) deals with decision on merits in the appeal, sub-section (7) deals with the decision of the Tribunal in review petition. In this particular case, petitioner filed appeals before the Tribunal with inordinate delay and along with the appeals delay condonation petitions were filed. By separate orders, the Tribunal dismissed the delay condonation petitions and consequently appeals were found not maintainable and dismissed by the orders which are subject-matter in these revision cases. We find that even though in the impugned orders, the Tribunal has stated that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Raghavan Vs. C.D.R.F.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT706
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Whether a person can be punished a second time with fine or imprisonment or with both for the same offence of non-compliance with the orders passed by the District Forum/Commissions under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is the issue arising for consideration in this case.2. Two modes of implementation of the orders under the Act are provided, under Section 25 by attachment of the property/revenue recovery and under Section 27 by way of punishment either with fine or with imprisonment or with both. Sections 25 and 27 read as follows:-25. Enforcement of orders of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission.:(1) Where an interim order made under this Act, is not complied with the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, may order the property of the person, not complying with such order to be attached.(2) No attachment made under Sub-section(1) shall remain in force for more than thre...
Tag this Judgment!Sajeev Vs. Thriveni Credit Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC194; 2006(3)KLT770
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Can a criminal court simultaneously impose a sentence of fine and a direction for payment of compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C This interesting question arises for consideration in this revision petition, which is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. In the nature of the contentions raised before me, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any detail. Signature in the cheque is admitted. Notice of demand though duly received and acknowledged, did not evoke any reply. Though discharge was the plea urged, no evidence was adduced to prove that plea. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in proving all ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act.3. The trial court imposed the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 13,000/- and in...
Tag this Judgment!Jalaludeen Rawther Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KarLJ31
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The point that arises for decision in this case is, whether the President of a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, can be transferred by the Government. The brief facts of the case are the following:2. The petitioner is the President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode. He has been transferred by Ext.P2 order of the Government dated 30.09.2004, to Malappuram. He filed Ext.P4 representation dated 13.11.2004, against the said order. This Court, by Ext.P5 Judgment, directed the Government to consider the said representation. The Government considered and rejected the representation by Ext.P6 order dated 1.12.2005. This Writ Petition was filed, challenging Exts.P2 and P6. Though, several grounds are taken in the Writ Petition, the main ground urged by the petitioner is that the transfer has been ordered without following the procedure provided under Section 10(1A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The said provision reads as follows:Every appoi...
Tag this Judgment!Selvan Singh Vs. Nagamani
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: I(2007)DMC206; 2006(4)KLT125
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. What defences are and are not available to the children to resist the claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C raised against them by their parents? This question arises for consideration in this revision petition directed against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C by the Family Court directing the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs. 350/- & Rs. 250/- respectively to the respondent herein - admittedly their father.2. The relationship and status of the parties are not disputed. The claimant-father contended that he is unable to maintain himself and that the petitioners herein, his sons are refusing and neglecting to maintain him.3. Various contentions were raised. The claimant-father is not unable to maintain himself. The petitioners-sons are not having sufficient means. The claimant-father had neglected and refused to maintain the petitioners herein during their minority and it was their mother who brought them up and educated them. The claimant-father ...
Tag this Judgment!Jose Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT913
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Whether a contributor to the provident fund under the Kerala Municipal Pensionable Employees Central Provident Fund Rules, 1981 is entitled to get interest beyond the period of 6th month after the same became payable is the question to be decided in this case.2. Petitioner retired from service on 30-4-1998 while working as Assistant Executive Engineer under the Kunnamkulam Municipality. To the extent relevant and undisputed, the factual position is that, of the entitled amount of Rs. 2,07,575 in the PF account of the petitioner as on 30-4-1998, he was paid an amount of Rs. 1,89,437/-only on 13-6-2000 and the balance Rs. 18,138/- only on 5-8-2000. As per Ext.P8, the request of the petitioner for interest was turned down on the ground that under Section 14(4) of the Rules, the petitioner is entitled only to get interest for a period of six months. According to the petitioner, the parent legislation as far as the provident fund, is the General Provident Fund (Kerala) R...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurace Co. Ltd. Vs. Sheeja
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC120; 2007ACJ338; 2006(4)KarLJ63
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Husband of the first respondent was the driver of taxi KBT-7905. The said taxi was taken to workshop of 5th respondent and while repairing, gas cylinder exploded and the driver died. Legal representatives of the deceased claimed compensation of Rs. 3,72,500/-. Though the Tribunal found that there is no negligence on the part of the workshop owner or the owner of the vehicle and it was an act of God, entire amount claimed was awarded by the Tribunal. This appeal is filed by Insurance company on two grounds. First contention was that the accident is not arising out the use of motor vehicle and therefore claim petition filed under Section 156 will not lie. Secondly, it was contended that after finding that this is the act of God, the owner of vehicle as well as the insurance company cannot be compelled to pay compensation. With regard to first contention whether it is arising out while using motor vehicle, we refer the decision of Supreme court in Shivaji Dayanu Patil and...
Tag this Judgment!Thomas Vs. Florance
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ker31; 2006(3)KLT717
ORDERKurian Joseph, J.1. Award of the Lok Adalat is to be treated as a decree of the civil court. Which is the civil court to execute decree is the question to be considered in this case. The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.1469/98 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Thrissur. Respondent is the plaintiff. The suit pertains to partition. Reference was made under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and the Lok Adalat organised by the Taluk Legal Services Authority, Thrissur settled the matter and passed an award dated 5.11.1999. The petitioner undertook to pay an amount of Rs. 260000/-within a period of six months from the date of the award with 12% interest. Since the petitioner failed to pay the amount in time, the respondent took up the matter in execution before the Munsiff Court, Thrissur. In the process, order dated 20.3.2004 in E.P.1394/01 in O.S. 1469/98 was passed for proclamation and sale of the attached property.2. The main contention tak...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »