Kerala Court July 2009 Judgments

Pookkadan Moideenkutty Vs. Kuttiyali and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ769

K.M. Joseph, J.1. Petitioner, the 6th defendant in the suit seeks a writ of certiorari and quash Ext.P3. ExtP3 is the order of the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode holding that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to try the suit filed. A declaration is sought that the dispute as to right to act as Muthawali is not a dispute required by the Wakf Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to be decided by the Wakf Tribunal and the resolution of such dispute sought to be determined in Ext.Pl falls within the realm of Sections 63, 67 and Clauses (d), (g) and (o) of Sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act.2. The 1st respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed Ext.Pl plaint making the following allegations. Briefly put the plaint schedule property originally belonged to the tharavad of plaintiff. By document No. 137/1902 a wakf was created for the purpose of mosque. As per the document the eldest male member of the family is entitled to manage the wakf. Plaintiff's father was the Muthawal...

Alex Cherian Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2010]321ITR49(Ker); [2009]185TAXMAN308(Ker)

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The petitioner is one and the same in all these three cases pertaining to 3 different assessment years, 1993-94, 1994-95and 1995-96. The challenge is mainly against Exts. P2, P3 and P4 proceedings/orders taken/issued by the departmental authorities, under the Income-tax Act, whereby the petitioner who was the Director of a Private Limited Company, has been proceeded against, in respect of the amount due from the Company, invoking the provision under Section 179 of the 'Act'.2. With regard to the sequence of events; it is to be noted that the assessment orders were passed in respect of the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96, which were subjected to challenge by the assessee-company, by filing appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Having lost the battle before the Tribunal, three different appeals were preferred before this Court, as ITA 2 of 2005, ITA 9 of 2005 and ITA 12 of 2005. When the appeals were being heard in June 2008, the app...

Mathew Vs. Shaji Mathew and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009ACJ322

K.M. Joseph, J.1. These two appeals are connected and they are disposed of by this common judgment. M.A.C.A. No. 1242 of 2008 is filed by the respondent No. 1 in O.P. (MV) No. 1316 of 2004 which is a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the appellant in M.A.C.A. No. 1905 of 2008. The vehicle driven by the appellant in M.A.C.A. No. 1242 of 2008 was involved in an accident resulting in injuries being caused to his wife, namely, the appellant in M.A.C.A. No. 1905 of 2008. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 86,550 with interest at 8.5 per cent from the date of application till satisfaction. We shall refer to the appellant in M.A.C.A. No. 1242 of 2008 as the owner of the vehicle and the appellant in M.A.C.A. No. 1905 of 2008 as the claimant.2. The Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company, respondent No. 2, from liability. The owner has filed the appeal challenging the exoneration of insurance company. The claimant has preferred the appeal seek...

Tahsildar Vs. the Canara Bank and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ923

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. Sustainability of the sale conducted by the Recovery Officer, DRT, Ernakulam in respect of more than 500 acres of land for a total sale consideration of 1.77 crores, bid in favour of the 3rd respondent is subjected to challenge in W.P.(C). 13744/2007 on many a ground, legal as well as factual. W.P.(C).24482/2004 filed by the State is with a specific prayer to establish the better rights of the State in respect of the dues from the defaulter under various Statutes, contending that the 'State dues' will have an overriding effect when compared with the other liabilities of the defaulter including to the Bank from whom loan had been availed by the defaulter, The basic points on which the petitioner in W.P.(C). 13744/07 addressed this Court are as given below:(a) The sale has been conducted in contravention of the relevant provisions and procedures, without proper publication, causing the property of large extent to be sold for a throw away price; that too, afte...

Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2009]317ITR279(Ker); [2009]185TAXMAN1(Ker)

P.R. Raman, J.1. The appellant is a public sector undertaking and an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It filed the original petition, challenging exhibits P-12 and P-13 and for a declaration that the said notice and proceedings are illegal. It also prayed for a direction to the respondent to refund an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs and to prohibit the respondent from recovering an amount of Rs. 13,07,500. Exhibit P-12 is a notice issued under Section 156 of the Income-tax Act demanding an amount of Rs. 13,07,500 and exhibit P-13 is the proceedings of the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Range 2, Ernakulam, dated April 27, 2000, passed consequent upon the decision made by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 244A(2) of the Act by exhibit P-13, the interest mistakenly granted for the period from January 1, 1990, to September 30, 1991, amounting to Rs. 33,07,500 was withdrawn. The learned single judge [See Kerala State Civi...

Narayanan Vs. State of Kerala and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ27

ORDERS.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. Concurrent verdict of guilty rendered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for short 'the N.I. Act is challenged in the revision. The learned Magistrate, after trial finding him guilty of the offence, convicted him thereunder, sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for one month more, In appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad confirmed the conviction and sentence without any modification, Propriety, legality and correctness of the conviction and sentence as aforesaid; is challenged by the accused in the revision.2. The short facts necessaiy for disposal of the revision may be summed up thus: Towards purchasing of a motor vehicle from the complainant, the accused issued two cheques, one for Rs. 75,000/- and the other for Rs. 49,000/- and the cheque for Rs. 75,000/- on presentation was ...

Radhakrishnan Nair A.N. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ4

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The claimant, who is not satisfied with the award of compensation by the land acquisition reference court, has preferred this appeal. The acquisition was for the purpose of construction of Kaloor - Kadavanthra Road. Relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 25/7/1978. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 4750/- per Are, which was enhanced under the impugned judgment by the reference court to Rs. 9500/- per Are. The evidence before the reference court regarding the market value of the property under acquisition was Exts. A2 and A3 only. ExtA2 was a copy of the sale document executed on 18-10-2001 which is some 13 years after Section 4(1) notification. Ext. A3 was executed in 2005 some 17 years after Section 4(1) notification. Exts. A2 reflected land value of Rs. 5 Lakhs and 9 Lakhs respectively. Exts. A2 and A3 were, in our opinion, rightly rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge. Ultimately what the learned Subordinate J...

Ajayaraj Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010CriLJ534

ORDERThomas P. Joseph, J.1. Short question arising for a decision is whether a subordinate criminal Court could entertain a petition for bail by a person accused of a non-bailable offence otherwise than under Sub-clause (a) of the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') after a superior Court declined to grant bail to such accused on merit.2. For alleged misappropriation of about Rs. 50,00,000/- while working as accounts officer of the complainant, a company, petitioner was arrested by police in the course of investigation of crime No. 92 of 2009 of Binanipuram Police Station. He prefered a petition before learned magistrate for bail. That petition was dismissed. Petitioner approached learned Sessions Judge requesting to invoke power under Section 439 of the Code. Learned Sessions Judge as per Annexure-C, order dated 24-2-09 refused to grant bail observing that allegations against petitioner are serious, investigation is at the initial stage ...

M/S. Escotl Mobile Communications Ltd. and Another Vs. M/S. Oriental A ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Escotal Mobile Communication in OP.No.A.89/03 in the file of CDRF. Alappuzha. The appellants are under orders to pay a compensation of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant as well as cost of Rs.500/-. 2.It is the case of the complainant that he was having a mobile phone connection availed from the opposite party. It is his case that the foreign trade manager of the complainant along with business executives visited Malaysia from 2.3.03 to 6.3.03 and that he applied for ISD roaming facility in Malasia and a sum of Rs.8760 was paid vide cheque. According to him the facility was not made available in Malaysia and the very purpose of the trip was defeated on account of the non availability of the ISD facility. He has sought for refund of the amount of Rs.8760/- with compensation of Rs.50000/- and Rs.41,240/- towards loss of reputation. 3. The opposite party/appellant has contended that the cheque issued for a sum of Rs.876...

Antony K.P. Vs. Chellanam Grama Panchayath and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ655

S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The subject matter of these two writ petitions are the same and therefore both were heard together and are disposed of by mis common judgment. For convenience, I shall refer to the rank of parties and Exhibits as referred to in W.P.(C) No. 7127 of 2009, which is the main case.2. The 4th respondent is a Company conducting business as a service provider for mobile phone users. The Secretary of the 2nd respondent-Panchayat issued Ext. P1 building permit to the 4threspondent for constructing a telecommunication tower for installation of a Mobile Base Station. The Panchayat committee adopted a resolution dated 29-11-2008 to cancel Ext. P1 permit By Ext P3 communication dated 20-12-2008, the 3rd respondent- President of the Panchayat informed the 4th respondent about the said resolution and directed them to stop the construction of the tower with a caution that if they do not, the 4th respondent alone would be responsible for the law and order situation that may arise if ...