Kerala Court July 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.
Alora Sundaran Vs. Mammali Sumathi and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: I(2007)DMC136
R. Basant, J.1. Does the decision in Shahada Khatoon v. Amjad Ali IV (1999) CCR 268 (SC) : I (2000) DMC 313 (SC) : 2000(1) KLT 696 (SC), fetter the powers of the Magistrate/Family Court to sentence a defaulter to one month's imprisonment for the default in payment of each month's maintenance? Is there a cap of one month on the total period of imprisonment which can be imposed when complaint is raised in one Execution Petition about default in respect of more than one month? These are the questions of interest that arise for consideration in this revision petition.2. A look at the statutory provisions first. Under Section 125, Cr.P.C. a father/ husband/child having sufficient means, who refuses or neglects to maintain his child/wife/parent unable to maintain himself or herself, can be visited with an order directing payment of maintenance for each month. If he commits default in making such payment, such order passed by the Criminal Court can be enforced under Section 125(3), Cr.P.C. by...
T.C. Eapen Vs. Cit, Thiruvananthapuram
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: [2006]156TAXMAN202(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA. No. 34(Coch,)/97 dated 23-4-1999. Assessee had filed the return of income for the first time on 13-12-1995 declaring a total income of Rs. 38,830 for the assessment year 1995-96. For the assessment year 1996-97 he had filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 1,44,834 being interest on bank deposits alone on 17-4-1996. In the said return he had shown a sum of Rs, 7,03,000 as the capital gain on the sale of 33 cents of agricultural land in Survey No. 3195 of Kawdiar Village. Exemption under section 54B was claimed in respect of the capital gains disclosed since there were purchases of three items of properties by him for an aggregate consideration of Rs. 20,25,000 before and subsequent to the sale of the property mentioned above.2. Search and seizure operations were carried out at the residence of the assessee on 19-3-1996 under section 132 of the ...
Vijayarajan Vs. Kalavathy
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ker25; 2006(3)KLT470
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this Appeal is whether an Administration Suit, in which the relief prayed for is to appoint an Administrator cum Receiver for the properties of a living person for the purpose of distributing the proceeds of his assets among his creditors including the plaintiff, is maintainable before the civil court.2. The plaintiff claims to be a creditor of the first defendant to the tune of Rs. 8 lakhs. The first defendant, C.K. Kalavathy, is a Hindu. She was running a press under the name and style 'Kalanilayam Krishnan Nair Memorial Press' and other business concerns. The plaintiff contended that he advanced amounts to the first defendant for the purpose of her business. On settlement of accounts, it was agreed by the first defendant to pay Rs. 8 lakhs to the plaintiff and Exhibit A 19 deed was executed by the first defendant. It is stated in the plaint that the first defendant indulged in activities to defeat the rights of her cr...
Prisekutty Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT541
K. Thankappan, J.1. While the petitioner was working as Telephone Mechanic, the 4th respondent Divisional Engineer, Telecom (DET), BSNL, Chengannur, issued disciplinary proceedings on the basis of Ext.P5 charge. As per Ext.P5 charge memo, it is alleged that, the petitioner has committed misconducts coming under Rules 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii) and 17 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is that while he was working as a Telephone Mechanic, one Susamma filed O.S,No. 316/1999 before the Munsiff Court, Chengannur, for recovery of an amount of Rs. 57,000/- with interest from the petitioner. The suit was decreed ex parte and as the petitioner could not appear in the execution stage, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment from 22.5.2001 to 21.6.2001. On the basis of that, charge has been issued against the petitioner as aforesaid. After an enquiry and on the basis of Ext.P8 enquiry report, the enquiry officer found the petitioner g...
Nabeessa Vs. Abdul Majeed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker381; 2006(3)KLT966
M. Ramachandran, J.1. The question of law that is raised in this Second Appeal has no comparison with the 'sala' involved in the lis. But, it may have to be frequently confronted in daily life. The relevant facts which ultimately led to filing of this appeal could be briefly sketched.2. O.S.No. 174 of 1983 filed before the Munsiff's Court, Tirur was principally a suit for injunction. Plaintiffs alleged tortious conduct on the part of the defendant and also claimed compensation for loss sustained by them. The suit had been decreed. The defendant was restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. Plaintiffs were also declared as entitled to get Rs. 1000/- as damages. Munsiff further directed that the building materials forcibly taken away were to be restored to the plaintiffs.3. The Appellate Court (Subordinate Judge's Court), Tirur by judgment in A.S.No. 87/1987 had however held that although order of permanent prohibitory injunction was warranted, plaintiffs were not en...
Navarathana Chemicals Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT561
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Assessee has come up in this revision aggrieved by the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode. Following are the questions of law arising for our consideration.A. Whether the lower authorities are justified in declining the benefit of concessional rate in tax to the: petitioner/assessee in respect of its sales of liquid sodium silicate made out of soluble glass, as claimed by them on the basis of SRO No. 1091 of 1999, solely on the reasoning that part of the processing activity was carried out outside the State?B. Whether such claim for concession can be denied to an assessee solely on the ground that semi processed raw materials were procured from outside the State? Whether such an interpretation is possible or warranted on a true construction of SRO No. 1091 of 1999?Assessee is a small scale industrial unit engaged in the manufacture and sales of sodium silicate. For the assessment year 2000-2001 assessee returned a stat...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Parry Agro Industries Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Ker)36; [2007]293ITR99(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the CIT under Section 260A of the IT Act. Following are the substantial questions of law formulated by the CIT for our consideration in IT Appeal No. 109 of 1999:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the loss incurred on sale of units of Unit Trust of India was not speculation business and is not the finding wrong and against law?2(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and had material to hold that it would not be correct to say that the machinery had not been put to use in the year ending 31st March, 1991?2(b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, are there material and evidence for the Tribunal to find-There is evidence to show that it was received in the estate on 31st Jan., 1991'; 'it was on trial run for some time when the defect was noticed'; 'After making the repair the machinery was brough...
Muraleedharan Vs. Vijayakumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT342
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Complainant is the revision petitioner. Revision Petition is filed against the order of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolenchery rejecting the complainant's application under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for inclusion of charge under Section 420 IPC.2. Revision petitioner herein filed a private complaint against the accused alleging that he has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is alleged that the complainant gave Rs. 1,25,000/- as loan on condition that the accused has to repay the amount within two months. Amount was not repaid. When demanded the accused gave a cheque dated 14.8.1995 for the said amount. Complaint was filed against the accused alleging that he had committed offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and also under Section 420 IPC. Thereafter sworn statement of the complainant was taken by the court on 19.10.1995. On the basis of the sw...
Achamma Chacko and anr. Etc. Vs. Govt. of Kerala and ors. Etc.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4391
V.K. Bali, C.J.1. A partnership firm with the name and style 'M/s. LIS, Ernakulam' is said to be conducting the business of making available Government lottery tickets to the public under the Multi Level Marketing principle in partnership. As per its own showing, the partnership has registered three lakhs members in the scheme evolved by it. Though it is not mentioned in sufficient details in the writ petitions or criminal miscellaneous case, but as revealed during the investigation and not disputed during the course of arguments, the managing committee of the trust stated to be P.V. Chacko, Kuriachan Chacko and Joy John met on 11-11 -2002 and decided to permit Kurian Chacko to conduct lottery ticket business in the brand name LIS. Kurian Chacko was to conduct the business of his own either as a proprietary concern or as a partnership or as a limited company. Kuriachan Chacko had to make available necessary funds for the trust and its members. In pursuance of the resolution, Kuriachan ...
M.S. Muraleedharan Vs. P.S. Vijayakumar and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC714
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Complainant is the revision petitioner. Revision petition is filed against the order of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolenchery rejecting the complainant's application under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for inclusion of charge under Section 420, IPC.2. Revision petitioner herein filed a private complaint against the accused alleging that he has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is alleged that the complainant gave Rs. 1,25,000/-as loan on condition that the accused has to repay the amount within two months. Amount was not repaid. When demanded the accused gave a cheque dated 14.8.1995 for the said amount. Complaint was filed against the accused alleging that he had committed offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and also under Section 420, IPC. Thereafter sworn statement of the complainant was taken by the Court on 19.10.1995. On the basis of the s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »