Kerala Court July 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.
Abdul Majeed Kalathil Vs. the District Collector,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ54
Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The common point that arises for decision in this batch of writ petitions is the constitutional validity of Section 17 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 and so, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.W.P.(C) No. 9925 of 2009: 2. This writ petition is treated as the main case, for the purpose of referring to the exhibits. The point that arises for decision in this case is the validity of the steps taken by the District Magistrate, Malappuram for confiscation of the goods carriage, bearing Registration No. KL 11-B/6651, owned by the petitioner. The constitutional validity of Section 17 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') is also raised for decision.3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are the following:He is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. KL 11-B/6651. The said vehicle was seized by the second respondent, S...
Ravindran Pillai N. Vs. Gopakumar Rajan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ934
ORDERS.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. The revision is directed against the judgment dated 12.6.2009 in Election Appeal No. 400/2008 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Ernakulam, confirming the order dated 6-12-2008 in O.P. 6/2005 passed by the learned Principal Munsiff, Emakulam setting aside the election of the petitioner, the returned candidate in ward No. 38 of Kalamassery Municipality, and declaring the first respondent as the candidate duly elected from that ward.2. The above election petition Q.P. No. 6/2005 was filed by the first respondent, defeated candidate in the election held for ward No-.38 of Kalamassery Municipality in the general election to the Municipalities held on 24.9.2005. The second respondent was another candidate who contested the election from that ward. Whereas the petitioner, the returned candidate got 494 votes, first respondent got 492 votes and, second respondent, 57 votes. Having secured majority of two votes more than that of the first re...
Nisamudheen Vs. the Joint Regional Transport Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ105
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The 2nd respondent the Recovery Officer of the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, attached a DCM Toyota Mini Lorry, 1990 model, belonging to a company which defaulted payment of contributions under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and Rules and Regulations thereunder for recovery of arrears of contributions. The same was sold in public auction. The petitioner participated in the auction and purchased the vehicle paying the amount quoted by him. The 2nd respondent issued necessary certificates in this regard and handed over the vehicle to the petitioner along with all documents. The petitioner submitted an application for transfer of ownership of this vehicle under Rule 57 of the Central Motor Vehicles rules before the 1st respondent. He produced Exts. P2, P3 arid P5 certificates received from the Provident Fund Organisation in accordance with the said rule, But by Ext. P6, the 1st respondent directed the petitioner to pay arrears ...
E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Leela and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ898
V. Ramkumar, J.1. The interesting question for judicial resolution in this case is as to whether the suicide of an employee owing to depressive neurosis consequent on an employment injury sustained by him would furnish a cause of action for his dependents to make a claim for dependents' benefits under Section 52 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act' for Short).2. In this appeal filed under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, the Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to 'the Corporation' for short), which was the first opposite party before the Employees' Insurance Court, Palakkad (hereinafter referred to 'the E.I. Court' for short), challenges the order dated 17-5-2005 of the E. I. Court in I.C. 84 of 2003.3. The following are the questions of law formulated in the memoradum of Appeal filed by the Corporation:i) Whether the El Court is justified in ordering death benefits to the legal heirs of the dec...
Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Vs. Federal Ba ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-2009
Reported in: [2010]24STT416
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The common question raised in the connected appeals filed by the department against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) is whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the collection of telephone bills by the respondent bank for Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), Airtel and other companies is not business auxiliary service attracting liability for service tax falling under Section 65(79) of the Finance Act 1994? The Finance Act, 1994 was amended Section 90 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 introducing Clauses (12) and (19) in Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. While Clause (12) of Section 65 defines banking and other financial services which specifically excludes service pertaining to cash management, Clause (19) defines business auxiliary services which includes in it any customer care service provided on behalf of the client including service incidental or auxiliary to any activity specified in Sub-clauses (i)...
Najuma Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ832; 2009(3)KLJ41
R. Basant, J.1. What is the ambit of the expression 'three separate instances not forming part of the same transaction' in Section 2(p)(iii) of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KAAPA')? This is the only question which has to be considered in this Writ Petition.2. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, who is sister of the detenu, by name Mujeeb - who is detained under an order passed under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA by the 2nd respondent, Ext.P1 order is dated 12.05.09. The detenu was arrested on 02.06.09, His detention has been approved by the Government under Section 3(3) of the KAAPA by order dt. 11.06.09. The decision of the Advisory Board is not rendered yet. No order of confirmation under Section 10(4) of the KAAPA is passed.3. The 2nd respondent, the District Magistrate, has passed the order of detention under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA on the basis of a report submitted to him by the 3rd respondent, the District Sup...
Vineeth Somarajan Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ944
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. Accused No. 10 in Crime No. 562 of 2006 of Kayamkulam Police Station has filed this Bail Application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the other accused persons are under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 7(b) and 27(2) of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the charge was laid in the case on 9.12.2008. It would appear that non-bailable warrant was issued by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kayamkulam against the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the appropriate remedy of the petitioner would be to move the court which issued the non-bailable warrant.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on ttie decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Chaudhary v. State of Bihar : (2003) 8 SCC 77 : ...
T. Bhuvanendran Vs. Lic Housing Finance Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Ker15
ORDERP.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts. P2 and P5 notices issued by the Secured Creditor invoking the relevant provisions under the SARFAESI Act, The case of the petitioner is that, he has already approached the Civil Court by filing O.S. 219 of 2005, for settlement of accounts and unless and until the same is finalized, no proceedings under the SARFAESI Act will lie.2. Yet another contention raised by the petitioner is that, in response to the averments in the plaint filed before the Civil Court, the Se- cured Creditor has filed Ext.P1 written statement, wherein the question of maintainability of the suit is also raised stating that, the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act had been taken much prior to the institution of the suit by issuing notice under Section 13(2) on 18.12.2004 and hence that the secured Creditor is very much entitled to proceed with such steps under the Act. During the course of the proceedings before the Civil Co...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Smt. K.R. Ushasree and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-2009
Reported in: (2010)229CTR(Ker)52
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. These connected wealth-tax appeals are filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal holding that cash in hand in excess of Rs. 50,000 in the hands of the assessees who are all individuals, does not form part of the asset under Section 2(ea)(vi) of the WT Act. We have heard senior counsel Sri P.K.R. Menon appearing for the appellants and various counsel appearing for the respondents.2. All the respondent-assessees are individuals who have, in the books of accounts, cash in hand on the valuation date, in the case of some of the assessees, above Rs. 30 lakhs, in some cases above Rs. 50 lakhs and in few cases it is above a crore of rupees and in one case cash in hand held by an individual assessee is as much as Rs. 2.6 crores. According to the assessees all of them are engaged in business and the cash in hand is nothing but business asset which is a productive asset not forming part of asset as defined under the provisions of the WT Act, 1957. Since t...
Anil Kumar P. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-23-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ1
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. Before referring to the reasons why the Writ Appeal was referred to the Full bench, we will refer briefly to the facts necessary for the disposal of the case. The appellant was appointed as H.S.A.(Social Studies) in the sixth respondent's school on 5.6.2000. The said appointment was approved by the competent authority. The fourth respondent was appointed as U.P.S.A. in the Upper Primary wing of the said school on 6.6.2001. The said appointment was approved with effect from the said date. The said respondent was qualified for appointment as H.S.A.(Mathematics) and also H.S.A.(English), provided a vacancy in the latter post arose before 19.7,2005, B.Ed., in English became an obligatory qualification for appointment as H.S.A.(English) only from the said date (as per ExtP4 Government Order) and the fourth respondent was having B.Ed, in Mathematics only.2. The Government issued Ext,P2 order dated 7.1.2002, creating a new cadre of H.S.A.(English), by re-allocating ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »