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.
Fon-ess India (P) Ltd. Vs. Kerala State Consumer D.R. Commission
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker319; 2006(3)KLT500
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Whether a complaint/appeal under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requires formal admission before the District Forum/State Commission is the main issue raised in this Writ Petition. Related issues on the procedure to be adopted by the Forum/Commission are also to be considered.2. The Consumer Protection Act 1986 has been enacted '...to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of consumer councils and 'other authorities for the settlement of consumers' disputes and for matters connected therewith.' It needs no elaborate discussion to hold that it is a benevolent piece of legislation intended to protect the interests of the consumers. There are three forums under the Act, - the District, State and National. Complainant is defined at Section 2(b), complaint at Section 2(c) and consumer at 2(d) of the Act. Consumer dispute is defined at Section 2(e) as meaning '...a dispu...
Andrews Vs. Hassan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker365; 2006(3)KLT807
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is whether a plaintiff who has paid only l/10th of the court fee along with the plaint and who has sold a substantial item of immovable property after the institution of the suit could claim to be an indigent person and maintain an application under Rule 1 of Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in so far as the balance court fee is concerned.2. The appellant instituted OS. No. 533 of 1996, on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Thrissur for realisation of a sum of Rs. 5,46,760/- from the defendants. The court fee payable is Rs. 39,307/-. Along with the plaint, the appellant paid Rs. 4,000/-as court fee as 1/10th of the court fee payable under Section 4A of the Kerala Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. Written statement was filed by the defendants on 12-09-1997 and they also preferred a counter claim on that date. However, issues were framed only on 6-11-2003 and the appellant/plaintiff was directed to pay the balanc...
Alpha Jose Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT886
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The two petitioners, who are Third Year B.Sc. Nursing students in the School of Medical Education run by the Mahatma Gandhi University at Kottayam are challenging their suspension from the institution on account of the criminal case pending against them before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ettumannur, for ragging punishable under Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998, hereinafter called the 'Act'. FIR is filed against the petitioners based on Ext.P4 complaint filed by a first year B.Sc. Nursing student of the same School by name Ms. Supimol on 19.11.2005 before the District Superintendent of Police stating that the two petitioners were supporters of two boys by name Ranjith and Sherine who ragged and sexually assaulted the complainant. The main allegation against the petitioners in Ext.P4 which led to filing of FIR is that they along with other girls ragged the complainant in the ladies hostel by compelling the complainant t...
Castall Corporation (P) Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT401; (2007)7VST552(Ker)
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Petitioner has two grievances on refund and interest; (1) refund pursuant to the modified assessment and (2) refund on the security deposit and interest thereon. It is seen that is the appellate authority in Ext.Pl order dated 21-3-1985 had passed orders regarding the modification. It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Taxes, placing reliance on Rule 44 of the K.G.S.T. Rules that the entitlement for interest is only within 90 days of receipt of authorization as provided under Section 44. Section 44(1) says that 'When an assessing authority finds, at the time of final assessment, that the dealer has paid tax in excess of what is due from him, it shall refund the excess to the dealer.' Sub-section (2) reads as follows: 'When the assessing authority receives an order from any appellate or revisional authority to make refund of tax or penalty paid by a dealer, it shall effect the refund.' Thus the contention of the Revenue is that the refund need be...
Geekay Hygenics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT458
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The appellants have approached this Court impugning Ext. P8 marked in O.P. No. 17633/05, whereby the exemption from payment of sales tax granted as per Ext. P10 had been cancelled. The learned single Judge did not accept the challenge. Therefore, these appeals.2. The appellants are manufacturers of bottled drinking water. There were several such units. There was dispute, including up to this Court and the Supreme Court, as to the taxability of the package of drinking water. This Court and the Supreme Court found that they were not entitled for the exemption, as allowed to the small scale industries. In spite of that, Government issued Ext. PIO notification marked in W.P. (C) No. 23111/05 as S.R.O. No. 731/04 on 17.7.2004 exempting these units from payment of sales tax during the period from 1.1.1994 to 9.2.2002. This was issued exercising the power conferred on Government in terms of Section 10(1) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act')- ...
Gopalakrishnan Vs. Rajamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT377
V. Ramkumar, J.1. Defendants 1, 4 and 5 in O.S. No. 78/1986 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Alappuzha are the appellants in this Second Appeal. Pending this Second Appeal the 1st defendant who was the 1st appellant died and defendants 4 and 5, who are his children and who are appellants 2 and 3 respectively, were recorded as his legal representatives.2. The aforementioned suit instituted by the 1st respondent herein was one for a declaration of the plaintiff's title and possession over plaint schedule item No. 1, for setting aside the decrees passed in two earlier suits, for setting aside Ext. A-3 settlement deed dated 22-8-1966 executed by the plaintiff's mother, for recovery of two items of properties with mesne profits and for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's share in respect of two other items of the plaint schedule properties.Plaintiffs Case In The Pleadings3. The case of the plaintiff can be summarised as follows:The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 ar...
Tulaseedharan Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4176; 2006(4)KLT471
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. canceling the bail granted to the petitioners 1 to 9 herein. It will be advantageous to refer to the sequence of events - twists and turns, that have taken place in this case which led to the passing of the impugned order.2. An incident is alleged to have taken place on 24.3.2002 at 2.30 a.m. Bereft of unnecessary details, the crux of the alleged incident is that there was an attempt to widen a pathway which already exists. Fence poles planted on either side of the way were allegedly removed. The de facto complainant was allegedly assaulted and intimidated. Obscenities were showered on him. On his complaint a crime was registered on 24.3.2002. That crime was registered under Sections 323, 506(ii), 294(b) read with Section 34 of the IPC. Six named accused persons (petitioners 1 to 6 herein) and some others (not named) were allegedly responsibl...
Aliyas Vs. Aboobacker
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT282
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The suit filed by the respondent herein for specific performance of Ext.Al agreement for sale of the plaint schedule immovable properties was decreed by the trial court. The defendants challenge the judgment and decree of the trial court.2. The plaint schedule consists of three items of properties, the total extent of which comes to 55 cents. Two items belong to the first defendant and one item having an extent of 15 cents belongs to the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant is the son of the first defendant. The properties are situated on the side of Vithure - Kallar road in Nedumangad Taluk. There is a house consisting of four bed rooms, sit out, dining room, kitchen and store room, in one of the items. There are coconut trees, other fuit bearing trees and miscellaneous trees in the properties.3. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants agreed to sell the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 7.5 lakhs and Ext.Al agreement for s...
V.K. Gemini Vs. Chandran and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1285; 2007(2)KLT439
K. Hema, J.1. Can the complainant (i.e., the 'payee' or the 'holder in due course'), in a prosecution for offence under Section, 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the, Act, for short) be presumed to be the 'holder' of the cheque? Can the presumption under Section 139 of the Act be drawn in favour of the complainant, invariably in all such complaints treating him as the 'holder' of the cheque? Can the mere admission of the handwriting and signature in the cheque lead to the presumption under Section 139 of the Act that the cheque is received for the discharge of a debt or liability? These are the main question which arise for consideration in this appeal.FACTS. BRIEFLY:2. The appellant filed a complaint before Magistrate's Court, alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act ('the Act', for short), against first respondent herein. The accused first respondent allegedly borrowed a sum of Rs. 60,000/-from complainant and issued a cheque, Ext. P1 for the dischar...
Saji Kumar Vs. Soman Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT679
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. If a default sentence imposed is undergone, does that extinguish the liability to pay compensation ordered to be paid under Section 357(3) Cr. P.C.? Are efforts to recover the amount liable to be continued under the proviso to Section 421 Cr. P.C even after the accused undergoes the default sentence? These are the interesting questions that arise in this Revision Petition which arises from a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I Act. The sentence imposed by the trial court was modified by the appellate court in that a default sentence was imposed if the compensation amount were not paid.2. There is no challenge against verdict of guilty and conviction. In these circumstances it is unnecessary for me to advert in detail to the relevant facts. Suffice it to say that I am satisfied that the verdict of guilty and conviction are absolutely justified and unexceptionable.3. The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 47...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »