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.
Supreme Finance Corporation Vs. George
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KarLJ1003
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioners in IA. 3965 of 1998 in IP. 2/89 and 3/89 of the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam are the Revision Petitioners. The above mentioned IA, was filed by the 5th respondent in IP.2/89 and 3/89 for and on behalf of other respondents under Section 114 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to review the order dated 2-11-1998 passed in the cheque application. Review Petition was allowed by the Sub Court and the order passed in the cheque application dated 2-11-1998 was reviewed and the application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same first respondent in the IA. who is the first respondent herein, filed CMA. 25 of 1999 before the Additional District Judge, Kottayam. Appeal was allowed and the appellant was allowed to withdraw the amount in deposit on filing a fresh cheque application. Aggrieved by the said order this Revision Petition has been preferred.2. Sri. P.C. Chacko, counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that th...
Kamalammal Vs. Mohanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3124; 2006(3)KarLJ972
K. Hema, J.1. Can it be presumed under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('the Act', for short) that the cheque is drawn/executed by the accused for the discharge of a debt or liability? What exactly is the 'fact' which can be presumed by the court under Section 139 of the Act? Under what circumstance the presumption under Section 139 can be drawn? What are the basic requirements for drawing the presumption under Section 139 of the Act? On whom does the burden lie to establish those pre-requisites? These are some of the important questions which I would ponder upon, for the purpose of disposal of this appeal.2. A complaint was filed by the complainant-appellant through PW1, the power-of-attorney holder against the first respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('the Act', for short). As per the allegations in the complaint, complainant and accused are friends and distant relatives. The accused allegedly borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-...
Nirmala Industries Vs. E.S.i. Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR830]; 2006(4)KLT403
ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Review petitioner succeeded before the Employees' Insurance Court and it was declared that his establishment is not liable to be covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and that he was not bound to pay any amount by way of contribution under the Act. This Court set aside that order in M.F.A. No. 680/1999 as per the judgment sought to be reviewed, holding that the petitioner (the establishment) is liable to covered under the Act. To hold so, after hearing the learned Counsel for the E.S.I. Corporation and learned Counsel for the petitioner (the establishment) and after duly noticing the relevant facts, this Court, relying on the definition of the term 'employee' as contained in Section 2(9) of the Act, held that temporary employees, as well as casual employees even those who were employed through contractors, are covered under the Act and the principal employer is liable to pay contribution.2. L...
Smt. P.G. Bhanumathy Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: (2007)208CTR(Ker)376; [2007]292ITR247(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The appellant/assessee is challenging the order of the Tribunal confirming disallowance of Rs. 10 lakhs in the computation of capital gain for the asst. yr. 1992-93. During the accounting year relevant for the asst. yr. 1992-93, the assessee sold a flat and received a net consideration of Rs. 52 lakhs. The facts on record disclosed that out of Rs. 52 lakhs, appellant invested Rs. 44 lakhs in the Syndicate Bank as fixed deposit and availed a loan of Rs. 4 lakhs on the security of the fixed deposit. After adjusting the loan amount, the balance amount of Rs. 40 lakhs received by the appellant was deposited in capital bonds issued by the IDBI on 26th May, 1992 as investment in specified asset in terms of Section 54E of the IT Act. The deposit in IDBI Bonds yielded an advance interest of Rs. 9.4 lakhs which along with another amount of Rs. 60,000 taken by the appellant from the bank was also deposited in IDBI Bonds on 28th May, 1992. Since both the amounts were ...
Somarajan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT186
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Whether the exemption granted by Government to the members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in service by appropriate orders passed, as empowered by Rule 13AA of the General Rules' in the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules') is applicable to the special tests prescribed as essential requirement as per the special rules for appointment to the post of Superintendent of Survey and Records, is the moot question debated in these appeals. The learned single Judge, as per the impugned judgment, held that the orders issued by Government granting test exemption in terms of Rule 13AA to the members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, will be applicable in respect of the special tests prescribed as well. Therefore, this appeal.2. It is contended by the appellants that, as per the special rules for the Kerala Survey and Land Records service (Special Rules), no person shall be eligible for appointment as Superintendent of Survey by ...
G.F.S. Chit and Loans (P) Ltd. Vs. Rajesh
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: IV(2007)BC304; 2006(3)KLT825
K. Hema, J.1. Can a Magistrate acquit an accused under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on any ground other than 'non-appearance of the complainant'? This short question comes up for consideration in this appeal.2. This is an appeal filed against the order of acquittal under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code', for short). The appellant filed a complaint alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the first respondent. The complaint was taken on file and summons was issued to the accused. Thereafter, the case was posted to several dates. On 17.8.2004, warrant was issued against the accused. The case was then posted to 17.11.2004. On that day, learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) of the Code.3. The impugned order reads as follows:The case was called on for hearing today to which it had been adjourned. The complainant not being present either in person or by pleader, the accused is acquitted un...
George Varghese Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT852
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Appellants/petitioners who were working as Workshop Instructors in the Technical Education Department applied for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors in the Motor Vehicle Department pursuant to the notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission. They got selection and consequently, they gave up their original post of Workshop Inspectors in the Technical Education Department and joined the new post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors (AMVI) in the Motor Vehicle Department. That was in the year 1999. At that time, they had to their credit almost eight years of service in the former department. Their contention is that the scale of pay applicable to both these posts were identical. On that account, they placed reliance on Ext.Pl order passed by the Government of Kerala as per order No. G.O.(P) 705/8 1/(372)Fin. dt.28.10.1981 to get higher grade promotion in the cadre of AMVI counting the service they had in the category of Workshop Instruc...
Baby Vs. Shan Finance (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC598; 2006(4)KLT594
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. The revision petitioner has come to this Court aggrieved by the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 240 Cr.P.C. framing charges against him under Sections 406, 418 & 420 r/w 34 I.P.C. He prayed before the learned Magistrate that he may be discharged under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The request was turned down and charges were directed to be framed against the petitioner.2. Allegations have been raised against the petitioner, the 2nd accused in a complaint filed by the defacto complainant/a financier, who had entered into a hire purchase agreement with the 1st accused. The petitioner is the 2nd accused. The petitioner was a guarantor in the said hire purchase agreement. The 1st accused who allegedly availed the loan and entered into the hire purchase agreement with the petitioner as a guarantor allegedly, contrary to the stipulations in the hire purchase agreement, had sold the vehicle to another person without the consent and knowledge of the defacto complainant,...
Sankaradas Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT956
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The appellant/petitioner was an aspirant to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Political Science) (HSST) towards the quota set apart for teachers in the High Schools or Primary Schools in the General Education Department. The qualifications for the post are prescribed as per the Special Rules relating to the Kerala Higher Secondary Education State Service. The said Rules prescribe the qualifications for the post of HSST in Political Science as Master Degree in the subject with not less than 50% marks from any of the Universities in Kerala or a qualification recognised as equivalent thereto in that subject by a University in Kerala, with B. Ed. Degree in the concerned subject acquired from any of the Universities in Kerala or a qualification recognised as equalent thereto by a University in Kerala. In the absence of candidates with B. Ed. in the concerned subjects persons with B. Ed. Degree 'in the concerned Faculty as specified in the Acts and Statutes...
Vasudevan Radhakrishnan Vs. Vasudevan Achari
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT722
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff in a suit for injunction is the petitioner in this Writ Petition. The challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Munsiff, Nedumangad in I.A.No. 2646/2005 accepting a counter claim filed by the respondent which was filed subsequent to the filing of the written statement. The petitioner filed O.S.No. 348/2005 against the respondent landlord for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the landlord from forcibly evicting the petitioner from the plaint schedule building. An exparte order of temporary injunction was passed which is still in force. The respondent filed a written statement raising various contentions. In the written statement he raised a counter claim also. The learned Munsiff accepted that counter claim. Thereafter the petitioner filed I.ANo. 264672005 under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code to review that order. He also filed I.A.No. 2552/2005 to restrain the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »