Kerala Court January 2008 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Saji Khan and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1689; 2008(1)KLJ331
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J. 1. The petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 338/2007 of Kottarakkara Police Station registered for offences punishable under Section 3(1)(III) r/ w Section 4 of the Small Coins (Offences) Act, 1971, seek to quash Annexure A FIR and all further proceedings pursuant thereto.2. According to the petitioners, they are wholesale 'pappadam' vendors at Chadayamangalam in Kollam District and the coins in question were collected by them from small vendors and the local public in connection with their business and therefore those coins account for the total daily requirements of small coins by the petitioners coming within the purview of the Explanation to Section 3(1) of the said Act.3. The case of the prosecution is that on 02-05-2007 at about 9 p.m. when a police party was on patrol duty near the K.S.R.T.C. waiting shed at Kottarakkara, the two petitioners herein were found in possession of 4.6 kilograms of 25 paisa coins, 12.2 kilograms of 50 paisa coins...
K.P. Hameed and anr. Vs. the State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1587; 2008(1)KLJ440; 2008(1)KLT534
ORDER1. In this petition filed under Section 482 Crl.P.C. the petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 119 of 2004 on the file of the J.F.C.M. Malappuram for offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 506(1) read with Section 34 IPC, seek to quash the aforesaid proceedings before the Magistrate.2. Adv. Sri. Sunil V. Mohammed, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/ accused made the following submissions before me in support of his contentions:The alleged occurrence in this case took place on 17-11 -2000. The refer report was filed on 18-2-2001. The protest complaint was filed on 3-3-2001. The cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on 11 -2-2004. The cognizance so taken was clearly beyond the period of three years prescribed for the offence under Section 468 Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no court shall take cognizance of an offence of...
K.V. Thomas Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: 2008ACJ1921; AIR2008Ker153; 2008(1)KLJ623
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellant claimant filed an application for compensation for the injuries sustained by him when he accidentally fell down from Vanchinad Express at Chengannoor Railways Station on 21 -5-1998. As a result of the accident, his left leg was amputated below knee and right leg was amputated on the upper portion of femur. He claimed a compensation of Rs. 11 lakhs with 18% interest. According to him, he purchased a ticket from Changannoor Station to go to Trichur by Venad train. Usually Venad Express and Vanchinad Express had a crossing at Chengannoor Railway Station and Venad train usually comes on platform No. 1 and Vanchinad Express usually comes on platform No. 2. Thinking that Venad express is waiting in platform No. 1, he along with his neighbour boarded the train in platform No. 1. But it was later found that it was not the train which was going to Trichur and while trying to get down, he fell down and train left and both legs crushed under the wheels. According to the...
Chandra Prabha Charitable Trust Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: [2009]316ITR175(Ker); 2008(2)KLJ609
ORDERC.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This tax revision case is filed under Section 78 of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 (for short' the Act'), challenging the order of the Tribunal produced as Annexure C, confirming the petitioner's assessment for 1994-95. The petitioner, claiming to be a charitable trust, admittedly did not file return on the due date provided under Section 35(1) of the Act. However, a belated return was filed on 12-7-1995. The assessing officer completed the assessment on 13-3-2000 whereunder, the petitioner's claim for exemption from payment of tax as a charitable institution, was also declined. The petitioner challenged the assessment in first appeal on the ground of limitation as well as against disallowance of exemption claimed under Section 16 of the Act. The first appeal was dismissed, against which the second appeal filed before the Tribunal, was also dismissed. In this revision petition filed against the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner h...
M.G. Ajayakumar Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Ker136; 2008(1)KLJ403; 2008(1)KLT901
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The 'police protection' jurisdiction exercised by this Court is one of the most abused jurisdictions. Suits which are to be filed before the concerned civil court are converted into writ petitions and filed before this Court. This case is one among such cases.2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The petitioner is the owner of 12 cents and 500 sq.links of land, which he purchased in 2004. On the southern side of the property, there is a PWD Road and on the northern side, there is a canal of Muvattupuzha Valley Irrigation Project. When the third respondent tried to trespass into his property, he moved the Munsiff 's Court and obtained ExtP 1 judgment, restraining the said respondent from trespassing into the aforementioned property owned by him. The petitioner submits, the third respondent, who is a lawyer, is residing on the opposite side of the road. There is no common boundary for the properties owned by the petitioner and the said respondent. T...
S.K. Jha, Commodore Commanding Officer Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2277; 2008(1)KLJ512
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The petitioner, who is the Commodore Commanding Officer, INS Venduruthy, Naval Base, Kochi and who was the applicant in CMP No. 231/2007 before the J.F.C.M.-I. Ernakulam in a petition filed under Section 475 Cr.P.C, challenges the order dated 14-1 -08, dismissing the said petition which originated in the form of a letter dated 14-1-08 addressed to the learned Magistrate.2. Three of the accused persons in Crime No. 39/2008 of Harbour Police Station are serving officers of the Indian Navy and it was in respect of those three officers, that the above request was made before the learned Magistrate.VERSION OF THE STATE POLICE3. The case of the prosecution in Crime No. 39/2008 of Harbour Police Station can be summarised as follows:On 10-01 -08, at about 11 p.m., 100 persons including the three Naval Officers formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in the compound of the Harbour Police Station and in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly they committ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Federal Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-2008
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Ker)151; [2008]301ITR188(Ker); 2008(4)KLT469
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in this appeal filed by the Revenue is as to whether income shown by the assessee in the profit and loss account in the form of interest on Government securities, is assessable for the assessment year 1989-90. While the case of the Department is that when the interest on Government securities is credited in the profit and loss account, it is income under the mercantile system of accounting followed by the assessee, the assessee's case is that interest on securities is payable only on maturity of Government security and all what the assessee has done, is only to show the interest attributable for the relevant previous year, though it was not received by the assessee. The assessee's case is that so long as interest is not received or due, it cannot be assessed as income, no matter it is credited in the profit and loss account or not. The amount involved, viz., Rs. 5,67,18,983, is admittedly the interest not received by the assessee during ...
Malabar and Pioneer Hosiery (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-2008
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Ker)506; [2008]302ITR72(Ker); [2009]178TAXMAN120(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Tribunal confirming the disallowance of preliminary expenditure incurred by the assessee for the construction of a shopping complex. The appellant assessee was originally engaged in hosiery business. However, later assessee stopped the business and besides letting out its buildings, it started construction and letting out of shop-rooms. Admittedly the rental income received on shop buildings let out to tenants was treated as income from business. During the accounting year relevant for the assessment year 1991-92, the assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs. 49, 687 towards preliminary expenditure for construction of a shopping complex. The various items of expenditure incurred in this behalf are remuneration for soil testing, fee paid to Calicut Development Authority and to the Corporation of Calicut for approval of plan and fee paid to the architect for preparation of pl...
Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Vs. Aswathy Elsa Math ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ193
ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This is an application for review of judgment passed on a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Two issues have been placed for consideration. First is regarding the maintainability of the application for review, the objection being that the same is out of time and the provision invoked is not the appropriate one. The second is as to the merits of the review petition on the basis of the contentions of the rival parties.2. I shall first deal with the question of maintainability. The object of Article 226 is to provide a quick and inexpensive remedy to aggrieved parties. In Puran Singh v. State of Punjab : [1996]1SCR730 rendered after the insertion of the Explanation to Section 141 CPC, by the amendment of 1976, it has been held that when the Constitution has vested extraordinary power in the High Court under Articles 226 and 227, the procedures for exercising such power and jurisdiction have to be traced and found in those provisions...
Season Rubber Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-15-2008
Reported in: [2009]311ITR15(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Contribution made by the assessee totalling Rs. 16,500 to a school and to a hospital development committee were claimed for benefit under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, since the recipients did not have registration and could not issue certificates under Section 80G of the Act, the assessee shifted the stand and claimed the contributions as business expenditure eligible for deduction Section 37(1) of the Act. The Tribunal declined the claim, against which this reference is sought by the assessee.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned standing counsel for the respondent. We do not think that the assessee is entitled to the claim under Section 37(1) of the Act, because the assessee's prospects are not advanced by making these contributions. Even though learned Counsel contended that the assessee's employees are getting treatment from the hospital and the employees' children are students in the school which got the be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »