Kerala Court January 2009 Judgments

Mohammed Kunji Vs. V.P. Andru

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009CriLJ1938

ORDERThomas P. Joseph, J.1. Following questions are raised for a decision in this revision:(i) Whether a person could be tried over gain for the offence of cheating (Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') on the basis of a second dishonoured cheque when he has already been tried and convicted of the same offence on the basis of another cheque issued in the same transaction?(ii) Whether he could be tried subsequently for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the Act')?2. According to the petitioner, he purchased a bus and later as per an agreement executed by him and the respondent and also his wife on 17.8.1993, sold that vehicle to the wife of respondent for a total consideration of Rs. 3,41,000/-. Rs. 5,000/- was paid to the petitioner at the time of agreement. The loan of Rs. 1,65,000/- was agreed to be discharged by the purchaser. For payment of balance sum of Rs. 1,71,000/- respondent issued three cheques dated 2.9.1993 f...

Gangadharan C. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ600

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The sole issue raised in this writ petition is regarding the entitlement of the petitioner to get his pay and allowances for the period of suspension after treating the period as duty for all purposes. By the impugned order, Ext. P8, the same has been limited to subsistence allowance already drawn by him. The petitioner's claim is based on the fact that even though a criminal investigation was launched against him consequent on which, he was suspended, that was dropped as there was no material against him. After reinstatement in service, a departmental enquiry was ordered in which also he was fully exonerated. The question is whether the same has to be considered under Rule 56B of Part I K.S.R. or under Rule 57 of the same Part.2. The necessary facts for disposal of the writ petition are the following: The petitioner has retired on superannuation as Deputy Tahsildar on 30-6-2006. The action culminating in his suspension arose when he was working as a Villag...

M.V. Nalinakshan Vs. M. Rameshan and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009CriLJ1703

ORDERThomas P. Joseph, J.1. On a complaint preferred by the petitioner, learned Magistrate found that cheque for Rupees One lakh issued by the first respondent for discharge of legally en-forceable debt/liability was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, in spite of petitioner intimating dishonour and demanding payment of the amount first respondent did not pay the amount and thereby first respondent committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the Act'). He was convicted of the said offence but instead of sentencing him as provided in the Act, he was released under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act (for short, 'the PC Act') on executing bond for Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties for the like sum each to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of one year and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. That part of the judgment is under challenge in this revision at the instance of the comp...

Philomina Joseph Vs. State of Kerala and the Executive Engineer

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2009Ker109; 2009(1)KLJ491

J.B. Koshy, Ag. C.J.1. A learned Judge of this Court referred the following question of law to be decided by a Division Bench:In a case where suit is dismissed as not pressed and there is no investigation, is the party entitled for refund of one-half of the court fee?.In Peirce Leslie India Ltd. v. Kunheerium 1978 KLT 711, it was held by a learned Single Judge that when the case is settled out of court and if the relief is not pressed, refund of court fee is not possible, as it is not an admission as contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure and Evidence Act. In Aravindaksha Prabhu v. Shamsuddin : 2003(1)KLT644 , a contrary view was taken by the learned Judge, who later referred the matter for authoritative pronouncement, as the decision in Peirce Leslie India Ltd.'s case was not cited before His Lordship earlier. The decision in Aravindaksha Prabhu's case was dissented by another learned Judge in Ramachandran Pillai v. Kerala Water Authority : 2006(1)KLT784 . Since different opin...

Hubert Peyoli Vs. Santhavilasathu Kesavan Sivadasan

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2009Ker160

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. Sustainability of the judgment and decree passed by the Addl. Sub Court, Kollam in O.S. No. 286 of 1983, dismissing the suit as barred by limitation and also after arriving at a finding that Ext. A2 for establishing creation of a mortgage by deposit of title deeds cannot be looked into for want of registration, was subjected to challenge in A.S. No. 77 of 1989 before this Court. The finding of the trial court was confirmed by the learned single Judge. The above judgment and decree dated 22.05.1998 in A.S. No. 77 of 1989 has been subjected to further challenge in this appeal.2. With regard to the factual matrix, it is to be noted that the suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff for realisation of the amount due from the respondents/defendants contending that the amount was given to the respondents/defendants on the strength of a pronote executed on 17.11.1971 and on further deposit of title deeds with intend to create an equitable mortgage as a measure of ...

Tropical Plantations Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)26VST403(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question arising in all the connected tax revision cases filed by the petitioner, which is a rubber plantation company, is whether it is entitled to exemption from sales tax on the sale of old and unyielding rubber trees. The issue was earlier decided by this Court against the petitioner and when matter was taken up in appeal before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of this Court/vacated the orders of the Tribunal and remanded the case back to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for decision by them. In the proceedings pursuant to the remand by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal reaffirmed their earlier decision on all the questions referred to it by the. Supreme Court against which these revisions are filed. Since facts are identical in all the cases, the petitioner has argued the case with reference to the common order of the Tribunal and orders of the lower authorities produced in ST Rev. No. 17 of 2008, which pertains to sales ta...

Praseena K.P., Prasi Ayurvedic, Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission,

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ505

Kurian Joseph, J.1. An interesting question has come up for consideration in this appeal regarding the operation of Rule 15(a) of Part II KS & SSR. After the amendment introduced in the year 2006, in case a candidate belonging to a particular community or group of communities is not available, such vacancy has to be kept unfilled and notified separately for selection by direct recruitment exclusively from that community. The question is whether by the time such selection is conducted exclusively for the community, in case candidates belonging to that particular community are available in the ranked list for a subsequent selection year, whether there need be a selection exclusively for that community.2. The appellants are the petitioners in the writ petition. The appellants were included in the supplementary list for selection to the post of HSST-Senior and HSST-Junior, in Sociology. Ext.P3 is the list published on 6-11-2004 for HSST- Senior and Ext.P4 is the list published on 15-10-200...

The Sub Registrar and State of Kerala Vs. C.M. Nadirsha and the Recove ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2009Ker130

J.B. Koshy, Acting C.J.1. Petitioner is an auction purchaser of an extent of 6.852 cents in Sy. No. 84/3 in Elamkulam Village in Kanayannoor Taluk along with a building therein. Sale certificate was issued by Ext.P1. A copy of the sale certificate was forwarded to the first respondent Sub Registrar by the second respondent Recovery Officer to file the same in Book No. 1 as per Section 89(4) of the Indian Registration Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. But the same was sent back by the first respondent to the second respondent stating that as per Clause 16 of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act the sale certificate is to be prepared in stamp paper worth Rs. 1,17,300/-. Challenging that view the writ petition was filed.2. The learned Single Judge relying on the decision of the apex Court in Shanti Devi L. Singh v. Tax Recovery Officer and Ors. : [1990]183ITR481(SC) held that sale certificate is not a compulsorily registrable document and filing of a copy of the sale certificate ...

Koldy Petroleum (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2010)27VST284(Ker)

K.M. Joseph, J.1. The petitioner challenges exhibits P5 and P10 and seeks a direction to pass fresh orders on exhibits PI after considering all the grounds raised in exhibits PI appeal. Further ancillary prayers are also raised.2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:Petitioner is a small-scale industry which applied for exemption from payment of sales tax under the provisions of SRO No. 1729/1993. The fifth respondent, namely, the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Palakkad, rejected the application. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent, State Level Committee for exemption of sales tax. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent again rejected the application. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred exhibit PI appeal which has been rejected by exhibit P10 by the second respondent.3. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, for the purpose of establishing...

The Secretary, Kseb Trivandrum and Others Vs. C.S. Abdul Karim

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by CDRF, Kottayam in the file of OP 240/03 dated 6/2/04. The opposite party is the appellant. The brief of the case is that the complainant is running a Mill in the name and style M/s.Kottayam Rubber Mills which he had purchased from a person named Joseph in the year 1984. The name of the Mill at the time was BOSCO Rubber Mills. He is a consumer of the opposite party having Consumer No.977. According to the complainant he is not a defaulter of energy charges and paying the bills. But an additional bill was issued to him by the 2nd opposite party on 25/8/03 for an amount of Rs.34,455/- with demand to remit the amount on or before 2/9/2003. As per the bill the said amount was towards the charge for light meter from 6/01 to 11/02. the petitioner stated that the meter was sealed and was under the control of the opposite parties and in such and every month the employees of the opposite parties was visiting the premise...