Kerala Court February 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.
The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excie and Service Tax and Another V ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
RamachandranNair, J. 1. The short question arising in the connected Writ Appeals, one filed by the assessee and the other filed by the Revenue, is whether adjudication is called for before raising demand of interest under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act and also under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. We have heard learned Senior counsel Shri.Joseph Vellappally appearing for the assessee and Shri.John Varghese, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue. 3. The two learned Judges, who decided the matter, took apparently conflicting views, which led to filing of Writ Appeal by both sides. While one learned Single Judge took the view that interest for default is automatic, the other learned Single Judge took the view that before demanding interest adjudication is called for. 4. On a reading of the provisions, we find that the liability for interest on default is automatic under Section 11AA as well as under Section 75 referred to above and that way the Sections are o...
Rajamma Vs. Dr. V. Sukumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
K.M. Joseph, J. This appeal is filed by respondents 3 to 6 who are the LR s of the first defendant in the suit and the first respondent in the appeal. On the death of the 3rd appellant additional appellants have been impleaded. 2. The appeal arises out of a suit for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' share with mesne profits, past and future. 3. There are four schedules to the plaint. Besides A, B and C-Schedule, D-schedule relates to movables. The trial court passed a preliminary decree for partition as follows: "In the result a preliminary decree for partition is passed in the following terms:- A. Plaint A schedule, B schedule items 1 to 3 and C schedule items will be partitioned by metes and bounds and plaintiffs 1 to 17 are allotted one half share, Ist defendant 1/3 share and 2nd defendant 1/6 share in the aforesaid properties. B. The quantum of mesne profits to which the plaintiffs are entitled will be determined in the final decree proceedings and such quantum w...
Kunjayyan, Kollam and Others Vs. Kerala State, Rep. by the District Co ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
Common Judgment Ramkumar, J. 1. In these appeals filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 (c ) C.P.C. the appellants challenge the separate orders passed by the Land Acquisition Reference Court namely the court of the Subordinate Judge, Kollam, dismissing the restoration petitions preferred against the orders dismissing for default the reference applications filed by some of the claimants. THE FACTUAL MATRIX 2. The appellants in F.A.O. 141/2011 represent claimants 2 to 4, 6 and 7 in L.A.R. 129 of 1993. The appellants in F.A.O. No. 193/2011 represent claimants 1 and 2 in L.A.R. 138 of 1991. In both the L.A.R. cases certain parcels of land belonging to the aforesaid claimants and situated in Panmana Village of Karunagappally Taluk were compulsorily acquired by the State on the requisition made by the 2nd respondent, namely, the Indian Rare Earths Limited ("I.R.E. Ltd." for short) Chavara, Kollam. Dissatisfied with the compensation given under separate awards passed by the Land Acquisition Collecto...
Shobha Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the C.i. of Police, Kuthupa ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
1. The petitioner is the wife of deceased Rajan. Rajan had a homicidal death. The incident took place on 21.3.1994 at about 6.30 PM at Koothuparamba. It was alleged that the accused, who are respondents 2 to 12 herein, formed themselves into unlawful assembly with the common object of causing the murder of Rajan and in prosecution of the common object of that unlawful assembly, the accused committed rioting with deadly weapons, wrongfully restrained deceased Rajan and inflicted various cut injuries on his body to which he succumbed. The First Information Report was given by PW1, Harish an eye witness to the occurrence, at about 7.00 PM on the same day. It was recorded by the A.S.I. of Koothuparamba Police Station, based on which Crime No:101/1994 was registered. Investigation was taken over by the Circle Inspector of Police, Koothuparamba. The inquest on the body of the deceased was conducted by him and scene mahazar was prepared. The post mortem examination was conducted by the Doctor...
The Commissioner of Income Tax, CochIn Vs. M/S. Choice Trading Corpora ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
RamachandranNair, J. 1. These are appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act raising various questions of law arising from orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal pertaining to respondent’s assessments for the assessment years 1994-95 to 1996-97 and 1998-99. We have heard Senior counsel Sri.P.K.R.Menon appearing for the Revenue and Senior Adv. Sri.C.V.Rajan appearing along with Adv. Sri.Saji Varghese for the respondent-assessee. 2. The common question raised for all the years is whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling disallowance of interest on borrowed funds diverted by the assessee for running a school owned by a trust under the control of the Managing Director of the assessee. Huge amounts ranging between one to two crores rupees was given every year to M/s.Choice Foundation for acquisition of land and building for the Choice School which is said to be a business enterprise under the control of the Managing Director...
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam Vs. Thomas Kurian, (Deceased) ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
C.N. Ramachandran, J. 1. These are appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act raising two issues arising from orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal disposing of assessment appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98. Respondent assesee died during pendency of the appeals and therefore at the request of the department, we have by separate orders impleaded the assessee’s wife Smt. Primari C. Thomas as the legal heir of the late assessee. Registry will therefore issue the judgment in the name of the legal heir impleaded. However, since the late assessee’s name appears in all orders, for the sake of completeness, Registry will, in the cause title show the name of the assessee also but as ‘deceased’. 2. One of the two issues raised pertains to computation of deduction of export Profit, with reference to the export premium received. This issue stands decided by the Supreme Court in favour of the assessee and ...
Mini Antony Vs. the District Educational Officer and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
1. The rival claims of the petitioner and the 6th respondent for appointment to the post of HSA(Malayalam) in the 5th respondent's school against a short term vacancy from 5.6.2007 to 27.9.2007 and thereafter on regular basis from 20.6.2008 are to be resolved in this Writ Petition. The facts, in succinct, relevant for the purpose of deciding the aforesaid issue are as hereunder:- The petitioner was appointed as HSA(Malayalam) under the 5th respondent's school for the period from 27.10.1993 to 14.1.1994 as per Ext.P1. Later, she was appointed as such in a short term vacancy from 1.1.1998 to 30.3.1998 as per Ext.P2 and then, as per Ext.P3, from 2.6.1998 to 29.8.1998. Again she had rendered service as HSA (Malayalam) against short term leave vacancies in different spells, such as, from 15.9.1998 to 30.11.1998, 10.1.2000 to 10.3.2000, 12.9.2001 to 24.1.2002 and from 6.10.2003 to 5.12.2003. Admittedly, all these appointments were approved by the first respondent. The 6th respondent was appo...
Registrar General, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam Vs. N.B.K. Catering ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
SHAFFIQUE,J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the Registrar General, High Court of Kerala challenging Ext.P1 order passed by the District Court, Kozhikode in Arb.O.P.No.143 of 2007. The said application was filed by the 1st respondent herein under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as the Act) to set aside an Arbitration award passed by the Arbitrator, appointed as per order dated 24/5/2006 in A.R.No.60/05 by the High Court exercising power under section 11(6) of the Act. The Arbitrator passed an award permitting the 2nd respondent herein to recover an amount of Rs.66,35,616/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 30/06/2006 till realization from the 1st respondent. 2. Before the District Court, the 2nd respondent raised a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the application under Section 34 of the Act contending that since the Arbitrator was appointed by the High Court, by virtue of section 42 of the Act only the High Court has jurisd...
Karimbumkara Kunhappu, Kannur and Another Vs. Karimbumkara Sreemathi, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
1. Petitioners are defendants 1 to 4 in a suit for partition, O.S. No. 225/11 filed by respondents 1 to 4 as plaintiffs before the Sub Court, Thalassery. Ext.P1 is the copy of the plaint in the suit, and Ext.P2 written statement of defendants 1 to 4 / petitioners. There was a previous suit for partition as O.S. No. 123 of 2002 in respect of the properties covered by O.S. No. 225 of 2011, and in such earlier suit predecessor of the petitioners / defendants and also the present plaintiffs, all of them, were among the plaintiffs and that suit had been dismissed after trial, and such decree of dismissal had been confirmed by this Court as well, is the case of the petitioners / defendants 1 and 2, to contend that the present suit is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court, is their case to seek the intervention of this Court to quash the entire proceedings invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Reliance is placed on Tiny Antony Vs...
N.K. Shivadasan and Another Vs. State of Kerala and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
VINOD CHANDRAN, J 1. The appellants were the petitioners before the learned Single Judge. The appellants in the writ petition claimed the scale of pay of Primary School Headmasters which was denied to them despite their being promoted as such. The denial of the scale of pay was on the ground that they did not have 15 years of continuous service as on the date of promotion, since, during their permanent service, they had availed of leave without allowances for obtaining employment abroad and the period in which they were on leave cannot be included in the computation of "15 years of continuous service". 2. The undisputed facts are that the first appellant joined service as PD teacher on 6.6.1985 and availed leave for the purpose of taking up employment abroad between 1.4.1998 to 31.5.2005. The first appellant rejoined duty on 1.6.2005 and was promoted as Headmaster and posted in a Lower Primary School by Ext.P2 order dated 24.8.2005. The second appellant joined service as PD teacher on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »