Kerala Court June 2011 Judgments

Dharma Sastha Trust, Rep. by Its Secretary Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. b ...

Court: Kerala

RamachandranNair, J. Writ Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with Government Orders rejecting appellant's claim for exemption from building tax on the Auditorium constructed by it. Appellant claims to be a charitable institution which constructed the Auditorium. Exemption from building tax claimed under Section 3 (2) of the Kerala Building Tax Act was rejected by the Government because appellant was letting out the building on rent for marriage purposes. The appellant's contention that it is entitled to exemption as a charitable institution was turned down by the Government, which was confirmed by the learned Single Judge. We have heard counsel for the appellant and Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. The contention of the appellant is that the appellant is a charitable institution and the building is essentially used for running classes for students, holding meetings and even conducting marriages. Even though counsel for the appe...

Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by the Secre ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT380; 2011(3)KHC307

C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. Revision is filed against the order of the Tribunal sustaining balance demand of tax and interest on the respondent/assessee for the assessment year 2001-2002. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the State. 3. Assessee, a dealer in paper, remitted tax at 4% on paper sold during the year 2001-2002. However, rate of tax on paper was increased during the financial year from 4% to 8%. Since returns filed and tax paid was at 4% as against 8% payable, assessee was in arrears of substantial amount of tax. Even before assessment was taken up, the assessee made an application on 20.2.2004 for settlement of liability under the Amnesty Scheme under Section 23B(2) of the KGST Act, which provides for waiver of default interest upto 70%. The application filed for settlement under the Amnesty Scheme produced as Annexure-A shows that the said application was filed by the petitioner under protest. The Assessi...

Baiju and Another Vs. Latha and Another

Court: Kerala

Is the court of Magistrate while discharging functions under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, "the Act") a criminal court inferior to the Court of Sessions and the High Court? Is the judgment of Court of Sessions in an appeal filed under Sec.29 of the Act amenable to the revisional power of the High Court under Secs.397(1) and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code")? These questions are required to be answered in these petitions filed under Sec. 482 of the Code by the respondents in M.C.No.8 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thamarassery and M.C.No.96 of 2007 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Harippad. 2. In Crl.M.C. No.969 of 2011 petitioners suffered an order under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, "the Act"). That order was challenged in appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kozhikode in Crl.Appeal No.29 of 2010. The order...

A.H. Thalish Vs. S .Binu Raj

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT857; 2011(3)KHC144

Basheer, J. The landlord of a commercial building situated at Kaloor, within the limits of the Corporation of Kochi, has filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raising an interesting legal question. 2. Before we deal with the question, the relevant facts which gave rise to this litigation may be briefly noticed. 3. The respondent/tenant is in occupation of approximately 1800 sq.ft. in the building referred to above. The monthly rent that is being paid by the respondent/tenant to the landlord is `.23,000/-. Petitioner/landlord initiated eviction proceedings against the respondent under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam contending that he needed the building for his own occupation to start a business. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction after considering the evidence adduced by the parties on both sides. 4. The above order of eviction was challenged by the respondent/tenant ...

T.N. Jayaresmi Vs. Mahatma Gandhi University, Represented by Its Regis ...

Court: Kerala

RamachandranNair, J. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, who declined to order revaluation of the answer book of the appellant in the subject "Differential Geometry", which is a first year subject for the M.Sc course in Mathematics. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University. 3. The learned Single Judge declined to order revaluation because the Examination Regulations do not provide for a 2nd revaluation. Even though in principle, we completely agree with the learned Single Judge, we felt there is necessity to examine the credibility of valuation of answer books got done by the University. We therefore verified the marks awarded to the appellant in valuation and revaluation in another subject, namely Functional Analysis, in which also the appellant had originally failed but passed after revaluation. The marks awarded to the appellant in the subject "Functional Analysis" i...

T.S. Ashok Vs. Alex Thompson

Court: Kerala

The Original Petition is filed by the second respondent in Appeal No.288 of 2011, on the file of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Tribunal in I.A.No.422 of 2011. The Registry raised an objection that the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) is not included in the Schedule to the Kerala High Court Superintendence of Tribunal Rules, 1989 and therefore, the Tribunal does not come under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. 2. Article 227 of the Constitution of India provides for the power of superintendence by the High Court over Courts and Tribunals Clauses 1 and 2 of Article 227 read as follows: “(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, th...

Kalliyara Estate Pvt Ltd Vs. State of Kerala Rep. by the District Coll ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT113(SN)(C.No.114); 2012(3)KLJ552; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)876

1. The petitioner, the plaintiff in O.S.No.205 of 2006, Sub Court, Palakkad, is aggrieved by the order dated 11.8.2010 passed by the court below dismissing I.A.No.133 of 2010 filed by the plaintiff for summoning witnesses. 2. The suit is for a declaration that the plaint schedule property, having an extent of 3300 acres, exclusively belongs to the plaintiff and that defendants 1 to 8 or any of them have to manner of right, title, possession or interest in the property. There is also a prayer for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 1 to 8 from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. Defendants 1 to 8 are: (1) State of Kerala; (2) Conservator and Custodian or Vested Forest, Olavakkode, Palakkad; (3) District Forest Officer, Olavakkode; (4) Village Officer, Malampuzha; (5) Kerala Forest Development Corporation; (6) Prakashini G. Menon; (7) Jayasree Nair and (8) Kallekulangara Sri Emoor Bhagavathy Temple. In the written statement filed by the third defendant, a c...

Balan Vs. Devaki

Court: Kerala

1. Maintainability of this writ petition is challenged by learned counsel for respondents on the ground that order refusing to set aside the ex parte decree is subject to a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) and hence writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution would not lie. Learned counsel for petitioner maintain that writ petition is maintainable as the order under challenge if passed in favour of petitioner would not have terminated the proceedings. 2. Petitioner wanted the ex parte decree against him to be set aside and filed I.A.No.1594 of 2007 in O.S.No.75 of 2002 with an application to condone the delay. Learned Munsiff dismissed application to condone the delay and consequently the application to set aside the ex parte decree. Petitioner preferred CM. Appeal No.23 and 24 of 2008 before learned Sub judge, Tirur. The said appeals were dismissed in confirmation of the order of learned Munsiff. Question is whether ...

T.J. Abraham and Another Vs. M/S. Maharashtra Apex Corporation Limited ...

Court: Kerala

1. The petitioners and the second respondent are the judgment debtors in E.P.No.32 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Kasaragod. The first respondent secured an arbitral award in A.P.No.357 of 2000. It was put in execution by the decree holder (first respondent) for realization of the amount by arrest and detention of the judgment debtors in civil prison. 2. It is submitted that the judgment debtors were originally set exparte before the executing court and an order for arrest was passed against them. That order was challenged by them in C.R.P.No.277 of 2004 before the High Court. An order of stay was passed on condition that the judgment debtors should deposit Rs.40,000/- before the executing court. They deposited the amount. The Revision was later disposed of recalling the warrant and affording an opportunity to the petitioners to adduce evidence. 3. The judgment debtors contended that they have no means to pay the decree debt or a substantial portion thereof and...

Madhurapuri Chits and Finance Company Private Limited Vs. the Commissi ...

Court: Kerala

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Tribunal reversing the 1st appellate order that was in favour of the assessee. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in chit business and assessment involved is one for the block period commencing from 1.4.1995 to 18.10.2001. After search and seizure of the books of accounts and other documents the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 158BC to which the assessee filed return declaring Nil undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer noticed that the accounts were neither correct, complete nor written properly for him to find out the exact undisclosed income suppressed by the assessee. He, therefore, proceeded to appoint an auditor under Section 142 (2A) of the Act after getting prior approval from the CIT. When the proposal was communicated to the assessee, the assessee agreed with the Officer by stating that the accounts are complex and has mistakes and therefore they have...