Kerala Court September 2007 Judgments

Swapana Bone Mealco. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the District Level Commitee for Sal ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)14VST106(Ker)

ORDERIn the above circumstances the Salestax Exemption application of M/s.Swapna Bone Meal Company Private Limited, Arackappady is hereby rejected.GENERAL MANAGER.2. Petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, had filed appeal before the State Level Committee for sales tax exemption. The said Committee by its order dated 17.9.2002 has rejected the appeal. While doing so, they have stated as under:PROCEEIDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES ANDCOMMERCE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (Present : P.H. KURIEN IAS)No. FO. 3/7008/00Kdis Dated: 17.9.02.Sub : Industries - Sales Tax Exemption Appeal M/s. Swapna Bone Metal Company Pvt. Ltd., Ernakulam rejected -orders issued.Read : 1. Appeal of the unit dt.13.3.002. Decision of the SIC on Sales Tax Exemption held on 24/6/02.M/s. Swapna Bone Meal Company (Pvt) Ltd., Arackanady, Perumbavoor is a registered SI Unit which is engaged in manufacturing of Bone Meal and Mutton Tallow which started commercial production on 22/9/97. The DLC on Sales ...

Bosco Antony Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ478

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. This is a writ petition filed, seeking police protection to run a shop. The petitioner has been granted Ext.Pl licence to run T.S. No. 43 at Garudanmoola in Cherpu Excise Range for the abkari year 2007-08. The licence is granted in respect of a building bearing door No. X/181 of Thannyam Grama Panchayat. When the petitioner tried to start business in the shop, respondents 9 and 10 and their supporters started causing obstruction. Therefore, he filed Ext.P2 representation before the police, seeking protection for running the shop. Since no help was extended by the police, this writ petition was filed, seeking the following reliefs:i) declare that the petitioner is entitled to get police protection as per the request in Ext. P2;ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 5 to give necessary and adequate police protection to the petitioner, toddy shop No. 43 in Cherpu Excise Range covered by Ext.P1 licen...

Karthikeyan Vs. P.V. Dayaseelan

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ694

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution the defendant challenges Ext.P2 findings of the learned Munsiff on issue 'No. 2' regarding the propriety of the valuation of the suit and sufficiency of the court fees paid. Ext.Pl is a copy of the plaint. As rightly found by the learned Munsiff, the suit is liable to be valued under Section 28 of the Kerala Court Fees And suits Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The suit is for a declaratory decree and the same is between trustees or rival claimants to the office of the trustee or between persons who has ceased to be trustees. Section 28 of the act is given below:Suits relating to trust property: In a suit for possession or joint possession of trust property or for a declaratory decree, whether with or without consequential relief in respect of it, between trustees or rival claimants to the office of trustee or between a trustee and a person who has ceased to be trustee, fee shall be...

J. Prabhavathiamma Vs. the State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ455; 2008(1)KLJ9

J.B. Koshy, J.1. Expressing doubts regarding the correctness of dicta laid down by the Division Bench in Antony Scaria v. State of Kerala 2001 (2) KLT 93 and by the single Bench in Vijayakumar v. Kamarudhin 1999(1) KLT 184 that further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be conducted only by the very same agency which conducted the earlier investigation, a learned single Judge of this Court referred this matter for authoritative pronouncement by a Full Bench. According to the learned single Judge, the above view is opposed to the decision of the Apex Court and other Division Bencn decision of the Apex Court and other Division Bench decisions. Another incidental question was whether further investigation can be ordered by the court after commencement of trial on the basis of charge sheet (final report) already accepted and charges framed by the Court. Power of the court to refer the matter to C.B.I. under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1...

K.K. Laitha Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(I)KLJ192

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. St. Mary's U.P. School, Njarakkal is an institution under the St. Mary's Educational Agency, a corporate educational agency. Smt. K.A. Mary was promoted as the Headmistress of that school. The statutory authorities, including the Government, have concurrently refused approval for such promotion, upholding the contention of Smt. K.K. Lalitha, that she was entitlted to be appointed inpreference to Smt. K.A. Mary, in terms of Rule 45 in Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the 'KER', for short, framed and issued by the Government of Kerala, in terms of authority conferred by Section 36 of the Kerala Education Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. W.P.(C) 26374/04 is filed by the management challenging that decision, while W.P.(C) 11114/04 is filed by Smt. Lalitha, seeking a direction to the Manager to appoint her as the Headmistress with effect from 1 -6-2001, the date of occurrence of that vacancy, with...

A.M. Moideen S/O. Marakkar Vs. State of Kerala, the District Magistrat ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ28; 2007(3)KLJ472

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner is the father of Mr. A.M. Ummer, who has been detained under the provisions of the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Ordinance 2007 (Ordinance No. 30/07), by order dated 19.06.2007 of the second respondent District Magistrate. The brief facts of the case are the following:2. The allegation against Mr. A.M. Ummer, who is hereinafter referred to as the detenu, is that he is indulging in illegal mining and transporting of river sand from Bharathapuzha river. In other words, he is a depradator of environment. So, the District Magistrate issued Ext.P1 detention order dated 19.06.2007 and in execution of that order, the detenu was arrested and he is suffering incarceration from the said date onwards. Ext.P2, which contains the grounds of detention, was also served on him, along with Ext.P1. Ext.P1 order of detention was confirmed by the Government by Ext.P4 order dated 29.06.2007. There was a mistake in the said order, in which, the petition...

Amana Jewellers Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Perinthalmanna and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)12VST321(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J 1. The petitioner, a jeweller, is challenging exhibit P2 order whereunder the assessing officer has computed the value added tax payable by the petitioner at compounded rate under Section 8(f)(i) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 for the assessment year 2006-07. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner is liable to pay tax at compounded rate under Section 8(f)(ii) of the Act read with Explanation 1 to the said section and not under Section 8(f)(i) read with Explanation 1 as computed by the officer. The petitioner admittedly commenced business in February, 2004 and had carried on business only for 51 days during the financial year 2003-04. The petitioner had business for the whole period for the financial year 2004-05 and 2005-06. The question is under which provision, tax liability has to be computed at the compounded rate for the assessment year 2006-07. In order to appreciate the contentions, the relevant provisions have to be referred to and for e...

M. Abdul Rahiman Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ2681; 2008(1)KLJ373

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner purchased an item of property, as per Ext. P2, on 14-12-1994 from one Sri K. Ummer against whom an order was issued on 5-12-1994 by the competent authority under Section 7(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for short.2. The uncontroverted plea of the respondents through the counter affidavit-filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 is that Sri. K. Ummer had carried on certain business transactions along with Sri. L.K. Mohideen alias Haji Mohideen who was detained under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act and as such, Sri. K. Ummer was an 'Associate' of that detenu, answering the description of a 'person' under Section 2(2)(d) of the Act and still further, that notice dated 22-8-1980 under Section 6(1) of the Act proposing forfeiture of certain movable and i...

Mavoor Grama Panchayat and anr. Vs. the Ombudsman and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ300

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. Whether it is necessary to serve notices individually, regarding Grama Sabha meetings convened under Section 3(3) of the Panchayat Raj Act is the important question which arises for decision in this Writ Petition.2. Ext. P1 order of the Hon'ble Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions under which the Ombudsman directed the Panchayat to cancel the beneficiary list and the decisions taken in the Grama Sabha of Ward No. 15 of the petitioner-Panchayat is under challenge in this Writ Petition initiated by the Panchayat and the Convenor of the beneficiary committee, i.e., Convenor of the Grama Sabha of Ward No. 15. The complaint before the Ombudsman was Ext. P2. The allegation in Ext. P2 is that the beneficiary list prepared by the Grama Sabha in so far as it enlists a lady by name Alumkandi Chakky who is alleged to be not eligible for the benefit under the House Construction Scheme since her daughter Kalyani has received a total amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- by wa...

Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. and Others Vs. S.Sathish Kumar

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from order dated. 28th August 2002 passed by the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP.No.400/99. The complainant in the said OP.No.400/99 was preferred by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant as opposite parties claiming compensation of Rs.15000/- for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in granting a loan of Rs.75000/-. The opposite parties denied the alleged claim of the deficiency in service and contended that the complainant is not a consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act and that the complainant failed to affix his signature on the agreement for availing the loan applied for. But the lower forum accepted the case of the complainant and thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs.15000/- for the deficiency in service. The opposite parties are also made liable to pay Rs.1000/- towards cost. Hence the present appeal. 2. Befor...