Kerala Court January 2012 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.
Anish P.K Vs. the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery) and Othe ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
ANTONYDOMINIC, J. 1. Petitioner's deceased father Sri.Kunjumon P.M was a Conductor in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. He had availed of two loans for an amount of Rs.12,815 and Rs.4005 from the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, before the liability could be discharged in full, his father expired. Subsequently extending the petitioner the benefit of dying in harness scheme, he was appointed in the KSRTC as a Conductor in March, 2006. Now recovery proceedings are initiated against the petitioner for realising his father's liability. It is challenging the said recovery proceedings, the writ petition is filed. 2. Standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 on instruction confirms that the petitioner does not have any liability to them and that what is sought to be recovered by issuance of Ext.P1 and Exts.P2 to P4 prohibitory orders is the liability of his deceased father. 3. The liability of a deceased can be recovered from his legal representatives to the ex...
N.S. Sureshkumar Vs. K.T. Cherian @ George and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
1. The short question which arise for consideration is whether a witness can be recalled under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for explaining the circumstances or explaining a mistake committed while giving evidence. 2. The complainant in C.C.No.316 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattappana is the revision petitioner. He challenges in this revision the order of the learned Magistrate dated December 13, 2006 in C.M.P.No.5208 of 2006 dismissing the petition to recall the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to explain the mistake in the complaint as well as in the proof affidavit filed by him regarding the year of the transaction. 3. The facts in brief, are these:- The revision/first respondent accused borrowed Rs.42,000/- from the complainant on May 4, 2001 promising to repay the same after one month and to discharge that liability, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.815743 dated June 7, 2004 drawn on the Kuttiady Branch of the Federal Bank which when present...
Rajan Vs. the State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Er ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, who is the 4th accused in C.C. 19 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class - 1, Kottayam, seeks an order to quash Annexurue-1 final report wherein the petitioner, along with others are accused for offence under Section 294 (b) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is even prepared to plead guilty. But the learned magistrate insisted for the personal attendance of the petitioner. The maximum sentence that can be awarded against the petitioner is only an imprisonment for three months and fine. That being the nature of offence, the case can even be tried by following the procedure under Chapter XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summary trial. In the above circumstances, I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner should be allowed to plead guilty ...
Syamakumar Vs. Jayapalan Nair and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
Thomas P. Joseph, J. 1. Petitioner in E.A. No.798 of 2009 in E.P. No.84 of 2000 in O.S.No.615 of 1994 of the court of learned II Additional Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram is the appellant before, me. Respondents 1 to 4 obtained a decree for redemption of mortgage and on depositing the mortgage money, sought delivery of possession in E.P.No. 84 of 2000. Delivery was ordered on 27.10.2009. At that stage appellant came with E.A.No.798 of 2009 resisting delivery under Rule 97 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). He claimed that he has obtained assignment of the property mentioned in E.A.No.798 of 2009 from the 1st judgment debtor as per Ext.A1, assignment deed No.3509 of 2007. It is his case that the said property was obtained by the 1st judgment debtor by way of kudikidappu in OA No. 187 of 1999. Ext.A3 is the purchase certificate. Exts.A2, A4 and A5 are receipts produced by the appellant for payment of revenue. To show that appellant is a bonafide...
G. Bindu., W/O. B. Sunilkumar and Another Vs. Kerala Public Service Co ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
Petitioners in these writ petitions are claiming the benefit of Rule 5A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (Hereinafter referred to as the "Rules" for short). In WP(C) No.11650/11, there is also an alternative prayer to declare the Rule unconstitutional. 2. Issues raised being common, these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The background in which these litigations arise is that by G.O(P) No.5/1993 dt 15.1.1993, Rule 5A was inserted in the Rules, which read as under; "Where the method of recruitment to any service, class or category is by direct recruitment on district wise basis, such of the candidates belonging to that district who qualify for the interview/become qualified to be included in the ranked list for such of the district-wise posts mentioned in the Annexure to this rule shall be given a weightage of five marks for the selection. Provided that the candidates who are eligible to get the above weightage marks shall produ...
N. Parameswaran, Muvattupuzha, Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax, Coc ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
1. The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order refusing to invoke the powers conferred on the first respondent for waiver under Section 220 (2A) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner was a stock broker and on the claim that he had no sufficient income for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92, did not file any return of income. For the assessment year 1992-93, the petitioner filed returns however without necessary annexures. In such circumstances, the department was constrained to issue notice under Section 148 for the years in which no return was filed. For the subsequent years due to non co-operation of assessee, assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The assessment as such is not the subject of challenge in the above writ petition and the petitioner claims only waiver of interest levied under Section 220 invoking the power conferred under Section 220 (2A). The petitioner's counsel contended that the petitioner's case is one which is fit for consideration under Section ...
The State of Kerala and Another Vs. thekkan Guruvayoor English Medium ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
Ramachandran Nair, J. Writ Appeal is filed by the State challenging judgment of the learned Single Judge directing appellants to consider grant of recognition to respondent's school which is a private unaided school with at present only L.P. Section (standards 1 to 4). We have heard Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and counsel for the respondent. 2. The respondent challenged Ext.P3 order before the learned Single Judge on the ground that refusal of the Government to recognize their school is arbitrary. The respondent's is an English Medium School run with Kerala syllabus and has 480 students in the four classes, 1 to 4. The respondent's school was previously a full-fledged school having classes upto standard X. However, progressively Government introduced restrictions against unrecognised schools conducting examinations for the students beyond 6th standard. This led to respondent closing the U.P. and High School sections. However, respondent again approached the Governme...
Jafarkhan Vs. K.A. Kochumakkar and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. 1. Connected Writ Appeals are filed challenging common judgment of the learned Single Judge directing the District Collector to enforce Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (hereinafter called "the Act") against the appellant in respect of 12.70 ares of land stated to be converted by him from paddy land to garden land in violation of provisions of the Act. We have heard Senior counsel Sri.C.C.Thomas appearing for the appellant, Senior counsel Sri.P.Ravindran appearing for the first respondent, counsel appearing for the Panchayat and Government Pleader for the remaining respondents. 2. The facts leading to the controversy are the following. Appellant admittedly is running a saw mill and veneer/plywood factory in 94 cents of land. Since more land is required for the purpose of the factory, appellant filed an application under Section 6 of the Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (hereinafter called "the Order") before the District Colle...
M.E. Abdul Azeez, Vanchinad Wood Industries Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
RamachandranNair, J. 1. Revision is filed against the order of the Tribunal confirming suo moto revisional order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 35 of the KGST Act. The petitioner’s sales tax assessment for 1996-97 was originally completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 31.1.2001. However, after completion of the assessment, the Sales Tax Officer revised rime file from the Intelligence Officer, Ernakulam, which disclosed that for tax evasion practiced the petitioner was subject to a penalty of Rs.2.45 lakhs for the very same year. However, by this time, the time for reopening assessment based on the findings on evasion of tax in the Crime file was over for the Assessing Officer under Section 19(1) of the KGST Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer forwarded the assessment file with the Crime file to the Deputy Commissioner, who after following the procedure prescribed issued proceedings under Section 35(1) of the Act setting aside the...
Seema Vs. Johny Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
1. These second appeals arise from the common judgment and decree of learned first Additional District Judge, Ernakulam in A.S.Nos.210 and 217 of 2007 arising from the judgment and decree of learned Second Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam in O.S.Nos.561 of 1999 and 185 of 2002. For the sake of convenience parties are referred as plaintiffs and defendants as in O.S.No.561 of 1999. 2. Appellants/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.561 of 1999 for a declaration that Exts.X1 to X3, assignment deeds are null and void and for a mandatory injunction to direct defendants 3 and 4 to vacate from the ground floor of the building in question. The suit property in O.S.No.561 of 1999 is 8.190 cents and building situated thereon. According to the plaintiffs, at a time when they were engaged in construction of the building they fell short of money and approached defendants 1 and 2 for a loan. Defendants 1 and 2 agreed to lend Rs. 5,00,000/- . It was agreed that plaintiffs will execute mortgage deeds in favour of d...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »