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.
Anoop Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2968; 2006(3)KLT711
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty and conviction in a prosecution under Section 171(F) of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner appeared before the officers in charge of the polling station at Mokeri Government U.P School in Peringalam constituency at 3 pm on 11.9.99 and personated himself as one Kuttikkattu Pavithran in the said booth No. 30. He claimed a ballot paper to facilitate him to exercise his franchise. He was not the said Pavithran. He was not a voter in that booth or constituency. The prosecution thereby alleged that the petitioner had committed the offence punishable under Section 171(D) IPC - of applying for a voting paper in the name of any other person.2. The proceedings commenced with Ext.P1 F.I statement, which is a report submitted by PW1, the principal officer of the polling booth to the police. The petitioner had allegedly handed over Ext.P2 slip to facilitate his claim to be ...
Karamby Vs. Indira
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-11-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT784
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order passed by the execution court in an execution proceeding.2. The skeletal facts first. The plaintiffs (I shall refer to the parties in the manner in which they are ranked in the original suit) asserted that the plaint 'A' schedule property belongs to them. To the east of the plaint 'A' schedule property, is a puramboke land described road/thodu puramboke. The said land is described as plaint 'B' schedule. The plaintiffs asserted that the plaint ' B' schedule property is part of a public street by name 'L.G. Pai Road', situated to the east of plaint 'A' schedule property. The grievance of the plaintiffs was that the said 'B' schedule property which is part of the public street by name 'L.G. Pai Road' was illegally obstructed by defendants 3 to 5 without any legal authority. The plaintiffs asserted that they have a right to enter the road from every point in their adjoining plaint 'A' schedule property and defe...
Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. M.A. Unnerrikutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-11-2006
Reported in: (2007)208CTR(Ker)372
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This gift-tax appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the Tribunal holding that there is no gift involved in the transfer of land and building to the firm, Kalpaka Tourist Home of which the respondent assessee, his wife and children are the partners. An extent of 56 cents of land and a building thereon originally belonged to the respondent assessee and his wife. The respondent had 5/6th share in the property. Even though the respondent/assessee and his wife claimed to have transferred the property to a company formed by them by name Kalpaka Tourist Home (P) Ltd., the transfer was not recognised by the Department because no conveyance deed was executed or registered in favour of the company. Accordingly, the property continued to be assessed in the wealth-tax assessment in the name of the respondent/assessee. The challenge against the wealth-tax assessment got confirmed before the statutory authorities, including this Court. While the wealth-tax ...
Metalex Agencies Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-11-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST53(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The tax revision case arises out of the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam in respect of petitioner's sales tax assessment under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 for the year 1994-95. The petitioner is a dealer in steel items engaged mainly in second sales of items purchased from companies like TISCO, Andhra Ispat Ltd., etc. Besides being a dealer in steel, petitioner was managing the depot of TISCO at Willington Island. During the relevant year the petitioner had to pay an amount of Rs. 6,97,193.69 being compensation for the value of goods of TISCO found short in their godown. Even though the assessing officer has stated in the assessment that petitioner is a consignment agent of TISCO, annexure IV certificate produced by the petitioner shows that apart from maintaining TISCO's godown by the petitioner, petitioner was not effecting sales on behalf of TISCO. The assessment also proves that petitioner has no turnover on consignment ag...
Sabeesh Vs. Jyothi Kumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker364; 2006(3)KLT710
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. The petitioner cannot seek leave to prefer a Writ Appeal against the judgment passed by a learned single Judge dismissing a Writ Petition filed by a person similarly placed as him. At best such a judgment may be cited as a precedent against him. He can seek to get it reconsidered, if he has grounds to that effect, when he approaches on the original side. If he fails he can agitate appeal there from. He cannot therefore directly invoke appellate remedy as he is not a party affected by the judgment but only one alleged to be affected by the view taken by the authorities, which has been upheld in the impugned judgment. Therefore, he has to approach on the original side.I.A. fails and is dismissed accordingly....
Pathanapuram Taluk Samajam Corporate Management Schools Vs. Sreelatha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT867
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The two Writ Appeals arise from the judgment in WP (C) No. 21682/04 filed by the first respondent in W.A.No. 2181/05 and the 8th respondent in W.A. No. 1917/05. She will be described as 'the writ petitioner' in this judgment. W.A. No. 1917/05 is filed by the 8th respondent in that Writ Petition, who was selected and appointed to the post of Laboratory Assistant in the Higher Secondary School managed by the appellant in W.A. No. 2181/05. The appellants are aggrieved by the direction contained in the impugned judgment, whereby the learned single Judge had directed the Writ Petitioner to be accommodated against the post of Laboratory Assistant. The petitioner in WP(C).No. 31635/05 is also a candidate selected to that post. The fact frame of the cases for the purpose of disposal of these cases are as follows:2. The husband of the writ petitioner was working as a UP School Assistant in the aided school managed by the appellant in W.A.No. 2181/05, here-in-after referr...
Murali Vs. Prasanth
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ907; 2006(4)KLT358
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellant, a workman employed under the first respondent, met with an accident during the course of employment. There was a valid insurance coverage by the second respondent Insurance Company. As a result of the accident, the appellant sustained the following injuries:1) Fracture of maxilla2) Fracture of sinus wall.3) Extradural haemotana (right) fronto parietal region.4) Injury to right eye.5) Loss of teeth.6) Very severe facial disfigurement.He was 26 years old at the time of the accident. He filed an application for compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The Commissioner awarded only Rs. 10,400/- as half monthly compensation, taking Rs. 1,600/- as the monthly income of the appellant. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, this appeal was filed. The factum of accident in the course of employment, coverage of insurance etc. are not in dispute. The Commissioner has awarded only half monthly compensation as no medic...
Nirmala Metal Industries Vs. K.S.E.B.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT465
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Anti power theft squad of the Kerala State Electricity Board had inspected the premises of the consumer No. 94/Aroor on 3.5.2000 and noticed that the meter installed in the premises was found not recording the consumption in 'R' phase. Consumer was not present at the time of inspection. However, consumer's representative was present and he was made known of the non-recording of energy in 'R' phase of the meter installed in the consumer's premises. Since the meter was found defective it was replaced with a sophisticated electronic meter on 23.5.2000. The consumption after replacing the meter was recorded. The consumption recorded in the defective meter for the period from 5.5.2000 to 22.5.2000 was 6430 unit, whereas that for the period from 23.5.2000 to 5.6.2000 recorded in the electronic meter recorded 9900 units. It was therefore noticed that the consumption recorded after replacing the defective meter was increased by more than 50%. Later the consumer was ser...
Musthafa Vs. Fathimakutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: I(2007)DMC820; 2006(3)KLT690
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Does Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act oblige the divorce woman to comply with any religious mandate or observances during the period of Iddat? Will a non believer be disentitled to claim amounts under Section 3? These interesting questions arise for consideration in this Revision Petition.2. This Revision petition is directed against a direction for payment of a total amount of Rs. 129000/- issued to the petitioner by the learned Magistrate under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. Marriage is admitted. Divorce is also admitted. There is no contention that any amounts have been paid and the liability under Section 3 has been discharged.3. The petitioner/divorced husband took up a contention that the wife was guilty of improper matrimonial conduct and that she had eloped with another person while the petitioner was employed abroad. The claimant examined herself as PW1. On the side of the petitioner ...
Framtone Connector Oen Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Ker)250; 2006(3)KLT668
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Assessee is the appellant. This is an appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 aggrieved by the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA No. 826(Coch)/1995. Following is the question of law raised:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case was the Tribunal justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 45,000/- paid by the assessee for taking institutional membership in the Cochin Yacht Club is a capital expenditure not allowable as business expenditure under the Income-tax ActAssessee is engaged in the manufacture of multipin connectors. Assessee has stated that it had paid an amount of Rs. 45,000/- to Cochin Yacht Club towards institutional membership fee. Assessing officer disallowed the claim of Rs. 45,971/- being payment effected by the assessee to club on the ground that it was not connected with the business of the assessee. However, on appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the assessee's claim. Aggrieved b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »