Kerala Court January 2007 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.
Chandraprabha Charitable Trust Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-11-2007
Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Ker)432; [2007]292ITR122(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Assessee is the revision petitioner and the assessment relates to the year 1993-94. Assessee is a charitable trust which was assessed to a net agricultural income of Rs. 2,28,560. Aggrieved by the order, assessee took up the matter, before the AAC. Contention was raised that the assessment was barred by limitation. It was pointed out that as per Section 39(6) of the Agrl. IT Act, 1991 any assessment other than those pending on the date of commencement of Agrl. IT Act, 1991 be completed within a period of two years from the date of filing of the return. It was stated that the return of income was filed as early as May, 1994 and hence the order should have been passed under Section 39(6) by May, 1996. But the assessment order was passed only on 15th June, 1998 and hence it was barred by limitation. Contention was repelled by the appellate authority. Assessee took up the matter before the Tribunal. Tribunal also rejected the appeal and hence this revision. Followi...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. 4 Aces Restaurant
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-11-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR566]; (2007)IILLJ903Ker
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This is an appeal, preferred by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation aggrieved by the order passed by the Employees Insurance Court, Alleppey in I.C. No. 104/2001. I.C. No. 104/2001 was preferred by the respondent herein challenging the demand of interest of Rs. 29,113/-for the belated payment of contribution. For the period from April, 1990 to March, 1999 contribution was paid by the respondent only on July 4, 2000 and hence the Corporation demanded interest of Rs. 29,113/- as per Section 39(5) of the ESI Act. ESI Court was of the view that levy of interest can be demanded only from the date of judgment of this Court in M.F.A. No. 1216/1993 dated November 2, 1999.2. Counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that the Insurance Court has committed a grave error in holding that the Corporation can demand interest only from the date of judgment of this Court in M.F.A. No. 1216/1993. Counsel submitted that the Corporation had demanded contribution from ...
P. Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-11-2007
Reported in: (2007)10VST240(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The assessee is the revision petitioner. Assessment relates to the year 1995-96. Following are the questions of law raised by the assessee for our consideration:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is not the order of assessment in respect of the year 1995-96 passed by the assessing authority barred by limitation and accordingly null and void and of no effect?2. Whether, on the facts disclosed in the case, the direction issued by the Tribunal to the assessing authority to examine the question whether the methods prescribed in Rule 63(a), (b) or (c) had been resorted to before the alleged affixture and then to pass a speaking order is warranted and justifiable in law?3. Is not the order passed by the Tribunal one giving power to the assessing authority to pass a speaking order stating fresh reasons that action under Rule 63(a), (b) and (c) was not found feasible practicable and so action under Rule 63(d) was resorted to and thus uphold ...
K. Gopalakrishnan and ors. Vs. A.C. Thomas and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-11-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ385
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. The petitioners are accused in a prosecution under Section 500 I.P.C. initiated by the first respondent herein. The first respondent is a police official. He complaints that a news item, perse defamatory to his has been published in the daily (Mathrubhoomi), of which the first respondent is the Editor, the second respondent is the Printer and Publisher, third respondent is the Managing Editor and the 4th respondent the Reporter, who gave the news item for publication. On the complaint filed by the first respondent, without conducting any enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and summons was issued to the petitioners. The petitioners have all come to this Court with the prayer that the proceedings against them may be quashed invoicing the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.2. That the petitioners are the Editor, Printer and Publisher, Managing Editor and the Reporter is not seriously disputed. It is not disputed that the names...
Joseph Micheal Rajamni Fernando Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-11-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ377
K. Thankappan, J.1. Appellant is the 1st accused in S.C. No. 151/1998 on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Court, Trivandrum. The prosecution allegations against the appellant are as follows:In furtherance of a criminal conspiracy hatched between A1 and A3 in Sree Lanka. A1 came to India from Sree Lanka on 20-3-1998 with the intention to illegally export narcotic drugs from India to Sree Lanka. A1 checked into room No. 308 of Om Tourist Home at Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram on 20-3-1998 itself. Thereafter A1 informed his house about his stay at the said tourist home. After making enquiries about the stay of A1, A3 came to Thiruvananthapuram and met A1 on 22-3-1998 in his room. A3 was then having in his possession a bag containing narcotic drug which has to be sent to Sree Lanka, and packing materials like cellotapes, black leather sheets and also an electronic weighing machine. A1 had purchased a soldering iron for packing the narcotic drug as per the directions of A3. In room N...
M.G. Joseph Vs. C.V. Kuriakose and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-11-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ283
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. First respondent was the elected candidate for Ward No. 4 of Kaiparambu Grama Patichayath, in the election held on 24-09-05. Petitioner was one of the defeated candidates. First respondent secured 714 votes while petitioner secured only 330 votes. First respondent was declared selected. Petitioner filed Election O.P.30/05, to set aside the election of first respondent and to declare himself as the elected candidate. Prayers in the election petition were:1) to declare that the acceptance of nomination paper of first respondent was improper.2) to declare that petitioner was elected candidate after declaring election of first respondent as void.2. Case of petitioner was that along with nomination paper details furnished by first respondent in Form 2A are not complete. Though there was arrears due to BSNL on the date of submission of nomination paper that was suppressed in Form No. 2A. So also educational qualification of first respondent are not fully disc...
S. Najeeb Rawther Vs. the District Collector and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-10-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ653
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. Land belonging to the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of widening of Punalur-Ponkunnan Road. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 09-04-2005. Exts.P6 and P7 awards were passed on 09-05-2006. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that the amount awarded as compensation is not paid to him and that his applications for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act have not been disposed of. The petitioner also claims interest at 18% on the amount of compensation. The contention of the petitioner is that there was some dispute regarding the demarcation of the boundaries of the land and he had approached this Court in W.P.(C) 6600 of 2006 which was disposed of as per Ext.P8 judgment dated 20-07-2006. In Ext.P8 judgment it was noticed that the Tahsildar had already initiated proceedings under Rule 43 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules and therefore it was not necessary to render any finding on the dispute...
M. Nasar Vs. Yoosuf Sidhique and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-09-2007
Reported in: III(2007)BC725
ORDERR Basant, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the 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. 55,000/- and bears the date 20.12.2003. The complainant examined his power of attorney holder as PW1 and proved Exts, P1 to P4. The defence did not adduce any evidence. Notice of demand though duly received and acknowledged did not evoke any response.3. The Courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in establishing all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments.4. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner only prays that leniency may be shown on the question of sentence. The petitioner now faces a sentence o...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kuttan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-09-2007
Reported in: 2007ACJ2261
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. In this appeal filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., appellant challenges the jurisdiction of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation to pass an order allowing recovery from the appellant, the compensation awarded to the workman, respondent No. 1.2. The respondent No. 1 herein, applicant before the Commissioner, was working as a mahout of the elephant by name 'Dhananjaya' owned by the respondent No. 2 herein. On 28.3.1998, while the applicant was engaged in his work as a mahout at a festival of Maniyoor Temple, he fell down while he was getting down from the top of the elephant as he was kicked by the elephant. The applicant sustained injuries. He was treated as an inpatient in the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode from 28.3.98 to 25.4.1998. He had to undergo a surgery, as he sustained fracture of his right femur. The Assistant Professor of Surgery, Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode certified that the applicant sustained disablement and it was assessed at 30...
Rajalakshmi Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)KLJ274
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. The petitioner is the 2nd accused in a prosecution for the offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 409 of the IPC. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. When the matter was posted for trial, the Prosecutor in charge of the case filed certain documents to be received in evidence. These documents were not seized by the police in the course of investigation and was not referred to in the report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. submitted by the Investigating Officer. The reception of the documents was opposed. But, by the impugned order, the learned Magistrate overruled the said objection and directed that the documents can be received in evidence as the documents 'are essential for the just decision of the case and for the ends of justice'. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the order.2. The procedure that is to be followed is admittedly the one Under Chapter XIX...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »