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.
Ramesan and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1637
K. Hema, J.1. The appellants are convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC', for short). The Court below framed a charge against the accused which is extracted below:That on 4-9-1998 at 18-30 hours on the road near the U. P. School Building at Kuttikunnuparamba, Pokkoth Theru accused 1 to 14 and about 10 others, who could be identified on sight armed with deadly weapons, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object of causing the death of C.Ws. 1 and 2, stabbed them with knife and beat them with wooden stick, iron rod and hands and thereafter about 250 metres away from the place of occurrence, near Building No. XX-272 of Thaliparamba Municipality the accused beat CW3 with an iron crowbar and stabbed him with knife and inflicted injuries on C.Ws. 1 to 3 and attempted to commit murder and thereby you all the accused have committed the offences punishable...
Parry Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Ker)257; 2006(3)KLT592
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. This Income Tax Reference comes up for hearing before us since a Division Bench of this Court doubted the correctness of another Division Bench decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kil Kothagiri Tea and Coffee Estate Co. Ltd. : [2005]273ITR278(Ker) , on the same point as in this case.2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the profits of eligible business computed in accordance with the requirements of Parts II and 111 of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956 should be reduced by income from coffee sales, arecanut sales, rent receipts, interest and subsidy from Tea Board for the purpose of computing the deduction allowable under Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (b) of Section 32AB (1)3. The brief facts necessary for deciding this case are as follows.4...
Madhu Parumala Vs. Speaker, Kerala Legislative Assembly
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ker18; 2006(3)KLT558
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that is posed for consideration in this case is whether the oath taken in the name of Allah by respondents 6 to 16 occupying seats in the Kerala State Legislative Assembly as per Article 188 of the Constitution read with the Third Schedule thereto is unconstitutional and thereby attracts penalty under Article 193 of the Constitution of India.2. Election to the 12th Kerala State Legislative Assembly was held in April -May 2006 and results were declared on 12.05.2006. One hundred and thirty nine elected members of the Legislative Assembly participated in the Oath or affirmation ceremony conducted by the pro-term Speaker who took oath from the Governor of the State. Respondents 6 to 16 were elected from the panel of IUML, INL and Congress -1 and they took oath in the name of Allah. Later, Secretary, Kerala Legislative Assembly permitted them along with others to enter the Kerala Legislative Assembly on 25.05.2006 for participating in the election to t...
Mohandas Vs. Jayasamudri Trading Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-2006
Reported in: IV(2007)BC38; 2006(3)KLT776
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Does the mere fact that a partner earns share of profits of the business of the firm expose him to culpable liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act This is the only contentious issue of relevance raised in these Revision Petitions.2. These revision petitions are preferred by accused 1 to 3 in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I Act. Accused No. 1 is a firm and accused Nos. 2 & 3 are partners of the said firm. Accused 1 & 2 together have preferred Crl.RP 363/2001, whereas the 3rd accused has preferred Crl.R.P.320 of 2001. Petitioners 2 & 3 face a sentence of imprisonment for 6 months. They are further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 60,000/-each as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months each. No sentence or direction to pay compensation is imposed on the 1st accused firm, which allegedly stood dissolved by the time the impugned appellate judgment was passed.3. The complainant alleged that off...
Ravi Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT279
J.M. James, J.1. The accused in S.T. No. 68/1993, on the file of the Special Judge for E.C. Act cases, Thrissur, is the appellant. He face the charges under Clause 3 of the Kerala Food Stuffs (Display of Prices by Catering Establishments) Order, 1977, in short 'the Order', and also under Sections 3 & 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in short 'the Act'. The learned Special Judge found the accused guilty of the offence alleged, and therefore, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Clause 3 of the Order, read with Sections 3 & 7 of the Act. In default of payment of fine, the accused was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. The same is under challenge through this appeal.2. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant, accused, is in charge of the 'Queens Restaurant and Hotel' at Piravom, within the Piravom Municipality. On 11.5.1993, at about ...
Aboobacker Vs. District Collector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT670
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The petitioner was the plaintiff in O.S.Nos. 212/2002 and 214/2002 pending before the Sub Court, Palakkad. One Jitheshdas was the defendant in both the suits. When the suits came up for trial both the suits were referred to Lok Adalat organised by the District Legal Services Authority, Palakkad. The matter was settled and awards were passed. Both the suits were dismissed without costs. The Lok Adalat ordered refund of full court fee paid by both parties in the plaint as well as on counter claim in both the suits as contemplated under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act (for short the Act'). Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act reads as follows:21.Award of Lok Adalat-(1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under Sub-section (1) of Section 20, the ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Rajagopalan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT449
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Union of India is the Petitioner in all these three cases. Union of India is assailing the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby, the applicants before it have been allowed to draw charge allowances in terms of F.R. 49(iii).2. It is conteded by the Union of India that the order of the Tribunal is wrong and is not in consonance with F.R. 49, as there was no order posting any of the incumbents in full additional charge by the Central Government. A local arrangement made by a Zonal Head or Head of the Department may not be sufficient to cloth the respondents/incumbents with eligibility to claim full additional charge allowances, unless there is an order to that effect by the Central Government, the empowered authority in terms of F.R. 49. Delegation granted in terms of F.R.6 to make appropriate arrangements or posting on additional charge conferred on the Head of the Department enables him to make such arrangements only in respect of those officers,...
Krishna Maniyani Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4242
ORDERA.K. Basheer, J.1. (a) Can the driver of a vehicle be charge-sheeted and tried for an offence punishable under Section 304, IPC, if his rash or negligent driving has resulted in the death of another person and(b) Is the plea of the driver in such a motor accident that he is liable to be charge-sheeted and tried only for an offence punishable under Section 304A, IPC sustainable 2. The above questions have come up for consideration in this petition filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the following facts and circumstances.3. Kasaragod Police charge sheeted the petitioner alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304(A) and 304, IPC. The version given by the Police goes like this:4. On November 19, 2002 at about 12.45 p.m., the petitioner-accused drove stage carriage bearing registration No. KL 14-C/ 7739 in a culpably rash and negligent manner at a very high speed; and while he tried to overtake a bus which was g...
K.K. Mohandas Vs. Jayasamudri Trading Co. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC482
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Docs the mere fact that a partner earns share of profits of the business of the firm expose him to culpable liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act? This is the only contentious issue of relevance raised in these revision petitions.2. These revision petitions are preferred by accused 1 to 3 in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Accused No. l is a firm and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are partners of the said firm. Accused 1 and 2 together have preferred Crl.R.P. 363/ 2001, whereas the 3rd accused has preferred Crl.R.P. 320 of 2001. Petitioners 2 and 3 face a sentence of imprisonment for 6 months. They arc further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 60,000/- each as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months each. No sentence or direction to pay compensation is imposed on the 1st accused firm, which allegedly stood dissolved by the time the impugned appellate judgment was passed.3. The complainant all...
C.C. Sebastian Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-2006
Reported in: (2007)8VST798(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in this tax revision case is whether bus-body built by the petitioner on the chassis supplied by the customer is a commodity taxable as such, or whether it is a works contract entitling exemption to the petitioner on labour charges. It is seen from the Tribunal's order that they rejected the petitioner's claim following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T.V. Sundram Iyengar & Sons v. State of Madras [1975] 35 S.T.C. 24, wherein the Supreme Court held as follows (page 32):The salient features of the dealings between the two assessees with whom we are concerned and their customers as they emerge from the facts given above are that the property in the material used by the assessees in constructing the bus bodies never passed to their customers during the course of construction. It was only when the complete bus with the body fitted to the chassis was delivered to the customer that the property in the bus body passed to the cu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »