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.
State of Kerala Vs. Rosen Fisheries
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT823; (2007)8VST209(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in the TRCs is whether baby fish is entitled to exemption from sales tax under entry 18 of the Third Schedule to the KGST Act which provides for exemption for 'dried fish and fresh fish'. Respondent is engaged in sale of baby fish to Fish Farms. The Assessing Officer took the view that the item referred to in entry 18 of the Third Schedule, that is, fish whether dried or fresh, is a food commodity. Since baby fish is not used as food, it is not entitled to exemption and hence he assessed it under residuary entry of the First Schedule. The first appellate authority held that baby fish is also fresh fish and hence it falls under Entry 18 of the Third Schedule to the Act, thereby entitling to exemption from tax, to which Tribunal concurred.2. Special Government Pleader appearing for the revision petitioner-State contended that dried fish and fresh fish falling under Entry 18 are obviously food commodity, while baby fish cannot be used as fo...
Ajayan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT854
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Common question to be considered in these cases is whether Public Service Commission can prescribe cut off marks and shortlist the candidates in the absence of such a provision in the Rules and notification. The learned single Judge noticed that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Manjit Singh and Ors. AIR 2003 SC 4580, it is not open for the PSC to prescribe any cut off mark. The learned Judge also noticed that Division Bench of this Court in Indulekha v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 951) has approved the stand of the PSC that it has power to fix cut off marks. The learned Judge was of the view that after the decision of the Supreme Court in Manjit Singh's case, earlier decision of this Court may not be good law. Hence, the matter was referred to the Division Bench.2. Before answering the question, we may refer to the facts in W.P.(C) No. 10751 of 2004. Petitioners, two in number, applied in pursuance of the notification issued...
Abdulla Vs. Subaida
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: I(2007)DMC853; 2006(3)KLT699
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Should a divorced Muslim woman be unable to maintain herself to entitle her to amounts under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act Is she entitled for any amount under Section 3(1)(b) on the ground that she herself had maintained children who are aged more than 2 years on the date of divorce These interesting questions arise for consideration in this revision petition directed against an order passed under Section 3 of the Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The order directs the petitioner herein/divorced husband to pay a total amount of Rs. 2,73,000/- to the claimant, his divorced wife.2. Marriage and divorce are admitted. Liability to pay maintenance during the period of Iddat is not disputed. Liability to make fair and reasonable provision and maintenance is also not disputed. There was a claim for deferred mahar payable at the time of divorce. There is dispute regarding the qu...
Madappillil Brothers Vs. Ullattil Agencies
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT196
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. Defendants in O.S. No. 961 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam, are the appellants in the appeal. The suit was for realisation of money allegedly due from the defendants to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a partnership firm engaged in money-lending business. The amounts are claimed from different defendants on different accounts and a single suit is filed in respect of all the accounts. Defendants 1 to 3 are partnership firms of which defendants 4 to 6 are partners. 7th defendant is also a partner of the 3rd defendant firm and he is not a partner of other partnership firms. The trial court has granted a decree almost in terms of the prayer in the plaint.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows. At the request of defendants 1, 4, 5 and 6 for credit facility to carry on their business under the name and style 'M/s Madappillil Brothers', the plaintiff sanctioned a loan of Rs. 3,00,000 on 26-5-1986, another loan of Rs. 1,00,000 on 21-11-1986 and ye...
Geetha Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT960
K. Hema, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order passed under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code', for short). The appellants are the sureties who were directed to pay penalty under Section 446 of the Code.2. The appellants along with one of the accused, executed a bond for appearance of the accused before court. But, accused absconded after executing the bond. Hence, proceedings were initiated against them under Section 446 of the Code. On appearance of the appellants, they were directed to show cause why bond should not be forfeited for the laches. They stated that they are unable to produce the accused, as he is absconding. The trial court found their explanation to be not satisfactory. Hence, it was found that the bond was forfeited. The appellants were, therefore, directed to pay penalty of Rs. 20,000/- each under Section 446 of the Code. The said order is under challenge in this appeal.3. On a plain reading of the order itself, I find that the order is per s...
Bristo Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hariharan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: IV(2007)BC319; 2007CriLJ1095; 2006(4)KLT918
K. Hema, J.1. Can a Magistrate acquit the accused under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code, for short), before issuing process/summons to the accused? This short question arises in this appeal filed by the complainant, challenging the order of acquittal passed under Section 256(1) of the Code.2. The appellant filed a complaint before a Magistrate's Court, alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The first respondent is the accused in that case. The case was taken on file by learned Magistrate and summons was issued to the accused by registered post. The case was then posted to another day. But, on that day, complainant was absent. His counsel was also absent. There was no representation for the complainant. Hence the accused was acquitted under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Is such an order sustainable3. Learned Counsel appearing for complainant-appellant submitted that by an inadvertent mistake, a wrong date of p...
T.K. Abdulla Vs. Subaida and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: I(2007)DMC464
R. Basant, J.1. Should a divorced Muslim woman be unable to maintain herself to entitle her to amounts under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act? Is she entitled for any amount under Section 3(1)(b) on the ground that she herself had maintained children who are aged more than 2 years on the date of divorce? These interesting questions arise for consideration in this revision petition directed against an order passed under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The order directs the petitioner herein/divorced husband to pay a total amount of Rs. 2,73,000 to the claimant, his divorced wife.2. Marriage and divorce are admitted, Liability to pay maintenance during the period of Iddat is not disputed. Liability to make fair and reasonable provision and maintenance is also not disputed. There was a claim for deferred mahar payable at the time of divorce. There is dispute regarding the quantum...
Tiyarcee Tiles Vs. Additional Sales Tax Officer, Department of Commerc ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: (2007)9VST626(Ker)
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. A small-scale industrial unit which claims exemption from sales tax is the writ appellant. The prayer was declined by the learned single judge. Therefore this appeal.2. An industrial unit, namely, Pauly Tiles, was admittedly a small-scale industrial unit eligible for tax exemption and accordingly the same was granted to that unit during the period from June 28, 1988 to June 27, 1993. The exemption was granted to the tune of Rs. 5,92,299. The said unit ceased to function and thereafter it was purchased by a new management and is presently run in the name and style of the appellant. The appellant was given exhibit PI revised order, granting tax exemption during the period from April 1, 1990 to May 31, 1993 for the balance to be availed of by the former unit, to the tune of Rs. 5,38,574. The appellant was served with an assessment order exhibit P2 for the year 1990-91 allowing tax exemption to the tune of Rs. 12,970. But when the assessment notice for the next year...
K.S. Saji Kumar Vs. K. Soman Pillai and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC588; 2007CriLJ2992
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 undergone 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. 4...
Anirudhan Vs. Philip Jacob
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC98; [2006]134CompCas569(Ker); 2006CriLJ3866; 2006(3)KLT554
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- Signature in the cheque is admitted. Handing over of the cheque is not disputed. The notice of demand, though duly received and acknowledged, did not evoke any response. The complainant examined his Power of Attorney holder as PW1. He was allegedly a witness to the transaction also. The Manager of the drawee bank was examined as PW2. No defence evidence whatsoever was adduced. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that all ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act have been established. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments.3. Before the trial court, though no reply was given to the notice of demand, a defence was attempted to be raised that the cheque was issued not for the discharge of any legal...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »