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.
Tom Thomas Vs. Abdul Lathief
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-11-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC782; [2007]139CompCas78(Ker); 2007CriLJ1143; 2006(4)KLT1009
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. Can an order of dismissal passed under Section 204(4) of the Code be treated as an order of acquittal? Can such order be challenged in an appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code', in short)? These questions arise in this petition for leave to file an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code.2. Petitioner filed a complaint alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Magistrate's court. It was dismissed under Section 204(4) of the Code, since petitioner failed to take steps after issuing warrant against the accused. Hence, petitioner has filed an appeal against the said order under Section 378 of the Code, treating it as an order of acquittal. He also filed this petition for special leave to file appeal.The impugned order passed under 204 of the Code can be extracted hereunder:This case was called on for hearing today, to which it had been posted. The complainant has not taken steps in this case. Thereby...
Mohammed Habeebulla Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT175; (2008)14VST150(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in the Tax Revisions is whether 'electronic push button telephone' falls under electronic goods coming under Entry 49, which is later renumbered as Entry 55 of the First Schedule to the KGST Act or whether it comes under Entry 120, which is later renumbered as 134 of the First Schedule to the Act The claim of the petitioner is that electronic push button telephone is an electronic instrument falling under Entry 49, which is later renumbered as Entry 55 of the First Schedule and telephone referred to in Entry 120, which is later renumbered as Entry 134, is ordinary telephone other than electronically operated. Petitioner has referred to Notification, SRO 1728 of 1993 whereunder the Government while reducing rate of tax on electronic goods falling under Entry 49 of the First Schedule to the Act from 10 per cent to six per cent, specifically included electronic push button telephone under Entry 1.11 of the Schedule to the said notification....
Mohammed Abdulla Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT962
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Regularisation of service of the appellant is now cancelled and his services are dispensed with as per Ext. P-15. The challenge against the said order failed. Therefore, this Writ Appeal. Few facts are essential for its disposal.2. He was initially employed on a temporary basis in terms of Rule 9(a)(i) of the General Rules as a Lower Division Clerk, as per Ext. P-1. While he was serving as a temporary appointee, taking into account of the international year of physically handicapped persons, the Government issued directions to regularise the physically disabled temporary hands working in service at that time. The petitioner had some disablement for his right thumb. On the basis of the certificate obtained in that regard, his services were regularised by the head of the department. While he was thus continuing as a regular employee, there was complaint by the Association of Physically Challenged Persons that he had obtained the undeserving benefits of regularisat...
Valley Estates Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-2006
Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Ker)430; [2007]292ITR120(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the assessment as one completed within time. The agricultural income-tax assessment for the asst. yr. 1991-92 was completed by the AO vide order dt. 25th Feb., 1995 and a copy of the same was served on the petitioner on 19th Dec, 1995. Relying on the judgment of this Court in Agrl. ITO and Anr. v. K. Joseph N. Jacob (1995) 3 KTR 224, petitioner contended before the Tribunal that the assessment should not only be completed within two years as prescribed under Section 39(6) of the Act, the assessment order should be served within two years as stated therein. We do not think there is any need for us to consider whether the assessment order should be served on the assessee within two years from the date of filing of the return for its validity under Section 39(6) of the Act. This is because the Tribunal has found that the petitioner did not furnish the return within the time prescribed unde...
Deepu Vs. Commissioner for Entrance Examinations
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KarLJ5
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The petitioner applied for admission to the Engineering course this year through the Entrance Examination conducted by the first respondent under the quota fixed for persons with physical disability, Along with the application, he produced Ext.P2 certificate issued by a Medical Board consisting of Medical Officers of the State, They certified 40% disability. According to the petitioner, from birth itself, he did not have vision in one eye. It is taking into account this disability that Ext.P.2 certificate has been issued certifying disability of 40% on account of lack of vision in one eye. The petitioner, however was denied admission in the quota fixed for persons with physical disability and it is under the said circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court with this Writ Petition, seeking a direction to the respondents to admit him in accordance with his rank and option.2. The learned Government Pleader on the strength of a counter affidavit stated t...
Kunjumol Vs. Jose Valiyaveedan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-09-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC372; 2006(4)KLT130
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.204 of 1997. O.S.204 of 1997 is a suit filed by the respondent herein for realisation of money. Case of the plaintiff is that the defendants had borrowed a sum of Rs. 34,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note promising to repay the amount with 24% interest. Defendants paid interest up to 1-12-1996 and for the principal amount of Rs. 34,000/- issued a cheque to be drawn from the account of first defendant with District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Thiruvananthapuram Branch. Cheque was presented for encashment but was bounced due to insufficient funds. Plaintiff therefore instituted the suit.2. Defendants filed written statement denying the plaint claim. It was stated that the plaintiff was conducting a chitty under the name and style 'Valiyaveedan's Chitty Fund'. First defendant was subscriber to the said chitty. First defendant had paid 21 instalments at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month. Towards the...
Thankamma Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: II(2006)DMC725; 2006(3)KLT846
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This matter has been placed before us on a reference by Justice R. Basant doubting the correctness of the view expressed by another learned Judge of this Court in Baiju v. S.I. of Policeand Anr. (2006 (3) KLT 49 : ILR 2006 (2) Ker. 747). Learned Judge in his reference order posed the question as to whether a non-compoundable offence be legally compounded by the victim of the offence and such composition be accepted by criminal courts exercising original, appellate or revisional powers under the Criminal Procedure Code.2. Learned Single Judge while deciding Baiju's case exercised his revisional power under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and compounded the offences under Sections 143, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code which are otherwise non-compoundable either under Sub-section (1) or under Sub-section (2) ofSection 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While accepting the compounding application learned single Judge expressed the following view:It can safely be conclu...
Johnson Scaria Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC450; [2006]134CompCas370(Ker); 2006(4)KLT290
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. When can the burden on an accused under Section 139 of the N.I. Act be said to be discharged What is the nature of the burden on a complainant and an accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I Act Is the decision of the 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Hiten P. Delal v. Bratindranath Banerjee : 2001CriLJ4647 in any way altered or changed by the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Narayana Menon v. State of Karala 2006 (3) KLT 404 (SC)? These are the interesting questions that arise for consideration in this revision petition.2. The complainant alleged that Ext.P1 cheque for Rs. 1,96,750/- was issued to him by the petitioner for the discharge of a liability arising in a loan transaction. In the complaint or in the notice, he did not plead the details. He only averred that the cheque was issued by the accused for the discharge of a liability, which he owed to the complainant. The cheque when presented was dishonoured on the ground of insuffici...
Ramakrishnan Vs. Gangadharan Nair and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC406; [2006]133CompCas904(Ker); 2007CriLJ1486
R. Basant, J.1. Does the decision in Ramakrishnan v. Parthasaradhy : 2003(2)KLT613 deserve reconsideration This is the question raised in this revision petition, which is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000 and bears the date March 19, 1999. The signature in the cheque is admitted. Handing over of the cheque is not disputed. The short relevant contention raised is that the cheque was issued not for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt/liability. The liability, which is claimed to be discharged, is one that was barred under the law of limitation on the date of the cheque. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and proved exhibits P1 to P6. The accused examined himself as DW1. 3. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that all ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments A...
Krishnakumari Thampuran Vs. Palace Administration Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT432
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The facts of this case once again proves that time is a great leveller. A member of the erstwhile Cochin Royal Family, the head of which, the Maharaja of Cochin, once ruled part of the present Kerala State, has come down to the earth and is fighting for rights in family property just like lesser mortals. Stage by stage, the members of the royal family lost their pre-eminent position in the society and have now become very ordinary citizens, which is exemplified by this case.2. With the advent of democracy, the Monarch lost his Kingdom and throne. Still, the family was not subject to all the personal laws of the land. By virtue of Sub-section (iii) of Section 5 of the Hindu Succession Act, which applied to all the other Hindus in the country, properties of the Cochin Royal Family, which is known as Valiamma Thampuran Kovilagam Estate and the Palace Fund were exempted from the purview of the said Act, although the members of the family were Hindus. By virtue of Procla...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »