Kerala Court February 2009 Judgments

Ponnanthodiyil Sreedevi Amma and ors. Vs. District Collector and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ840

C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.1. The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext. P2, appellate order of the District Collector, issued under Section 9 of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act for short) and the consequential order of the Tahasildar, Ext. P3. According to the petitioners, the property which is subject matter of the impugned orders situates in Melathur Village and belonged to their deceased father Sri. N.A. Ravi Varman Unni Mooppil Eradi, and he was the Manager of the School situated in the said property. A society by name 'Melathur Vidyabhyasa Society' was formed and the school was put in possession and management of the society. The 3rd respondent is the present president of the above said society. It is the admitted case of both the petitioners and the 3rd respondent that there exist disputes with respect to ownership of the property and management of the school. It is further admitted that civil suits were pending with respect to partition of the pr...

Muhammad Rafi Vs. State of Kerala and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010CriLJ592; 2009(1)KLJ745

ORDERV. Giri, J.1. These Criminal Miscellaneous cases have come up on a reference made by a learned Judge of this Court under Section 3 of the High Court Act. Learned Judge felt that the principal issue which came up for consideration in both these cases requires an authoritative pronouncement by a Bench of this Court. The said issue can be encapsulated as 'whether the police can investigate an offence committed outside India by an Indian citizen and whether a jurisdictional Magistrate can order such investigation to be conducted by the police under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in respect of an offence which is alleged to have been committed by an Indian citizen outside India without obtaining prior sanction from the Central Government as contemplated by Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure'. There are two authoritative pronouncements by this Court, one by a Division Bench which specifically considered this issue namely Muhammed v. State of Kerala 1994 (1) KL...

K.i. Jacob and anr. Vs. R. Pradeep Naik

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ912

ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The tenant and the alleged subtenant against whom order of eviction has been passed on the ground of subletting by the Rent Control Appellate Authority are the revision petitioners. The allegation of the respondent landlord who sought eviction of the revision petitioners from the petition schedule building on the ground under Section 11(4)(i) was that the first revision petitioner tenant to whom the building had been let out for the purpose of doing photostat business had wound up that business and that the building has been sublet or transferred unauthorisedly to the second revision petitioner. It was alleged that the second revision petitioner is conducting job typing work in the premises and that in spite of issuance of the statutory intimation notice under the proviso to Section 11(4)(i) the sublease has not been terminated and the second revision petitioner continues to be in possession of the premises.2. The revision petitioners resisted the petition ...

N.G. George Vs. Shirly Varkey and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ899

S.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. The 2nd judgment-debtor in E.P. No. 615 of 2000 in O.S. No. 440 of 1998 in Sub Court, Ernakulam, is the appellant. His application for setting aside the sale of the property of the 1st judgment-debtor, a Private Limited Company, in which he was the erstwhile Managing Director and at present continuing as a shareholder as vitiated by fraud and material irregularity was negatived by the learned Sub Judge, and hence the appeal.2. The decree-holder brought to sale the property of the 1st judgment-debtor-Company to realise a sum of Rs. 2,30,00,000/-, the sum due under the decree with interest and costs. The liability outstanding against the company under two other decrees, O.S. No. 677/04 and O.S. No. 678/04 was also included in the proclamation and thus, the upset price was shown as Rs. 4,35,00,000/-. The 2nd judgment-debtor had contended that the centage value of the property was Rs. 25 lakhs and the Advocate Commissioner deputed by the court had fixed that val...

Krishnakumari Thampuran and ors. Vs. the Palace Administration Board

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2009Ker122; 2009(2)KLJ101

V. Giri, J.1. An issue arising from a claim for partition intractably pursued by a member of the erstwhile Cochin Royal Family in the first instance and thereafter by her two sons born out of her relationship with a person professing a different religion, has given rise to this litigation. No doubt, the issues have become more perplexing due to the peculiar nature of the property involved, firstly by the fact that the personal law applicable to the members of the erstwhile Cochin Royal Family was the Marumakkathayam Rules of inheritance; secondly on account of the successive statutory interventions applicable to the system of Joint Hindu Family in the State as a whole, and sometimes applicable to the erstwhile Cochin Royal Family. We will recapitulate the bare essential facts necessary to understand the issues arising for consideration.2. The first appellant (now deceased), was a member of the erstwhile Cochin Royal Family. She married a Namboodiri and a male child was born in the wedl...

S. Balachandran Vs. N. Krishnamoorthy

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2009Ker118

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The petitioner is a senior member of the Thiruvananthapuram Bar and he challenges in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Ext.P2 order passed by the II Addl. District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, the Rent Control Appellate Authority reiterating the view of the ftfinisterial side of his Court that the Vakkalath filed by the petitioner in for one Smt. B. Rajamma who was the respondent in the RCA No. 47 of 1998 of that court was defective. Ext.P1 is the photostat copy of the Vakkalath which was actually filed by the petitioner in RCA. No. 47 of 1998. Ext.P1 shows that Smt. Rajamma, the respondent in the RCA had executed the Vakkalath in favour of the petitioner Advocate. Ext.P1 will also show that the Vakkalath has been accepted by the petitioner Advocate. The defect noted by the registry of the court is that the Vakkalath is not attested by any authorised person and that the attestation is done by the accepting Advocate himself.2. Drawin...

S.P.L. Limited Vs. Commercial Tax Inspector, Kasaragod and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)25VST220(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The appellants are traders in Kerala engaged in sale of marble, granite, ceramic tiles, glass sheets, etc. These items are mainly brought from other States or are imported from abroad. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 47(16A) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter called, 'the Act'), the Commissioner issued circular No. 50 of 2006 declaring 12 items as tax-evasion prone goods and authorising recovery of sales tax in advance on the said commodities on arrival of the same in the State. In other words, the notification authorises recovery of tax at the Boarder Check-post or at the port area through which goods are brought to the business places of the dealers for sale. By a later circular No. 53 of 2006, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes directed collection of advance tax on purchase value of the notified goods increased by freight and five per cent towards gross profit. Appellants challenged constitutional validity of Section 47(...

State of Kerala Vs. Maaks Cream Holdings (P) Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)26VST443(Ker)

ORDERC.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The tax revision cases filed by the State pertain to provisional monthly sales tax assessments of the respondent from April to December, 2003. Under an agreement executed between respondent-assessee and Joy Ice Creams, Bangalore Pvt. Ltd., the latter authorised the respondent to manufacture and sell ice creams under the brand name 'Joy Ice Creams' in Kerala. Pursuant to the said agreement, the assessee arranged for manufacture of ice creams under the brand name 'Joy Ice Creams' by Mascon Frozen Food (P) Ltd. which is an SSI Unit entitled to sales tax exemption on manufactured products. Under this arrangement, the respondent purchased and marketed the entire products. Even though exemption originally claimed by the respondent as second sales was allowed, the assessing officer later noticed that the ice creams sold by the respondent are under the brand name 'Joy Ice Cream' and so much so, the respondent is a deemed first seller of the product liable to t...

The Divisional Engineer, Bsnl and Another Vs. Varghese Joseph

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER The opposite parties in OP.NO.155/03 of CDRF, Alappuzha are the appellants herein who are aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated.6.7.04, whereby the Forum below has directed them to replace the WLL telephone provided to the complainant by a b-Fone within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The complainant has approached the Forum for a direction to the opposite parties to give connection through cable from Puthanchantha exchange which was newly started near the complainants house. 2. It is the case of the complainant that WLL telephone provided to him by the opposite party, which is working in electricity is out of order in most of the time. It is his further case that the opposite party had assured him that after a new telephone exchange to be started to function at Puthanchantha within 200m away from his house, the phone would be replaced with a cable phone and in spite of his request that was not done and he...

The Divisional Engineer, Bsnl and Another Vs. P.K. Sasi and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER: The opposite parties in OP.NO.153/03 of CDRF, Alappuzha are the appellants herein who are aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated.6.7.04, whereby the Forum below has directed them to replace the WLL telephone provided to the complainant by a b-Fone within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The complainant has approached the Forum for a direction to the opposite party to give connection through cable from Puthanchantha exchange which was newly started near the complainants house. 2. It is the case of the complainant that WLL telephone provided to him by the opposite party on 01.02.03 which is working in electricity is out of order in most of the time. It is his further case that the opposite party had assured him that after a new telephone exchange to be started to function at Puthanchantha within 1km from his house, the phone would be replaced with a cable telephone and in spite of his request that was not don...