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.
M.N. Babu Vs. the Secretary
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ451
ORDERHarun-Ul-Rashid, J.1. Petitioner/award holder in E.P. No. 104/2005 on the file of the IInd Additional District Judge, Ernakulam is the revision petitioner herein.2. The award holder filed a suit, O.S. No. 156/95 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The suit was decreed on 21/7/1999. By the said decree the Sub Court appointed Sri Babu Thomas. K. as sole Arbitrator to pass an award by arbitrating the disputes between the parties and to file the same in court within six months from the date of the decree.3. The decree holder thereafter filed I.A. No. 6051/99 for communicating the order and forwarding the records produced by him to the Arbitrator. The said IA was allowed on 12/12/2001. The court below ordered that the Arbitrator shall complete the arbitration and shall file the award before the Sub Court within six months from the date of receipt of the communication ordered in I.A. No. 6051/99. The Arbitrator conducted an enquiry and an award...
Ramesh S/O. Marickar Vs. M.M. Badrudheen, M.S.M. Bakery and State of K ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ556
S.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. Complainant is the appellant. His complaint filed against the respondents under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, for short, the 'N.I. Act', after trial, ended in a judgment of acquittal rendered in favour of the accused. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, questioning its legality, propriety and correctness, he has come up with this appeal.2. The case of the complainant is that towards discharge of a loan availed, the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque for a sum of Rs. 48,000/- promising its encashment on presentation in due course. The cheque presented, was however, dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. Statutory notice issued intimating dishonour and demanding the sum covered by the cheque was not responded with any reply or payment. Hence, the complaint was launched to prosecute the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.3. The accused, on appearance, pleaded not guilty when the particulars of ...
P. Sudhakaran Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2009
Reported in: [2009]184TAXMAN440(Ker)
C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6 order issued by the 2nd respondent, rejecting a petition filed under Section 220(2A) of the Income-tax Act, seeking waiver of interest due on delayed payment of tax, with respect to the assessment year 1988-89. The petitioner filed return for the said year declaring a total income of Rs. 59,410. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on a total income of Rs. 5,51,190, and the petitioner conceded additional income of Rs. 4,91,769, to make up discrepancies in the credit balance in the books of account. The assessment resulted in a demand of Rs. 3,50,106, which was subsequently increased to Rs. 3,61,891. The interest charged under Sections 139(8) and 217 were waived to the extent of 50 per cent by the first respondent, thereby reducing the demand to Rs. 3,11,502. The petitioner paid the amount in various instalments. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer, vide proceedings dated 25-10-2000 levied interest u...
Shajahan T.K. and anr. Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ402
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The prayer of the petitioners is to set aside Ext.P6 whereby the immovable property purchased by them has been attached in the course of realization of Sales Tax arrears to the tune of Rs. 2,16,232/-stated as due from the 5th respondent in respect of the year 1996 - '97, whereas the property was purchased by the petitioners from the surety to the 5th respondent much earlier on 21.7.1995 as evident from Ext.Pl sale deed.2. The father of the second petitioner, by name T.M. Pareed Khan, was a surety to the 5th respondent, in connection with the registration given to the 5th respondent under the KGST Act/Rules. Mr. T.M. Pareed Khan owned about 1.3 acres of land, which was purchased by the first petitioner for valuable consideration as per Ext.Pl sale deed. Subsequently, the first petitioner transferred 77 cents of land to the second petitioner, who in turn has effected subsequent transfers to various other persons as well. The coercive steps, admittedly pursued...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›