Kerala Court January 2009 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.
N.S. Kumar, Proprietor Vs. Smt. Bincy and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Ker89
J.B. Koshy, Actg. C.J.1. Against the appellant-writ petitioner, a complaint was filed before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Kollam by the first respondent alleging manufacturing defect in the paper bag manufacturing machine supplied by the appellant. According to the first respondent, after spending an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs the above machine was installed and it was found that there was manufacturing defect. When the case was posted for filing version of the appellant, appellant got an adjournment and on the next posting date, as he was absent, an ex parte decision on merits was taken by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directing him to pay Rs. 7,35,000/- with 9% interest from the date of the order. In addition to that, Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost, were also ordered by Ext. P2 order. Though the appellant filed a petition under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the ex parte order, it was rejected by the forum. The above ...
Kerala Rural Employment and Welfare Society Vs. Assistant Director of ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-2009
Reported in: [2009]312ITR51(Ker); [2009]184TAXMAN93(Ker)
K.M. Joesph, J.1. The petitioner is a welfare society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The membership of the society consists of panchayats in the State of Kerala and the society itself is a Government of Kerala undertaking. It is registered under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is entitled to exemption from income-tax under Sections 11 and 13 of the Income-tax Act. The last date for filing the return for the assessment year 2000-01 was October 31, 2000. It is the case of the petitioner that on account of the delay on the part of the chartered accountant to finalise the accounts and file the return, the return was filed only on January 22, 2001. The petitioner also submitted Form No, 10 for accumulation along with the return. Rule 17 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, reads as follows:17. Notice for accumulation of income by charitable or religious trust or institutio...
State of Kerala Vs. K.M. Abdul Gafoor
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-2009
Reported in: (2010)28VST187(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The revision is filed by the State against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal cancelling penalty levied on the respondent under Section 29A(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act for attempted evasion of tax in respect of a consignment of high speed diesel (12,000 litres). A penalty is levied based on detection of goods at Thalassery without proper documents. Even though the assessee later produced documents before the authorities, the same was rejected and penalty was levied. In fact, penalty originally levied was sustained in first appeal and also in second appeal before the Tribunal. However, when the matter was taken up in revision before this Court, this Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal. After remand, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty accepting the respondent's explanation. We have heard the Government Pleader for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the respondent.2. The Government ...
State of Kerala Represented by Its, Vs. M. Vijaya Kumar, Managing Part ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)KLT473
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. Proper manner of measurement of the prohibited distance between the classified institutions and concerned establishment in respect of FL 3 Licence is the core issue involved in both these appeals.2. The writ petitioner is the Managing Partner of the firm engaged in running a hotel under the name and style 'Hotel Ruby Arena', stated as having all the requirements to be classified under Four Star category, but classified as Three Star category - for want of necessary bar licence. Though the appellant applied for FL 3 licence on 22.09.2006, it was rejected by the Excise Commissioner as per Ext. P3 order dated 19.02.2007 on the ground that the men's hostel of the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram is located within the prohibited distance, which, hence, was subjected to challenge in the Writ Petition.3. Various contentions were raised by the writ petitioner pointing out that the hostel is not liable to be treated as an 'educational institution' as contemplated...
Sivadasa Panicker N. Vs. Travancore Mats and Mattings Co. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ366
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. A tenant who has suffered an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act concurrently at the hands of the rent control court and the appellate authority has come up in revision. The building in question is only one room in a larger building having as many as 9 rooms. All the 9 tenants were arrayed as respondents in the rent control petition and the landlord's case as averred in the RCP was, that the building in question is in such a condition as warranting reconstruction, that the landlord's bonafide needs to reconstruct the building; that they have the ability to reconstruct and that they have the requisite plan and licence from the Cherthala Municipality. The claim was resisted by the respondents who contended inter alia that the condition of the building is not such that as requiring reconstruction, that the proposal is not profitable, that the landlord does not have the requisite plan and licence and that it ...
Satheesh A. Vs. the Joint Regional Transport Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-15-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ361
V. Giri, J.1. The appellant /petitioner, is the registered owner of Mahindra Van Contract carriage. Tax for the quarter ending 31-3-2004 was remitted on 23-1-2004. The petitioner then went abroad entrusting the vehicle to this driver. As evidenced by Ext. P3, the check report, the vehicle was checked on 25-2-2004 and taken into custody by the respondent. One of the reasons stated therein is non-production of proof of payment of tax. It is admitted that the vehicle has been remaining in the custody of the respondents from 25-2-2004. There is no serious dispute also that the tax for the quarter ending 31-3-2004 was actually paid on 23-1-2004. Certain other alleged irregularities were noted in Ext. P3, for taking custody of the vehicle.2. On return to India, the petitioner moved an application for release of the vehicle. It was pointed out therein that the driver did not take any steps in getting the vehicle released, that it could be seen from the registration certificate as well as the ...
Jose Poothrikkayil (Fr.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-15-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ381
FURTHER DIRECTION/CLARIFICATIONR. Basant, J.1. The contraversry is about an unfortunate inadvertent statement which had crept into para. 38 of the order passed by this Court on 28.11.08, which has been reported in Fr. Jose Poothrikkayail v. Union of India 2008 (4) KLT 822. It was a dictation at the Bench. The relevant portion is extracted below:37. There is a contention that the mandate of the decision in Dr. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610 has been violated. Even though there is a contention that no arrest memo has been prepared and copies have not been given to the relatives, I find no factual basis for this allegation. The case diary reveals that those formalities have been complied with. But Sri. C.P. Udayabhanu raises a contention that proposition No. 10 of the decision in D.K. Bsu, which is extracted below has not been complied with. It reads:10. The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.The coun...
Muthoot Pappachan Consultancy and Management Services Vs. Employees Pr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-2009
Reported in: [2009(121)FLR165]; 2009(1)KLJ370; (2009)IIILLJ405Ker
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Petitioner is the appellant. Appellant is aggrieved by Ext. P13 order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The said order is passed in exercise of the powers under Section 7-O of the Act. That order happened to be passed at the time of admission of Ext. P8 appeal filed against Ext. P7 order passed by the first respondent. Section 7-O reads as follows:7-O. Deposit of amount due, on filing appeal.-No appeal by the employer shall be entertained by a Tribunal unless he has deposited with it seventy-five per cent of the amount due from him as determined by an officer referred to in Section 7A:Provided that the Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under this section.In Ext. P13 order we find that instead of the normal pre deposit of 75% the petitioner has been permitted to remit 25% of the amount assessed. But we do not find any reasons record...
Suresh Babu Vs. C.K. Mini and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ486
C.T. Ravikumar, J.1. The appellant herein was the petitioner in O.P. No. 364 of 1999 filed under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b)) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Kozhikode. The facts, shorn off unnecessary details, are as follows:2. The marriage between the appellant and the first respondent was solemnised on 3-9-1997. According to the appellant, no children was born in the wedlock and the first respondent-wife left the matrimonial home and started living separately since 22-12-1997. He sought for a decree of divorce on the ground that the first respondent was living in adultery and that she had voluntary sexual intercourse with the second respondent. The second respondent remained ex parte in the proceedings. The appellant is a tailor by profession and the first respondent is a Nursing Assistant. The appellant also alleged desertion and cruelty on the part of the first respondent as grounds for seeking divorce. According to the appellant, the first respondent bec...
V. Vasu and ors. Vs. Muralidharan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Ker128
P.R. Raman, J.1. The maternal grandparents and the maternal uncle of a minor female child aged 10 years are the appellants who impugn the order passed by the Family Court, Palakkad in O. P. No. 1302 of 2006 on the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary point, as requested for, holding that the said Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The matter arises in the following background.2. The father of the child who is an ordinary resident of Palakkad District preferred O. P. No. 1302 of 2006 before the Family Court, Palakkad under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act for getting custody of the minor child born in the wedlock between him and one Geeta. The marriage of Geeta with the first respondent was solemnised at Vishweshwara Temple, Palakkad on l4-11-1996. They lived together in the matrimonial home and on 10-9-1997, Geeta gave birth to a female child. Since, at that time of parents of Geeta were at Pune, having settled ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »