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.
Asmath Khan Vs. Chadrahasa Bangara
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1071; 2006(4)KLT494
J.B. Koshy, J.1. The appellant-petitioner met with an accident which resulted in fracture of his left lower limb. The Tribunal has calculated a compensation of Rs. 2,37,120/- and passed an award. Thereafter LA. No. 1219/98 was filed by the appellant under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure to correct an arithmetical error occurred in paragraph 20 in computation of annual income and consequently in the total amount of compensation awarded. The insurance company filed I.A.No. 1293/98 for reviewing the award as compensation was calculated for permanent disability at 40%, though 40% disability as per the certificate produced by the claimant himself is attributable only to the lower limb and not to the whole body. The Tribunal considered both the applications and allowed both the applications partly. Instead of Rs. 2,37,120/- originally awarded, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 2,49,520/-. Now the contention of the appellant-claimant is that the Tribunal cannot review the award...
Ramachandran Master Vs. Kerala Lok Ayukta
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT166
V.K. Bali, C.J.1. Simple but significant question that arises in these three connected Writ Petitions is as to whether the Lok Ayukta, exercising powers under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1999', has suo motu powers to conduct any investigation with respect to matters in its domain envisaged under the Act. Put in other words, whether the Lok Ayukta under the Act of 1999 would have jurisdiction to investigate grievance sought to be ventilated or projected in anonymous or pseudonymous letters, newspaper reports or a letter of complaint which may be received by him without complying with the necessary procedure as enshrined under the various provisions of the Act. Before we may, however, delve on the question as posed above in the context of rival contentions raised by the counsel representing the parties it would be useful to give a resume of the facts culminating into filing of the three petitions which the learned Counsel representing the parties a...
Ambili Vs. Federal Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT651
P.R. Raman, J.1. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Attingal in O.S.No. 101/2002. Admittedly, the valuation shown in the plaint was Rs. 1,14,000/- as on the date of institution of the suit and an appeal will lie from the decree passed in the said suit only to the District Court as per the provisions of Section 13 of the Civil Courts Act, which reads as follows:Appellate jurisdiction of District Court and Subordinate Judge's Court.- (1) Appeals from the decrees and order of a Munsiff' s Court and where the amount, or value of the subject matter of the suit does not exceed (two lakhs rupees) from the original decrees and orders of a Subordinate Judge's Court shall, when such appeals are allowed by law, lie to the District Court.It is by Amendment Act 6 of 1996 that the jurisdictional value was enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/-.2. Along with the appeal now filed before this --Court there was a petition for condonation of delay. He...
Abdulla Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-12-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ871; 2006(4)KLT395
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The Second respondent Ajithkumar is the sole accused in C.C. No. 545 of 2001, on the file of the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the accused is that on 30.9.2001 at about 7 p.m., while he was driving the car, bearing Registration No. KA-2-MB-555, it hit against the bicycle on which the victim boy was riding. The boy fell down and sustained injuries and later, succumbed to the injuries.2. On the side of the prosecution, PWs.l to 3 were examined. PW.l stated that he saw the incident. PW.2 is also an eye witness and he stated that the incident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. But, PW.2 stated that he did not see the driver properly. PW.3, who is the petitioner in this Crl. M.C., is the owner of the vehicle. He admitted in evidence that the car belongs to him and that he came to know that ...
State of Kerala Vs. Subaida Begum
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-11-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT276; (2007)8VST179(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Question raised in the S.T. Rev. Cases filed by State is whether the tribunal was justified in granting exemption to respondent/assessee on sales turnover of chicks and chicken brought from outside State and sold in Kerala based on Entry 24 of IIIrd Schedule to Notification SRO. 1727/93. For easy reference, the relevant Entry of the Notification is extracted hereunder:--------------------------------------------------------------------------Sl. Name of dealer Turnover which ConditionsNo. is exempted and Restrictions--------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) (2) (3) (4)--------------------------------------------------------------------------24. Poultry farmers Turnover of sale ofincluding hatcheries chicks and chickens NILin the State--------------------------------------------------------------------------2. Respondent/assessee was engaged both in production of chicks and chicken in the. hatchery and poultry farm maintain...
Sherifa Beevi Vs. Komu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-06-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC568; 2007ACJ1185; 2006(4)KLT857
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Whether a petition filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act can be permitted to be amended to be one under Sections 140 and 166 is the question to be considered in this writ petition. There are related issues as well. Petitioners are the claimants in O.P. (MV) No. 2006/1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode and the respondents herein are the respondents therein. The claim petition was filed for compensation on account of the death of the elder son of the first petitioner and brother of petitioners 2 to 7. The accident took place on 13-5-1995. The claim petition was filed, according to the averments in the writ petition, under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is the contention of the petitioners that proceedings were thus instituted hoping to have expeditious disposal of the case. Finding that even after four years the matter could not be disposed of, they filed an interlocutory application for amending the petit...
Kuruvila Vs. Sainabha Saleh
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT138
A.K. Basheer, J.1. Can the tenant of a building claim set off or adjustment of certain payments allegedly due from the landlord towards the rent payable by him, while making deposit of the admitted arrears as envisaged under Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965? The Rent Control Authorities answered the question in the negative. Hence, this Revision Petition under Section 20 of the Act.2. Essential facts may be briefly noticed.3. The respondent/landlord initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioners under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act. The landlord alleged that the petitioners' tenants had kept the rent of the building in arrears from July 2000 onwards.4. During the pendency of the eviction proceedings, the landlord filed an application under Section 12 of the Act praying for a direction to the tenants to deposit the arrears of rent and on their failure to do so, to stop all further proceedings and direct them to put the landlord in po...
Aliyamma Vs. Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-01-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ker23; 2006(4)KLT106
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Can the wife claim any share in the family properties of the husband if the 'Sthridhanam' amount is utilised for the benefit of her husband's family is the question that has come up for consideration this case.2. Parties are husband and wife. Marriage between them took place on 12-5-1952 and two sons were born in that wedlock. They were working as teachers and later they retired from service. After 35 years of married life they started living separate, wife alleging cruelty against husband and vice versa. In the year 1992 wife preferred O.S.137 of 1992 before the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam for partition against her husband claiming half share in the plaint schedule properties on the strength of Ext.Al registered partition deed executed in the family of the husband. Suit was later transferred to the Family Court, Ernakulam. Question that is raised for our consideration is whether wife could claim share in a partition effected in the family of the husband.3. Plaint...
Travancore Cements Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-01-2006
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Ker)359; 2006(4)KLT344; [2009]179TAXMAN117(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P12 order dated 18.11.2005 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax directing the assessee to ensure compliance with the statutory notification issued under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without fail and also for other consequential reliefs.2. Petitioner is a company owned by the State Government engaged in the business of manufacture of cement and cement paints at Kottayam and is an assessee under the Income Tax Act 1961, on the files of the second respondent. In respect of the assessment year 2000-2001 petitioner filed its original return on 28.11.2000 declaring a total income of Rs. 2,37,56,900/-. A revised return was filed on 05-01-2001 with a revised total income of Rs. 1,91,32,250/- along with the audit report under Section 44AB. The return was processed and accepted by the assessing authority under Section 143(1) of the Act o...
Babu Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT793
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The petitioner did not succeed in assailing the order of dismissal from service before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The Tribunal dismissed his original application as per Ext.P10. Therefore, this Writ Petition.2. The prime contention raised by the petitioner is based on the decision of the Apex Court reported in G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and Ors. : (2006)IIILLJ1075SC . Relying on this decision, it is contended that for exactly the same charges framed in the disciplinary proceedings, he had been prosecuted in C.C.No.352/99 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ernakulam and he was acquitted. The evidence adduced in both the proceedings is exactly the same. Therefore, as the charges and evidence forming part in both the cases are one and the same, the finding by the criminal court ought to have been accepted and the finding of misconduct and consequential dismissal order were to be vacated.3. It is further submitte...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »