Kerala Court March 2007 Judgments
S. Chandramohan Nair Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker203; 2007(2)KLJ89
ORDERK. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, challenging the appointment of the 5th respondent as Member of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, overlooking his claim. The brief facts of the case are the following:2. The petitioner is a practising lawyer at Thiruvananthapuram. The Kerala Government invited applications from eligible person for appointment as Members of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, by notification dated 22-2-2006. The petitioner was one of the applicants. The selection was made by a committee, consisting of the President of the State Commission, the Law Secretary of the Government of Kerala and the Secretary to Government, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs. By Ext. P1, the petitioner was called for an interview on 28-2-2006. Later, the said interview was adjourned and held on 2-3-2006. The petitioner submits, he performed well in the interview and his name was recomme...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammedkutty Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3016; 2007(2)KLJ176
J.B. Koshy, J.1. When an inquiry under Section 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure commences is the question referred by a learned single Judge of this Court to be decided by the Division Bench. In Mathukutty v. State of Kerala 1995 (1) KLT 742 : 1995 Cri LJ 3293, it was held that the inquiry will commence only from the date of recording of evidence. Another learned single Judge in Saju Varghese v. State 2005 (1) KLD (Cri) 570 held that the inquiry commences for the purpose of Section 116(6) from the date of appearance of the counter petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and not from the date of recording of evidence. Section 116(6) Cr.P.C. provides that inquiry under Section 116 shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of commencement and on the expiry of six months, the said period shall stand terminated unless for special reasons to be recorded in writing the Magistrate otherwise directs. Chapter VIII of Cr.P.C. (sections 106 - 124) provides prevent...
Tag this Judgment!Sukumar Azhikode Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ264
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner (Sri. Sukumar Azhikode) seeks to quash Annexure 1 complaint and all proceedings against him in S.T. 269 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kozhikode. The said private complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent herein (K.V. Joseph) alleging the offence of defamation under Section 499 I.P.C. against the petitioner herein and punishable under Section 500 I.P.C.2. The averments in the private complaint are as follows:The complainant is a senior criminal lawyer practicing mainly before the Calicut Courts. The first accused (Sri. Sukumar Azhikode) is a writer orator, critic and cultural activist. The 2nd accused (Smt. K. Ajitha) is known as a person interested in women related issues and s the leader of some feminist movement. The complainant was the Special Public Prosecutor in S.C. No. 124/02 pending before the Assistant Sessions Court-II, Kozhikode. The said case is kno...
Tag this Judgment!Fantacy Sales Corporation Vs. Sales Tax Inspector and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-2007
Reported in: [2007]8STT33; (2007)7VST323(Ker)
K. Balakrishnan Nair J.1. The constitutional validity of Sub-section (16A) of Section 47 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the sustainability of two circulars issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under the said provision are the points, that arise for decision in these writ petitions. Since same points arise for decision in all these writ petitions, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. W.P. (C) No. 2844 of 2007 is treated as the main case.W.P. (C) No. 2844 of 2007:2. The petitioner, which is a firm, is a dealer in glass sheets. It is an asses-see on the files of the third respondent, Sales Tax Officer, Manjeri, under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KVAT Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The fourth respondent, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued Circular No. 50 of 2006, in exercise of his powers under Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 read with Sub-section (16A) of Section 47 of the KVAT A...
Tag this Judgment!Giby George and anr. Vs. Marriage Officer (Principal District Registra ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker152; I(2008)DMC220
ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioners married on 1-3-2007. The second petitioner is abroad. Her employer has offered to provide employment to the first petitioner, who is now unemployed. For such purpose, the petitioners need appropriate certificate of marriage for transit. Under the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, following the decision of the Division of this Court in John Lukose v. District Registrar : 2007(1)KLT247 , I am inclined to direct the registration of the marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for short, without insisting on the statutory notice period of thirty days.2. However, the learned Government Pleader urges that the marriage itself was on 1-3-2007 and the application for registration of the marriage under the Act ought to be after a cohabitation of a minimum period of thirty days after the marriage. He makes this argument on the basis of Clause (f) of Section 52.3. For the purpose of considering...
Tag this Judgment!P.A. Abdul Hakkim and anr. Vs. Ramesan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ726
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. What is the liability of a person who had declared himself to be the Printer and Publisher in respect of a publication? This is the crucial question that arises for consideration in this Crl. M.C.2. On fundamental facts there is no dispute. The first respondent, who claims to be a social worker, is aggrieved by a defamatory publication against him in a news paper, of which accused 1 to 3 are the Printer and Publisher, Editor and the local news reporter respectively. Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 viz. the Printer and Publisher (A1) and the Editor (A2). At the moment, there is no contention that the publication a copy of which is produced before Court, is not perse defamatory. The learned Magistrate, on the complaint; by the first respondent, took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC against all the three accused. The petitioner have rushed to this court with this Section 482 CrPC with the prayer that the complaint may be quashed in so far as ...
Tag this Judgment!V.M. Baby and ors. Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ789
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner-Panchayat is challenging revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of loan and interest due to the second respondent-Corporation. The loan was availed in the year 1994-95 and appears to have been for a period of 15 years. According to the second respondent, which is a Government Corporation, the arrears due as on 16-04-2005 after setting off Rs. 22,80,000/- already paid by the Panchayat was Rs. 47,10,699/ -. Obviously, there is overdue interest on this amount payable for another 1 1/2 years which will certainly take balance liability to above Rs. 52 lakhs. Therefore, when the entire liability is paid up by the Panchayat, the total commitment of the Panchayat for the construction of the building is above Rs. 75 lakhs.2. When the matter came up for hearing before this court in February 2005, this court felt that Panchayat took a destructive decision in taking up the construction of the building and therefore this court directed the D...
Tag this Judgment!P. Damodaran Vs. Cherkalam Abdulla and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-07-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker153; 2007(4)AIRKarR6; 2007CrLJNOC609(FB)(Ker).
J.B. Koshy, J.1. The preliminary point to be decided in this case is whether the proceedings for contempt is barred by limitation in view of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 20 of the Act reads as follows:20. Limitation for actions for contempt :- No Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. It is the contention of the respondent that the incident alleged to have occurred on 1 -6-2001. The petition for contempt was filed on 4-10-2001 and defects were cured and represented only on 11-10-2001. Even though the petition was filed, no further action was done and only on 18-7-2005, Chief Justice ordered that the matter be posted and it was posted on 21-7-2005. Notice on admission was ordered. As the time of filing the petition, first respondent was a Minister, but, by the t...
Tag this Judgment!Jalaludeen A. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-07-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2047
ORDERK. Thankappan, J.1. This is an application for suspension of the sentence and release of the petitioner on bail during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioner/appellant is found guilty under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act and convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rupees One lakh with default sentence of payment of fine, a further period of R.I. for three years by the trial Court.2. This application is opposed by the special counsel appearing for and on behalf of the respondent, Narcotic Control Bureau. Trivandrum. This Court heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the special counsel appearing for the other side. Two questions arc raised before this Court, namely to what extent the power of this Court under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuing any interim order while statutory appeal is admitted or pending can be exercised? Secondly, as per the provisions of Section 32A and Section 37 of the N...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Shahal H. Musaliar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-06-2007
Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Ker)422; [2007]291ITR444(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The common petitioner in the three connected cases as legal heir of the deceased A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar is challenging penalty levied under Section 41(1)(c) of the Travancore IT Act for the asst. yrs. 1950-51 and 1951-52 and the penalty levied under Section 28(1)(c) and Section 18A(9) of the IT Act, 1922 for the asst. yr. 1952-53.2. The assessee died in February, 1966. However, prior to his death, the assessee has gone for two settlements with the Department. In fact the demands of income-tax were raised based on settlement and according to counsel for the petitioner, the total tax payment exceeds total tax liability and petitioner and other legal heirs of late assessee are entitled to refund. However, penalty levied for the above three years and confirmed in revisions are still outstanding.3. I have heard senior counsel Sri V. Ramachandran who appeared for the petitioner along with Sri Harun-Al-Rashid and Sri P.K.R. Menon, senior standing counsel appear...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »