Kerala Court February 2007 Judgments
Alwaye Ferilizer Industries (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Assistant Registrar ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-2007
Reported in: (2007)2CompLJ53(Ker); [2007]76SCL503(Ker)
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. The petitioners face indictment in two separate prosecutions, both under the Companies Act and both filed by the same complainant, i.e. the Assistant Registrar of Companies, Kerala. The prosecutions relate to failure/omission to submit the balance sheet and annual returns. The complainant was not examined as a witness. On his behalf, a witness was examined as PW1. It is the case of the accused that he is not in possession of the original documents and they are with the Kerala Financial Corporation, which has taken over the company. When PW1 was examined, the complainant wanted PW1 to be confronted with certain documents. PW1 expressed his ignorance and inability to s peak about those documents. In these circumstances, according to the petitioners, they were compelled to request the court to get the complainant for cross-examination so that they could have confronted PW1 with the copies of the documents which are available with them. The learned Magistrate did not g...
Tag this Judgment!Jose @ Babu Vs. State of Kerala, S.i. of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KLT202
V. Ramkumar, J.1. In this appeal preferred from the Central Prison, Kannur, the appellant who was the sole accused in S.C. 15/01 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc I), Kalpetta, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 3-5-1999 at 7.10 p.m. the accused was found in possession of 17 packets each containing 100 ml. of Karnataka made arrack at Thazhekattikulam in Thrissileri amsom inside a stage carriage bus bearing registration No. KLZ -8285 by name N.B.S. plying between Bavali and Mananthavady and the accused has thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the court below for an offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether e...
Tag this Judgment!Sulochana and anr. Vs. Kuttappan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2057
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Is an appeal maintainable under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against an interim ex parte order passed under Section 23 of the Act? This crucial question is to be decided in this Crl. M.C. The parties are being referred to in this order in the manner in which they are ranked before the learned Magistrate,2. The petitioners-mother and her child, had approached the learned Magistrate with an application under Section 12 of the Act claiming relief under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act. The learned Magistrate passed an ex parte interim order, copy of which is produced as Annexure-4, directing the 1st respondent/alleged husband to allow the petitioners to reside in his house and restraining him from causing any disturbance to the peaceful residence of the petitioners in that house. There was also a further ex parte interim direction that the 1st respondent must pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- and...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Varghese and ors. Vs. Sub-registrar and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-2007
Reported in: [2007]138CompCas55(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner is challenging exhibit P6 issued by the Sub Registrar, Muvattupuzha, demanding stamp duty for filing sale certificate issued by the second respondent under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioner has relied on a Division Bench decision of this court in W.A. No. 1086 of 2006 dated June 23, 2006, produced as exhibit P7, wherein the Division Bench has held that the Sub Registrar is bound to file the sale certificate issued by the sale officer in book No. 1 under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908, as it is not a document compulsorily registrable. The judgment of the Division Bench was in fact rendered based on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shanti Devi L. Singh v. Tax Recovery Officer : [1990]183ITR481(SC) . On going through the judgment of the Division Bench I find the question of stamp duty payable on the sale certificate issued under the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, was not considered by the Division Bench. The S...
Tag this Judgment!P. Chandrasekhara Pillai Vs. Valsala Chandran and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2328; I(2008)DMC83
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. The petitioner in this Crl. M.C. has suffered an ex parte interim order under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). That order was suffered by the petitioner in an application filed by the first respondent herein, admittedly his wife. She had approached the learned Magistrate with an application under Section 19 of the Act. The learned Magistrate, after considering the affidavit filed by the petitioner along with the application under Section 12, where she claimed relief under Section 19, came to the conclusion that ex parte interim order is liable to be passed in favour of the first respondent herein. Accordingly, an order was passed invoking the powers under Section 23 r/w. Section 19 allowing the first respondent and her children to reside in the house 'Chandra Bhavanam, Kuruppu's Lane, Sasthamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram. The City Police Commissioner, Trivandrum was further directed to give...
Tag this Judgment!Joy Varghese Vs. Leelamma and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3363; I(2008)DMC75
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The petitioner was the respondent in M.C. No. 25 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kayamkulam, filed by the respondents herein claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The first respondent claimed to be the wife of the petitioner and the second respondent claimed to be the daughter of the petitioner. M. C. No. 25 of 2002 was compromised between the parties and Ext. P5 order was passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kayamkulam. As per the terms of the compromise, the petitioner herein agreed to pay a sum or Rs. 200/- per month to the second respondent herein as maintenance. The first respondent had abandoned her claim for maintenance.2. Ext. P6 application was filed by the respondents herein under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming enhancement of maintenance to the second respondent at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month. The petitioner herein filed Ext. P7 application un...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Vijayakumaran and ors. Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ764
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner is (sic) Ext.P2 order whereunder the Government has ordered recovery of stamp duty from employees of the Kerala Water Authority who were granted House Building loan by the Water Authority on execution of documents without charging stamp duty. It is seen that Government vide Ext.P1 order dated 23-3-1998 exempted the employees of Water Authority from payment of stamp duty for executing documents to avail House Building loan from the Water Authority. Petitioners have executed documents without payment of stamp duty and availed loan based on Ext.P1. However, Government vide Ext.P2 dated 7-1-2002 cancelled the exemption granted vide Ext.Pl and directed recovery of stamp duty. Counsel for the petitioner contended that Ext.P2 is arbitrary, discriminatory and is against the principle of promissory estoppel. He has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. (1985) 4 SCC 369 and contended that petitioners ca...
Tag this Judgment!Varghese @ Biju, S/O Mathai Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KLT644
J.B. Koshy, J.1. This appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Before going into the merits of the matter, a primary objection was raised regarding denial of opportunity to defend the case properly while appointing a counsel at State expense as provided under Section 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Criminal Rules of Practice.2. The order sheet shows that the case was posted for evidence on 3.2.2003. On that day, counsel for the appellant (A1) was not present. Immediately, the Court appointed another advocate and asked him to continue the examination. The order sheet reads as follows:3.2.2003 A1 produced. A2 present. The counsel for A1 is not present. Witness present. A1 stated that another advocate may be appointed by this Court to conduct his defence. As A1 is in judicial custody, Adv. B. Rajesh is appointed to conduct the defence of A1. Cws 1 to 12, 14, and 15 present. CW 13 repor...
Tag this Judgment!Sharafu Alias Sharafudheen and Etc. Vs. State of Kerala and Etc.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2908
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Seven accused were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 341, 398 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A5 and A6 were absconding and their cases were split up. Case of A3 was also split up as he was not found originally and that was separately tried in S.C. No. 41 of 2004. A1, A2, A4 and A7 faced trial in SC No. 221 of 2002. The Court charge is as follows:The That at about 7.30 p.m. on 7-6-2000 all of you in furtherance of your common intention to commit dacoity came in a Maruthi van bearing Registration Number IN 9450 and that you had restrained the deceased Ganapathi and his son the de facto complainant, who were proceeding to their house after closing their jewellery shop, in their scooter No. KL-10E 28 and that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 among you had stabbed Ganapathy with a knife on his chest, back and neck and inflicted fatal injuries and that he had succumbed to the injuries at Government Hospital, Thirurangadi, and that accused ...
Tag this Judgment!West Coast Concrete Products Vs. the Kerala Water Authority and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ678
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The connected Writ Petitions are filed challenging the decision of the Kerala Water Authority to award contracts for construction of water storage tanks and allied works to additional 3rd respondent in W.P.(C) No. 34554/2006 and additional 6th respondent in W.P.(C) No. 34541/2006 on negotiated terms after rejecting the tenders called for in which petitioners were the lowest bidders in respect of some items of works. Before proceeding to decide the questions raised, facts leading to the dispute should be gone into and therefore, I narrate below the sequence of developments which led to filing of these writ petitions.2. Government of India arranged massive loans from the Japan Bank for International Co-operation (JBIC) for funding drinking water projects in India. The loan amount availed was allotted to Kerala for setting up drinking water projects in Kerala. Government of Kerala identified five potable water scarcity areas in Kerala and entrusted the executi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »