Kerala Court September 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.
John Lukose Vs. District Registrar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-2006
Reported in: I(2008)DMC273; 2007(1)KLT247
M. Ramachandran, J.1. Sri. Y. John Lukose, aged 40 years, and resident of Kundara, Kollam is the first appellant and the averments in the Memorandum show that the second appellant (Darly Lukose, aged 37 years) residing along with him is his legally married wife. They had married each other under Christian Law on 11-10-1993. It is stated they are living together even since and have two children out of the wedlock.2. Since the first appellant had obtained a job visa for overseas employment, and as he is required to reach Milan in Italy on or before 30-09-2006, he has booked an air ticket for 29-9-2006. He intends to take his wife in due course, but for the purpose of visa, according to him, it is necessary that a marriage certificate is to be obtained, as prescribed by the Special Marriage Act, 1954.3. An application had been filed by him for the said purpose before the respondent -Registrar on 20-09-2006, a copy of which is produced as Ext. P3 in the writ petition. But, he had been info...
Peter P.O. Vs. Sara
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ker81
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Adherence to precedent should be the rule and not the exception' says Benjamin N. Cardozo, Associate justice of the United States Supreme Court during 1932-38. 'The labour of Judges would be increased almost to the breaking point if every past decision could be reopened in every case, and one could not lay one's own course of bricks on the secure foundation of the courses laid by others who had gone before him.... We have had ten Judges, of whom only seven sit at a time. It happens again and again, where the question is a close one, that a case which one week is decided one way might be decided another way the next if it were then heard for the first time. The situation would, however, be intolerable if the weekly changes in the composition of the Court were accompanied by changes in its rulings. In such circumstances there is nothing to do except to stand by the errors of our brethren of the week before, whether we relish them or not. The Nature of the judicial Pro...
M.P. Abdul Khader Vs. Catholic Syrian Bank
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ker67; IV(2007)BC488
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Admittedly by the writ petitioner he is the judgment-debtor in Ext. P1 decree. He has approached this Court with this writ petition seeking a declaration that Ext. P1 decree is a nullity. The basis for this contention is that Ext. P1 decree obtained by a scheduled bank is for a total amount of Rs. 15,60740/-. This being an amount in excess of 10 lakhs, it should have been passed only by a tribunal constituted in terms of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. Therefore, the Civil Court did not have, on the appointed day, namely 4-11-1996, onwards, power to pass a decree like Ext. P.1. Thus it is a nullity and cannot be therefore executed. To fortify this contention the decisions of the 3 Apex Court in Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank AIR 2000 SC 1535 and of this Court in Glenny v. The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. : AIR2003Ker373 are relied on. Going by Section 17 of the Act only the tribunal constituted under it alone did have jurisdiction to p...
M.C. Haseena Vs. Mundakkaparamban Abdul Jaleel and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1554; II(2007)DMC215
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. Crl. R.P. No. 575 of 2003 is filed by the divorced wife while Crl. M.C. No. 11879 of 2002 is filed by the former husband. The parties are Muslims. Their marriage was solemnized on 12-7-1996 and a child was born in that wedlock. On the 90th day after delivery of the child, the husband divorced her on 30-9-1997 by sending a letter to the mosque. The husband was working in Saudi Arabia at that time.2. The divorced wife filed M.C. No. 1 of 1998 against the former husband under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. 1986. The divorced wife contended that at the time of marriage, the husband was paid a sum of Rs. one lakh and thereafter, Rs. 50,000/- was also paid. She also contended that she was given 50 sovereigns of gold, out of which, 30 sovereigns were appropriated by the husband. Value of the ornaments was also claimed. Claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month, a sum of Rs. 6,000/-was claimed as maintenance during ...
P.N. Gopinathan Vs. Sivadasan Kunju and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2776
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Is the presumption under Section 139 available to a payee? Is such presumption available only to a holder? Does a holder under Section 139 include a payee? These interesting questions are 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 N.I. Act.2. There are two cheques involved for the amounts of Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 1,60,000/- both dated 15-6-1999. The petitioner now faces a sentence of S.I. for a period of one month. There is also a direction to pay an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation. No default sentence is seen imposed.3. The signatures in the cheques are admitted. The notice of demand, Ext. P7, succeeded in evoking Ext. P8 reply, in which the liability for payment was disputed. The complainant examined himself as P.W. 1 and proved Exts. P1 to P10. The accused did not adduce any defence evidence - oral or documentary. In Ext. P8 reply notice an...
Mettukunnummal Panayanthatta Vs. Mundavalappil Paru and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ772
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Revision petitioner is the second respondent in O.A. No. 16827 of 1976 on the file of the Land Tribunal No.II, Payyannur. O.A. No. 16827 of 1976 and R.C. No. 4/89 in O.S. 170/80 were considered by the Land Tribunal together and passed an order on 25-07-1990 allowing the O.A. holding that the applicant therein is a tenant entitled to purchase jenmom right of the property described in the schedule thereto. Aggrieved by the said order, revision petitioner herein preferred A.A. No. 246 of 190. Appeal was dismissed against which this revision petition has been preferred.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision pstitioner Sri. D. Krishna Prasad submitted that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in passing the order in O.A. 16827 of 1976 without answering the reference in R.C. No. 4/89 in OS. No. 170 of 1980. Counsel submitted that once reference has been made under Sub-section (3) of Section 125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, it is the duty of the Tri...
Surendran Vs. Simon K. Francis
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT353
V.K. Bali, C.J.1. A.K. Surendran, an Environmental Engineer of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board as claimed by the petitioner, who is one of the Director of M/s.Canon Granites Private Limited demanded bribe from him. On 28.5.2005, the information regarding demand for bribe was lodged. On the same day at about 2 p.m., the Dy.S.P., V.A.C.B., received Rupees Two Lakhs and also the petitioner's mobile phone. The currency notes were smeared with Phenolphthalein powder, which were entrusted back to the petitioner, who went to Sreebhavan Hotel, Ollur with the cash. Mr. Rajendran was present there. The petitioner showed the slip containing the writing 'to be given over to Rajagopalan Nambiar at Madras'. On the other side of the slip, the car number of the petitioner was also shown. The petitioner handed over the amount to Mr. Rajendran, who checked the same. Petitioner came out of the hotel and gave a signal to the police party waiting outside. The third respondent, Deputy Superintenden...
Rathikumar Vs. Santhamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC571; 2007CriLJ2643; 2006(4)KLT308
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Does the admission that the cheque was issued as security for repayment of the loan take the transaction out of the sweep of Section 138 of the N.I. Act? This is the relevant question that falls for consideration in this revision petition 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. 20,000/-. It bears the date 1.1.2001. The petitioner now faces a sentence of S.I. for a period of two months. There is also a direction to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of one month.3. The signature in the cheque is admitted. The notice of demand was duly received and acknowledged. But no reply is produced and proved. It is undisputed that a reply was sent and received by the counsel for the complainant. The complainant examined herself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P7. In the reply notice and in the course of the ...
Renuka Agencies Vs. Intelligence Officer (ib) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: (2008)12VST433(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. These connected tax revision cases arise from the common order of the Tribunal sustaining sales tax assessments of the petitioners under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 for the year 1991-92. All the petitioners have held registration under the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1965 in Mahe during the year 1991-92. Mahe is a Union territory area under Pondicherry in Kerala with a square area of around 5 sq. kms., and a population of around 30,000. Several cases reaching this court prove that Mahe is used as a pocket for evasion of sales tax legitimately due to the State of Kerala. In fact, most sales accounted in Mahe take place in Kerala in a clandestine manner. This is because relatively much lower rate of tax is payable on goods under the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act. Therefore tax which would not otherwise be due to that Government gets paid there on account of parties accounting Kerala-sales in Mahe. For example, the product involved in thi...
State of Kerala Vs. S.M.R. Prasanna Vijayaraghavan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-25-2006
Reported in: [2007]293ITR561(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The question raised in the revision case filed by the State is whether the Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the revised ATT assessment completed in the respondent-assessee's case for the assessment year 1986-87 on September 14, 1996, is time barred. The assessee did not file the return for the relevant assessment year and the officer did not issue any notice proposing the assessment of escaped income under Section 35 of the Income Tax Act, 1950 until it was repealed and substituted by the Income Tax Act, 1991. Notice for the first time was issued purportedly under Section 41(1) of the new Act on 9-8-1996, against which the assessee filed the return. Even though objection was raised against the completion of assessment beyond time limit, the assessing officer overruled the same on the ground that 10 years time is available to him to complete assessment of escaped income under Section 41(1) of the new Income Tax Act. I...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »