Kerala Court March 2007 Judgments
All Kerala Bus Operators Organisation and Etc. Etc. Vs. Insurance Regu ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-26-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker208
ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. These writ petition are by different organisations of operators of public carriages. They challenge the enhancement of the premium payable for third party insurance.2. The short issue arising for decision is as to whether the Tariff Advisory Committee, hereinafter referred to as the 'TAC', for short, was justified in issuing the decision contained in TAC/7/06 dated 4-12-2006 whereby it decided to withdraw the tariff rates, terms, conditions and regulations for Fire, Engineering, Motor, Workmen's Compensation and other classes of business fixed by it. As a consequence of the said decision of the TAC, the rates, terms, conditions and regulations applicable to the said classes of business were to be regulated by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, hereinafter, the 'IRDA' for short, with effect from 1-1-2007. Petitioners also challenge the decision of the IRDA by which the tariff was fixed by them. I may at once notice that during the ...
Tag this Judgment!Lis (Registered), Palakkal Court Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker178; (2008)17VST432(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Actg. C.J.1. Petitioner was served with a notice dated 15-5-2006 from the office of the Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.) Special Circle-I (KGST) Ernakulam directing it to furnish complete details of lottery tickets purchased and sold during the year 2005-06 and for the month of April and May, 2006. In response to the notice petitioner sent a reply dated 15-5-2006 along with the details of lottery tickets of the Government of Kerala purchased from District Lottery Office, Ernakulam and Kottayam. It was also pointed out in the reply that lottery tickets purchased from Government of Karnataka were not available since they had to be arranged from its Bangalore Office. Latter the petitioner was served with a notice dated 18-5-2006 from the office of the second respondent pointing out that the petitioner had sold various lottery tickets purchased from outside the State and prizes were awarded to various customers in the State of Kerala, for which no tax under the Kerala Ta...
Tag this Judgment!Rural Educational and Social Trust Vs. University of Calicut and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker187
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Actg. C.J.1. Common question arises for consideration in these appeals, hence we are disposing of these appeals by a common judgment.2. W.P. (C) No. 29666 of 2006 was preferred by the appellant herein seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the University order denying affiliation for the year 2005-06 and also for a direction to give affiliation to the petitioner's college for the year 2005-06 and allow the students of the college to appear for the B. Ed. Examination and publish the results accordingly. W.P. (C) No. 15722 of 2006 was preferred by a student seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P2 order of the University denying the grant of affiliation for the year 2005-06 and also for other consequential reliefs.3. Petitioner Trust applied for recognition to start B. Ed. Course during the academic year 2005-06 from the University of Calicut and also from the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). NCTE vide Ext. P2 order granted recognition for the said c...
Tag this Judgment!Jose Vs. P.C. Joy
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-2007
Reported in: ILR2008NULL974
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Magistrate court to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 months for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'). The revision petitioner-accused was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months.2. In appeal, the conviction was confirmed by the Sessions Court but the sentence of 5 months was modified to simple imprisonment till rising of the court. The compensation was confirmed. The said conviction and sentence are challenged by the accused in Cr.R.P. No. 4487 of 2006. The complainant filed a revision (Crl.R.P. 3275/06) challenging the illegality of the sentence passed. Both these revisions are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.3. Facts briefly: (The parties will be referred to as complainant and accused, for convenienc...
Tag this Judgment!T.A. Moideen Shaw and anr. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KLJ657
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioners are challenging Ext. P9 order in revision issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes confirming demand of tax and penalty in respect of a consignment of rectified spirit. The consignment originated from Thirunelveli and entered Kerala at the Aryankavu Check Post and was to pass through Kerala to reach Goa. However, the petitioners did not surrender the transit pass issued in Form 27 C at the exit boarder Check Post at Bengara Manjeswaram. Since transit pass was not surrendered at the exit boarder Check Post of the State, presumption of local delivery and sale in Kerala was drawn under Section 30B(2) of the KGST Act and tax and penalty were levied under Sub-clause (3) of Section 30B of the Act. Against this, petitioners filed first revision before the Deputy Commissioner and being unsuccessful second revision was filed before the Commissioner which was also rejected vide impugned order. I heard counsel for the petitioners and Government P...
Tag this Judgment!Minimol Lukose and ors. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ101
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioners are challenging Exh. P5 order where under respondent No. 2 has declined petitioners' insurance claim for the death of the husband of the petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3.2. I have heard counsel for petitioners and Standing Counsel appearing for L.I.C. Petitioner's husband, Benny Lukose gave a proposal for taking a double accident benefit insurance policy for Rs. 5,00,000 on 6.6.1999. Along with the proposal initial premium of $ 660 was paid through a cheque drawn on an American bank. However, before collecting the cheque and crediting the same to the premium account, the assured died on 16.6.1999. The cheque got realised only on 30.6.1999 and since the policy had not been issued, L.I.C. vide impugned proceeding declined to pay the policy amount to the legal heirs of the deceased. Even though civil suit was filed before the munsiff court, Palai, the same was rejected as it was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the mun...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Corporation of India Limited Vs. Additional Sales Tax Offic ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-2007
Reported in: (2007)10VST175(Ker)
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The point that arises for decision in all these cases is whether the State Government can collect sales tax or licence fee from the dealers engaged in the sale of lottery tickets. So, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. W.P. (C) No. 4002 of 2007 is treated as the main case for the purpose of referring to the exhibits.W.P. (C) No. 4002 of 2007:2. The brief facts of the case are the following. The petitioner, which is a partnership firm, was a dealer of on-line lotteries, run by M/s. Playwin, Lotus, Smartwin and Fortune. It has been served with exhibit P12 series notices under Section 17(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, proposing to collect licensing fee as contemplated under Section 5BA of the said Act. So, this writ petition is filed by it, seeking a declaration that Section 5BA is unconstitutional and also seeking to quash exhibit P12 series notices. The petitioner submits, in view of the Constitution Bench decision ...
Tag this Judgment!Singaravelukounder Vs. Sulaiman
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KLT556
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. These appeals arise out of two suits, namely, O.S. No. 206 of 1996 and O.S. No. 210 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Palakkad. O.S. No. 206 of 1996 was filed by Singaravelu Kounder against Sulaiman, his wife Kamaraunnissa and Abdul Razack Rowther for a declaration that the agreement for sale executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the third defendant is invalid and for a decree for specific performance of Exhibit A1 agreement for sale executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. There is also a prayer for injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from executing sale deed in favour of the third defendant or in favour of strangers. O.S. No. 210 of 1996 was filed by Sulaiman and Kamarunnissa against Singaravelu Kounder for recovery of possession of the plaint A schedule property. The trial court granted a decree in O.S. No. 206 of 1996 for specific performance, for declaration and for injunction. O.S. No. 210 of 1996 was di...
Tag this Judgment!Edayar Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangham Vs. Industrial Tribunal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR301]
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. A question of law which had gained the attention of the Supreme Court of India in several cases including a Constitution Bench decision, has again been raked up by a management in an industrial dispute relying on an observation by a recent Supreme Court decision by a bench of lesser strength.The issue relates to the point of time at which a management has to seek opportunity to adduce fresh/additional evidence for justifying the disciplinary action taken against a workman, in the event of the domestic enquiry conducted by the management, on the basis of which punishment was imposed on the workman, is held to be not valid and proper. The question is whether such an opportunity should be requested for by the management at the threshold of the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, namely at the time of filing of written statement itself by the management, or whether it is sufficient if the request for the opportunity is made at any time before the co...
Tag this Judgment!Chenthamara Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ375; 2008(4)KLT290
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. Is actual entry of penis through vagina essential, to constitute 'rape' under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC for short)? In the absence of penile-vaginal entry, will the offence of 'rape' be made out, under Section 375 IPC? What does the expression 'penetration' in Explanation to Section 375 IPC mean? These are the main questions which arise for consideration in this revision.2. Facts briefly: A girl aged 12 years is the alleged victim in this case. The accused is her neighbour. On the crucial day, she went to his house, as usual, to play chess. She played chess with accused's brother and also the accused. Thereafter, the accused asked the girl to keep the chess back in the room. When she went to the room with the chess board, accused accompanied her and, on reaching the room, he closed her mouth, took her to a corner of the room and committed rape on PW1. The accused let the child go, on seeing blood trickling down her leg.3. The accused was charge sheet...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »