Kerala Court August 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 Bank of Travancore Vs. Jaffar Ali
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-23-2006
Reported in: I(2008)BC84; [2006]134CompCas201(Ker); 2006(4)KarLJ42
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Decree holder, State Bank of Travancore, is the revision petitioner. Bank is aggrieved by the order of the Munsiff Court rejecting its application as barred by limitation.2. O.S. 320 of 1988 was a suit filed by the Bank for realisation of money from the respondent. Suit was decreed on 29-10-1988. The period of limitation to file an execution petition was 12 years. Consequently, execution petition should have been filed on or before 29-10-2000. Decree holder bank filed execution petition on 28-10-2000 without producing the copy of the decree. Executing court therefore returned the execution petition on 2-11-2000 with a direction to produce the copy of the decree within three days. Execution petition was resubmitted with an application to enlarge further period of two weeks for production of decree copy. Decree copy was then produced on 14.11.2000. Holding that the decree copy was not produced within three days the executing court refused to accept the decre...
Baiju Vs. Valsala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT252
ORDERKurian Joseph, J.1. Whether a revision will lie against an interlocutory order passed by the Family Court is one of the questions to be considered in this Civil Revision Petition. Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 reads as follows:19. Appeal.--(1) Save as provided in Sub-section (2) and notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (2 of 1974) or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law.(2) No appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties or from an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974):Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending before a High Court or any order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) before the...
Abbas Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-23-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC459
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal is by the owner of a motor vehicle that was involved in an accident. The Claims Tribunal passed an award in favour of the injured claimant and directed the insurer to pay the award amount to the claimant after holding that the insurer was entitled to reimbursement from the insured, the appellant.2. The appellant/owner and the driver of the vehicle jointly engaged the same Counsel before the Tribunal, but did not file any pleadings in answer to the claim petition. The insurer contended that the driver did not have any valid licence to drive a goods carriage, the type of the vehicle that was involved in the accident. Through Ext. B2, it came out in evidence that, on the date of accident the driver possessed licence only to drive light motor vehicles and it was long thereafter that he came to have badge in terms of the Motor Vehicles Rules, to drive goods vehicles. These facts are also not in dispute.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant/ow...
Siddique Vs. District Collector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KarLJ21
Thattathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. WP(C). No. 5564/2006 is filed challenging Ext.P2 containing the decision of the District Collector imposing a fine of Rs. 50,000/- on the petitioner, under the Kerala River Banks' Protection and Regulation of Sand Mining Act, 2001, hereinafter referred to as the 'River Act' and the Rules framed thereunder, namely the Kerala River Banks' Protection and Regulation of Sand Mining Rules, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the 'River Rules'. The said Act and the Rules provide, among other things, a mechanism to save and preserve the river banks by preventing uncontrolled mining of river sand, which adversely affects the environment and leads to depletion of natural wealth and resources.2. The petitioner's case is that he is the 'agreement owner' of the vehicle mentioned in Ext.P2; that on 19-1-2006, his driver purchased sand from one Sri. A. Nandakumar, a licensed dealer of sand in Konnikara: that the said dealer issued Ext. P1 cash memorandum; that while the...
Rajan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ257; 2006(4)KLT429
K. Hema, J.1. This appeal arises from the order passed by the court below under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code', for short) directing the appellant to pay penalty of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of penalty and on exhausting the steps contained inSection 421 of the Code to undergo imprisonment in civil jail for a period of two months each.2. The appellants are the sureties of an accused in a sessions case. They had executed a bond for Rs. 25,000/- for appearance of the accused before the sessions court. On one particular day, the accused failed to appear and hence the court issued non-bailable warrant and notice against the sureties. A case was also registered against them and after giving sufficient opportunity to show cause, the appellants were directed to pay penalty. They were also directed to undergo imprisonment in civil jail for a period of two months. The said order is under challenge in this appeal filed under Section 449 of the Code.3. On going t...
State of Kerala Vs. Padmanabha Pada Nair and Sons
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT8; (2007)9VST480(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised is whether theft of an article after purchase will entitle the assessee for exemption from payment of tax in respect of the commodity which is taxable at the point of last purchase in the State. The item in this case is rubber which is taxable at the point of last purchase in the State. The loss through theft is from respondent's godown after the item was purchased. Contention of respondent is that the item has not acquired the quality of last purchase, as it would have been sold again, had the theft not taken place in the State. The tribunal accepted this contention and allowed the appeal against which this S.T. Rev. Case is filed by State.2. We have heard counsel for the respondent/assessee and the Special Government Pleader. We are unable to follow the logic applied by the Tribunal because once the goods are lost from the custody of the respondent, it is not available for re-sale by the dealer and so much so, the goods acquired the qu...
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sreedharan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT348
A.K. Basheer, J.1. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (for short the Corporation') is the petitioner in this bunch of Writ Petitions. What is impugned in these petitions is the common order passed by the Kerala Lok Ayukta in a batch of cases filed by some of the retired employees of the Corporation claiming Leave Surrender benefits payable to them in terms of a bipartite agreement.2. By the impugned order, a copy of which is on record as Ext.P3, the Lok Ayukta directed the Corporation to pay the Leave Surrender benefits to the respondents/ complainants in terms of the bipartite agreement within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Corporation was further directed to file an action taken report after complying with the order.3. It is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation that the Lok Ayukta had no jurisdiction to entertain complaints filed by the respondents in these writ petitions, since the claim made by them would be squarely hi...
West Cost Industrial Gases Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-2006
Reported in: (2007)10VST773(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised is whether the assessing officer in the course of revision of assessment pursuant to orders in appeal can rectify the rate of tax applied in original assessment beyond the period of limitation provided under Section 19(1) and Section 43(1) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The original assessment of the petitioner for the year 1987-88 was subject-matter of appeal and the appellate authority vide order dated April 20, 1995 directed modification of assessment in respect of some of the issues raised and allowed the appeal in part. In the course of revising the assessment in terms of the appellate order, the assessing officer noticed that the rate of tax applied in original assessment on the sales turnover of industrial gases from July 1, 1987 was seven per cent as against the applicable rate of eight per cent. Therefore, notice was issued to the petitioner for modification of assessment in the course of giving effect to the appella...
Suresh Vs. Nidish Trading Company
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-21-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC161; 2007ACJ501; 2006(4)KLT303
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The appellant was employed as a cleaner in a lorry which met with an accident on 6-12-1998. He applied to the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, hereinafter referred to as 'W.C. Act' claiming compensation under Section 22 of that Act. The Commissioner held that the applicant has 5% loss of earning capacity and passed the impugned order.2. That the accident arose out of the use of a motor vehicle is not in dispute. The fact that the workman suffered the injury referable to the entry at Sl. No. 37 in Part II of Schedule I of the W.C. Act, is also not disputed. Ext.A6 disability certificate, issued by a specialist in Orthopaedics, shows that the appellant workman had traumatic amputation of the right little finger through distal interphalangeal joint and has permanent partial disability of 6%.3. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the short but substantial question of law raised in this appeal is as to whether the appellant was enti...
Aravindakshan Vs. Federal Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC563; 2006(4)KLT477
ORDERP.R. Raman, J.1. The above matter came up before us based on a reference dated 19th October, 2005 by the Division Bench before whom the matter came up for hearing/The short question that requires to be answered in this reference is as to which is the appellate forum to which an appeal will lie from a decree passed by a civil court exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs in a suit instituted by a financial institution2. The suit O.S. 408/1995 was filed by the first respondent Bank before the Additional Sub Court, Kollam for realisation of Rs. 8,16,797/- with interest from defendants 1 to 7 who are the appellants. The suit originally instituted was for an amount of less than Rs. 10 lakhs and concededly, the suit has necessarily to be filed before the civil court as the valuation of the suit is less than Rs. 10 lakhs. If only it exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs, the Debt Recovery Tribunal gets jurisdiction over the matter. However, eventually when the suit was decreed, it exceeded the decree amount and including...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »