Kerala Court April 2007 Judgments
State Bank of Travancore Vs. Recovery Officer, Employees State Insuran ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: [2007]138CompCas16(Ker); 2007(2)KLJ704
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Actg. C.J.1. The constitutional validity of Sections 26A and 26B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, is under challenge in both the appeals. Writ Appeal No. 212 of 2007(B), is preferred by the State Bank of Travancore and Writ Appeal No. 259 of 2007 by the State Bank of India. Both the banks challenge the statutory first charge claimed by the State of Kerala towards sales tax over the claims made by the bank on the strength of the mortgages created by the donees in their favour. The right of the State Government to get priority in the matter of recovery of sales tax from the defaulters over equitable mortgages created by them in favour of banks and financial institutions is no more res integra. Dealing with the provisions parallel to Section 26B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, by the various sales tax laws of other States, the Supreme Court has already recognised the statutory first charge in respect of sales tax arrears. Reference may be made to t...
Tag this Judgment!Jose Maveli, Director Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2709
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. We are guilty of many errors and faults, but our worst crime is abandoning the children, neglecting the foundation of life. Many of the things we need can wait. The child cannot; right now is the time his bones are being formed, his blood is being made and his senses are being developed. To him, we cannot answer 'tomorrow'. His name is 'today''(Gabriel Mistral)Yes, I shall not wait. I cannot answer him, 'tomorrow'. I must speak for him today. Each and every letter of the above quote must inspire me to speak for him today - his name is 'today'!!FACT. BRIEFLY;2. Five minor children of different age, both male and female (I shall avoid mentioning their names in this judgment in their best interest), were produced before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by the additional third respondent herein, under Section 32(1) of the Junvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 'the Act', for short), along with a report. According to additional third respondent, he...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. K. Sarangadharan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3611; 2007(2)KLJ659
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. What are the bare relevant factors to be considered in a case where a food item is alleged to be 'misbranded' under Section 2(ix) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act ('PEA Act', for short)? This short question arises in this revision.2. The State is the revision-petitioner. It challenges the order passed by the Magistrate's Court under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code, for short) discharging the respondents-accused of the offence under the PFA Act. A complaint was filed by Food Inspector against respondents alleging certain offences including 'misbranding', under PFA Act and Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (PFA Rules). According to complainant-Food Inspector, he purchased 600 grams of 'arrow root mixture' (200 grams x 3 jars) which were kept and exposed for sale in the medical shop run by first respondent. The article purchased was sampled in accordance with provisions of the Act and Rules and a mahazar was also prepared. The sample...
Tag this Judgment!Vinodini Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: IV(2007)BC145
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The petitioner is a defaulter in repayment of loan amounts due to the 2nd respondent Bank. The Bank initiated proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 262/2003, which is still pending. While the O.A. was thus pending, the Bank initiated the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('the Act' for short) for bringing the security interest to sale. Admittedly pursuant to the same, possession has been taken by the Bank. Now this Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings under the Act on the basis of Section 19 of the Cs Act, 1993 on the ground that after the amendment to Rule 19 by introducing three provisos to Sub-section (1) making it obligatory on the Bank to obtain leave of the D.R.T. to withdraw the O.A. before proceedings under the Act, the Bank could not have initiated proceedings under the Act without obtaining such permission under Section 19. The...
Tag this Judgment!Hotel and Allied Trades (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Ker)298; [2007]294ITR67(Ker)
K.M. Joseph, J.1. Appellant company is running the business of a hotelier. It has two hotels--one is at Wellington Island, Cochin, under the name 'Casino Hotel' and the other at Lakshadweep, known as 'Bangaram Island Resort'. By Annexs. A and Al in the appeal, assessments were finalised for the years 1992-93 and 1993-94 allowing deductions under Section 80HHD in terms of the claim of the appellant, that is, by treating both hotels as separate units and by determining benefits separately. However, the CIT took up the assessments for scrutiny and after noticing that computation of deduction under Section 80HHD was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, initiated proceedings under Section 263 of the IT Act. After hearing the appellant, the CIT set aside the assessments and directed computation of benefits under Section 80HHD for the business of the assessee as a whole vide Annexs. B and B1 to the appeal. The Tribunal confirmed the orders of the CIT. It is against the said o...
Tag this Judgment!K.G. Purushothaman Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker201; 2007(2)KLJ185
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Actg. C.J.1. Question that is posed for consideration in this case is whether the Electricity Board can demand arrears of electricity dues including penalty incurred by a previous consumer from a new owner/occupier /allottee of the same premises as a pre-condition for electricity connection under Regulation 15(e) of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity Energy after coming into force of the Electricity Act. 2003.2. Learned single Judge following a Full Bench decision of this Court in Suraj v. KSEB, ILR 2005 (3) Kerala 618 : AIR 2006 Ker 194 dismissed the writ petition holding that no direction can be given to the Electricity Board to give electricity supply to the petitioner unless the arrears are cleared. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that after coming into force of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Supply Code 2005 and the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005, Regulation 15(e) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy and the Full Bench d...
Tag this Judgment!Sarada Amma and ors. Vs. Eachkutty Nair and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ188
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The appeal is filed against the final decree in a suit for partition. Court fee is paid under Schedule II Article 3(iii)(A)(1)(a) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The Registry has raised an objection that the appeal being against the final decree, court fee should be paid under Section 37(2) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. It is also stated that the valuation shown in the Memorandum of Appeal is incorrect.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the application for final decree being an Interlocutory Application, the decree passed therein is to be treated as an order and if so, Schedule II Article 3(iii)(A)(1)(a) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') applies. Section 37(2) of the Act provides that in a suit for partition and separate possession of the share of the plaintiff, he shall pay court fee, computed on the market value of his share, it has been excluded from possession of th...
Tag this Judgment!Madathil Marakar Haji Vs. Vakkom B. Purushothaman and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ742
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. Can the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (hereafter referred to as 'the Special Judge'), on receipt of a complaint under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Court', for short), issue an order to the officers of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau ('VACB', for short) to conduct a 'preliminary enquiry' or 'vigilance enquiry' while forwarding a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code? Can such direction be issued, as per the provisions contained in the Code or the Vigilance Manual? Can such enquiry be ordered, following the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras . These are the main questions to be examined in this revision.Facts, Briefly:2. A complaint was filed by revision petitioner against respondents 1 to 4, under Section 190 of the Code, alleging offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act ('the P.C, Act', for short) and also under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC, fo...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Arun Granites
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-2007
Reported in: (2008)ILLJ211Ker
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The Regional Director of Employees' State Insurance Corporation is challenging an order passed by the Insurance Court, Palakkad by which it had allowed an application filed by the respondent.2. The Inspector of the appellant conducted inspection and reported that the establishment of the respondent was one liable to be covered under the Employees State Insurance Act as it was employing more than ten persons and it was using power. A demand was made by the appellant for contribution. Challenging that demand, the respondent filed I.C. No. 66 of 2000 before the Employees' Insurance Court. The evidence adduced shows that though there are ten employees, one of them is none other than a partner of employer firm. The Insurance Court held that a partner of a partnership firm cannot be treated as an employee of that firm and if he is excluded, there were only nine employees and hence respondent was not liable to pay contribution. Challenging that decision, this appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ218
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Acting C.J.1. The cardinal question to be considered in these cases is whether the second respondent Panchayat has got jurisdiction either to issue or cancel the licence granted to the petitioner for setting up the factory at Kanjikode situated in an industrial area notified as Integrated Industrial Township, Palghat by the Government of Kerala vide SRO No. 730/ 01 issued by notification G.O. 672/2001/AD dated 24-7-2001 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (f) of Sections 2 and 5 of the Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Boards and Industrial Township Area Development Act, 1999 (Act 5 of 2000), in short Development Act.2. Petitioner is a private limited Company registered under the Companies Act engaged in the manufacture, bottling and sale of soft drinks like Pepsi, Mirinda. Seven Up etc., the factory of which is set up in the industrial area, Kanjikode. The petitioner company had made an application for the issue of licence for setting up of a fact...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »