Kerala Court October 2008 Judgments

Abdul Rasheed Vs. the State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009CriLJ527; 2008(3)KLJ730

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Does the petitioner have a right to challenge the impugned order in revision? If he has such a right, is he justified in coming to this Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,? These are the questions of importance raised at the threshold in this Cri.M.C.2. Against the petitioner a claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the claimants - his wife and two minor children. That claim was decided ex parte by Annex.A order. The petitioner was directed to pay maintenance to his wife and two minor children at the rates of Rs. 1,500/- and Rs. 1,250/- and Rs. 1,000/- p.m. respectively. The petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte order. That petition was disposed of by the impugned order, copy of which is produced as Annexure-C. The court took the view that the petition is meritless and represents only an attempt to protract the proceedings to the maximum extent possible. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petiti...

Thomas and anr. Vs. Dr. Mathai and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ16

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 in a suit for partition which was decreed by the court below are the appellants. The first respondent is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the third defendant who remained ex parte. The suit was filed by the first respondent claiming 1/3 share in the suit property - 7 cents and 286 square links of land with a two stoned building thereon. The plea of the plaintiff was that the suit property is the property of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 as per partition deed No. 1264/1973 of the Sub Registry, Kothamagalam. It was averred in the plaint that in the month of September 1985, the plaintiff agreed to transfer his rights in the plaint schedule property to defendants 1 and 2 for a price of Rs. 4 lakhs and that he had accepted two lakhs towards price and an agreement for sale (Ext.B1) was executed on 16-09-1985. It was further pleaded that within a week from the date of the agreement defendants 1 and 2 informed him that they did not re...

M.V. Kuriachan Vs. Shyam Prasad and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009CriLJ279

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Is a person entitled for issue of a certified copy of the proceedings paper/order sheet maintained by a court which reveals the transactions in court on a given date of posting? Does Rule 225 of the Kerala Criminal Rules of Practice justify the refusal to issue a certified copy of such proceedings paper/order sheet? These questions are thrown up for consideration now.2. This application is for grant of leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. to prefer an appeal against a judgment of acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The acquittal is recorded under Section 256, Cr.P.C. To consider the question of grant of leave, the learned Counsel for the petitioner was directed to produce copy of the order sheet/proceedings paper maintained by the learned Magistrate from the date of the complaint to the date of the impugned order. The learned Counsel for the petitioner now laments that though an application was filed by the petitioner seeking copy of the ord...

Shine Varghese Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009CriLJ309

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Can a criminal court issue a warrant under Section 421 Cr.P.C. for recovery of the fine/compensation imposed without and before executing the default sentence imposed on an accused? This is the question that is raised before me.2. The petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The accused was found guilty, convicted and sentenced by the trial court. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. In revision another Bench of this Court upheld the verdict of guilty and conviction, but the sentence imposed was modified. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- within a period of five months from 23.10.2007 and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of three months. It was further directed that the entire fine amount shall be paid as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C.3. The accused has not been apprehended so far. He has not paid the fine amount also till now. Non-bailable warrants issued agai...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kerala Financial Corporation

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Ker)399

H.L. Dattu, C.J.1. The Revenue is before us, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in ITA No. 227/Coch/1999, dt. 20th June, 2003.2. The brief facts are - The assessee is Kerala Financial Corporation, established under the State Financial Corporation Act. It is engaged in the business of financing industries in the State. The assessment year is 1996-97.3. The assessee, in the returns filed, had claimed for deductions under Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act ('Act' for short), in respect of 'special reserve' created by the assessee. The claim so made by the assessee was disallowed by the assessing authority. In his order, the assessing authority has noticed that the assessee has created as a reserve of Rs. 4,50,05,629 during the previous year, relevant to the assessment year, and this reserve was transferred to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account before the close of the accounting year and, thus, the assessee has not satisfied the statutory requi...

Elizebath George and Etc. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009CriLJ481

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. These writ petitions are filed seeking for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for the production of detenus, viz. Sri. Jojo George, Mujeeb Rahiman and Sheen Mondy Jose alias Saju; to release them and; to quash Ext. P1 order of detention. Since these writ petitioners raise common issues, they are heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment.2. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. C. C. Thomas on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions, Sri K. K. Ravindranath on behalf of the respondents.3. The short facts leading to the disposal of the cases are the following:In W.P. (Cri) No. 265/2008, the detenu is one Jojo George, in W. P. (Crl) No. 266/ 2008, the detenu is one Mujeeb Rahiman and in W.P. (Crl.) No. 267/2008, the detenu is one Sheen Mondy Jose alias Sabu. The orders of detention are dated 25-6-2008, passed by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Palakkad. They have been issue...

Bpl Telecom Limited Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)23VST264(Ker)

ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. The order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, in T.A. No. 643 of 1999 dated November 2, 2001, is the subject-matter of this sales tax revision case filed under Section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and also a dealer registered both under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.3. The facts as narrated by the petitioner is as under:The petitioner has imported goods after entering into contract with ONGC, Karaikkal for setting up 'Radio Communication Systems' for awarder at their site at Karaikkal. The goods so imported was cleared by the petitioner through Customs House at Thiruvananthapuram. The goods imported was transported by the petitioner to the site of the buyer outside Kerala, that is, ONGC, Karaikkal under Pondicherry Administration. During the course of such transport,...

Alukkas Jewellery Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)26VST584(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in the connected sales tax revision cases, one filed by the assessee and the other filed by the State, is whether the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax has jurisdiction under Section 35(2A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, hereinafter called the 'KGST Act', to order reopening and revision of a best judgment assessment based on the subsequent information that pursuant to raid by Income-tax Department the assessee conceded unaccounted sales and business income based on which revised income-tax assessment was concluded by orders of the Settlement Commission. Revisions happened to be filed on the same issue by both sides because of the conflicting views taken by two Benches of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal which heard the cases pertaining to two assessment years. A Division Bench of this court, which heard the cases, felt that the order of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee for one year is based on the decision of this Court which ...

Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)23VST70(Ker)

H.L. Dattu, C.J.1. This sales tax appeal is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram in No. C3.12224/04/CT dated October 26, 2005.2. The appellant is a company. It is engaged in the manufacture and sale of titanium dioxide through 'sulphate process'. The main raw materials are ilmenite (mixed oxide of titanium) ferrous iron and ferric iron for the production of titanium dioxide pigment. Titanium dioxide TiO2 is used in the manufacture of paints, plastics, paper, printing and rubber products, etc.3. The manufacturing process of titanium dioxide pigments is as under : Titanium dioxide pigments are generally produced commercially according to the prior art processes by the so-called 'sulfate process' in which a titaniferrous material, such as a titaniferrous iron ore, ore concentrate or a titanium slag is heated at elevated temperatures, with concentrated sulphuric acid to form a porous cake, sometimes referred to in the art as 'digesti...

Jacob. G. Cheriyan Vs. K.N. Sudharman

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER By the order dated:4..1..2002 of the CDRF, Kottayam in OP:410/01, the opposite party is under directions to pay to the complainant Rs.20,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of receipt till the date of payment with cost of Rs.750/- and it is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is filed by the opposite party. 2. The grievances of the petitioner voiced in the complaint are that he is a teacher by profession and that his daughter Shagi got admitted to the institute of the opposite party for undergoing medical transcription course on the assurance that she would get stipend @ of Rs.750/- per month for 4 months. She would have to serve at least for 2 years as per the bond executed by the said Shagi. The complainants case is that he was introduced to the opposite party by one Mr.Dinesan and also obtained Rs.800/- from him towards the service charge. The complainant had paid Rs.20,000/- as per receipts dated:27..11..2000 an...