Kerala Court June 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.
Nisha Salim Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-08-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ561
A.K. Basheer, J.1. This writ petition is a sequel to an earlier petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking release of her husband from preventive detention.2. The order of detention (Ext.Pl) issued under Section 3(2) of the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 was challenged by the petitioner in the earlier proceeding contending inter alia that the detaining authority had issued the order without any application of mind at all since, according to the petitioner, her husband would not have fallen within the ambit of the definition of 'known rowdy' as defined under Section 2(p) of the Act. But, the above and the other contentions were repelled and the writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated January 21, 2009, a copy of which is on record as Ext,P4.3. The present writ petition is filed primarily impugning Ext.P5 order issued by the Government under Section 10(4) of the Act confirming the order of detention after receipt of ...
Pramod Issac Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-08-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ524
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. Pramod Issac, who is accused No. 10 in Crime No. 28 of 2009 of CBCID, Thiruvananthapuram, who is also accused No. 5 in Crime No. 201 of 2008 and accused No. 4 in Crime No. 169 of 2008, seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused No. 1 in these cases is one Sabarinath, who is the Managing Director of the financial institutions, namely, 'Nest Investment Solutions', 'INEST, 'Total 4 U' etc. It is alleged that the accused persons induced more than one thousand of depositors by fraudulent representations offering very high rate of interest and other monetary benefits, which prompted the depositors to deposit huge amounts of money in the aforesaid financial institutions. It is also alleged that after amassing wealth by misappropriating money of the depositors, the accused persons closed down the institutions and absconded. Several depositors approached the police. Initially, the case was registered at the Medical College Police Station in ...
Abu Kunhimuhammad V.V. Vs. Returning Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-08-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ569
Thotathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Ext.P1 notice was issued convening a meeting of the fourth respondent panchayat, at 11 a.m. on 19.5.2009, to hold the election to the casual vacancies of President and Vice-President. The petitioner and the second respondent were the candidates to the post of President. All the twenty-one existing members of the panchayat attended the meeting. The Returning officer issued ballot papers to all of them. Though the ballot papers were received by all the members, the Returning Officer received only 20 ballot papers after voting. These are the undisputed facts.2. Petitioner contends that the third respondent refused to return the ballot paper and when that was detected, on advice from his superior authorities, the Returning officer decided to give one more ballot paper to the third respondent and she, for reasons best known to her, refused to accept such ballot paper and boycotted the meeting. He alleges that some of the members wanted the Returning Officer ...
The Commissioner of Customs Vs. Navpad Enterprises
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(169)LC213(Kerala); 2009(2)KLJ642
P.R. Raman, J.1. Customs Appeal Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9/2008 arise out of the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appllate Tribunal, dated 12.3.2008. Customs Appeal Nos. 13, 15 and 16 of 2009 arise out of another set of cases disposed of by a common order of the Tribunal, dated 24.7.2008.2. The point involved is the same. Though some of the appeals are presented beyond the prescribed period of time, the appeals were presented along with a petition for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was contended that in the absence of any express provision making the Limitation Act applicable to the appeal so presented, the appeal presented beyond the time cannot be entertained and that Section 50 has no application and placed reliance on the decision of the Apex court in Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Hongo India (P) Ltd. : 2009 (236) ELT 417. We have perused the judgment cited. The Apex Court. After considering the provisions contained under Secti...
Krishna Kumar M. Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ459
Kurian Joseph, J.1. 'Sports for all' is the concept with which the Kerala Sports Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was enacted. Though Kerala has been in the forefront in sports and games, it appears only in the year 2000, a comprehensive legislation was enacted for the purpose of sports and games, for augmenting the athletic efficiency in the Stale, and also for the purpose of constitution of Sports Councils at the State, District and local levels. The 'sportsman spirit' even thereafter appears to have been exhibited more in the field of legislation and litigation. Though the Act was brought into force in the year 2001, the State Sports Council has not so far been constituted. One reason, the learned Standing Counsel for the Council points out is that the election to the District Sports Councils have not been completed, and the litigation before us pertains to the constitution of one such District Sports Council- Calicut.2. When steps were taken to constitute the Distri...
Fr. Antony Jino George Chakkalakkal and anr. Vs. Malabar Ayurvedic
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ26
V. Ramkumar, J.1. Eventhough this Court admitted this appeal and had issued notice to the respondent, so far service of notice to the respondent is not complete. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that this appeal which is not maintainable should any more be kept pending before this Court Hence the order issuing notice to the respondent is recalled.2. The respondent herein instituted a suit before the Vacation Judge (District Judge), Thalassery during the mid summer holidays. That suit was to be instituted before the Munsiffs Court, Payyannur which at the relevant time was on vacation. As per the impugned order dated 28-04-2009 in I.A. No. 498 of 2009, the learned Vacation Judge passed an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the appellants herein from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and committing any act of waste therein. The plaint schedule property is having an extent of 6 acres. It is the said order which is assailed by the ...
Arun Sunny Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-2009
Reported in: [2009]184TAXMAN498(Ker)
P.R. Raman, J.1. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to what is the date on which the cost of acquisition/fair market value of the appellant's property has been computed. Is it the date of the notification, namely 6-1-1994, on which date the asset was notified as the capital asset or is it to be computed as on 1-4-1981 in terms of Section 55(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act.2. The property held by the assessee became a capital asset as per the notification issued on 6-1-1994. But as per Section 55(2)(b), the cost of any improvement in relation to a capital asset means all expenditure of a capital nature incurred in making any additions or alterations to the capital asset on or after 1-4-1981 by the previous owner or the assessee. Admittedly, the asset which was declared as capital asset by notification became the asset of the assessee long prior to 1-4-1981. Thus the Legislature while explaining the term of cost of acquisition has in express terms provided that it i...
Parayil Granular Industries Vs. Kumaranalloor Grama Panchayath and ors ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ481
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner, which obtained Ext.P2 decision from the District Board constituted under the provisions of the Kerala Industrial Single Window clearance Boards and Industrial Township Area Development Act, 1999 (Act 5/2000), hereinafter, for short, the 'Act', complains that the first respondent Grama Panchayat is not issuing licence acting on that decision.2. The Grama Panchayat has filed counter affidavit essentially taking the stand that the panchayat has not granted the licence on account of objections by 300 and odd persons in the locality.3. It is not in dispute that the District Board has granted the order in favour of the petitioner. By virtue of Section 10 of the Act, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the authority concerned shall, on receipt of the recommendation of the state Board, District Board or Industrial Area Board, issue the clearances, licences or certificates applied for in accordance wi...
Shijo Antony and ors. Vs. Sebastian Joseph and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ446
S.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. The Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:1. Call for the records leading to Exhibit P7 order set aside the same and allow Exhibits P4; P5 and P6 applications as prayed for: and2. Issue such other writs, orders or directions that this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. Petitioners, three in number are defendants in three suits, all pending before the Sub Court, Hosdurg. Second and third petitioners are the parents of the first petitioner. Respondents, three in number, are the plaintiffs in the respective three suits.3. The three suits are numbered as O.S. Nos. 12/07; 43/07 and 52/08. In O.S. No. 12/07 filed by the first respondent as plaintiff, for recovery of money, the first petitioner is the sole defendant. In O.S. No. 43/07 filed by the second respondent, for refund of the advance money allegedly paid on an agreement for sale, the petitioners...
Bhaskaran Nair C. Vs. B. Mohan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ473
S.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. Complainant is the appellant. His complaint against the 1st respondent, hereinafter referred to as the 'accused', for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for short, the 'N.I. Act', after trial, ended in acquittal of the accused. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, questioning its legality, propriety and correctness, he has preferred this appeal.2. The case of the complainant is that the accused issued Ext PI cheque for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- towards discharge of a loan for the above sum, availed one month earlier, promising its encashment on presentation before the bank in due course. The cheque presented, was however, dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. Statutory notice issued intimating the dishonour of the cheque and demanding the sum covered by the instrument was responded with Ext.P6 reply notice, raising untenable contentions. The complainant thereupon launched prosecutio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »