Kerala Court March 2012 Judgments

Kunjumon @ Mohanan Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(2)KLJ432

R. Basant, J. 1. Is the accused entitled to the benefit of doubt on the basis of the totality of inputs available in this case? This question is raised for consideration before us in this appeal by Sri. P.Vijaya Bhanu, the learned senior counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced under Section 302 I.P.C to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2 lakhs. Default sentence has also been imposed. The appellant is alleged to have caused the death of his brother in law Balan, by inflicting multiple stab injuries on him with MO.1 weapon on the public road near the shop of PW1. Property disputes allegedly operated as the motive. 3. Investigation commenced with Ext.P1 (a) F.I.R registered on the basis of Ext.P1 F.I statement lodged by PW1, an alleged eye witness. Investigation was completed and final report was filed by PW11 before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate after observing all legal formaliti...

P.M. Chacko Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(2)KLJ382; 2012(2)KHC349; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)54

P.S. Gopinathan, J. 1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, who is a third party, assails an order dated 28/01/2012 in Crl.M.P.No. 8402/2011 of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thiruvalla in Crime No.1203/2011 of Thiruvalla Police Station for the offence under Section 5(a) of the Kerala Rationing Order 1996 read with Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act 1955. 2. Having heard either side, I find that the vehicle bearing registration No. KL03/A-6498 TATA 407 tempo van was seized by the Investigating Officer alleging that the said vehicle was used for the illegal transport of the wheat supplied for Public Distribution System. The petitioner, claiming to be the registered owner, filed the above petition before the trial court under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking an order to release the vehicle on interim custody. By the impugned order, the trial court dismissed the petition after arriving at a findi...

P.M. Chacko Vs. State of Kerala Represented by Public Prosecutor High ...

Court: Kerala

1. In this petition under Section 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, who is a third party, assails an order dated 28/01/2012 in Crl.M.P.No. 8402/2011 of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thiruvalla in Crime No.1203/2011 of Thiruvalla Police Station for the offence under Section 5(a) of the Kerala Rationing Order 1996 read with Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act 1955. 2. Having heard either side, I find that the vehicle bearing registration No. KL03/A-6498 TATA 407 tempo van was seized by the Investigating Officer alleging that the said vehicle was used for the illegal transport of the wheat supplied for Public distribution System. The petitioner, claiming to be the registered owner, filed the above petition before the trial court under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking an order to release the vehicle on interim custody. By the impugned order, the trial court dismissed the petition after arriving at a fining that it has no juri...

Dr. K. Jyothindra Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and Others

Court: Kerala

K. VIOND CHANDRAN, J.: 1. (i) Can Dentistry be considered to be a specialty of Medicine? (ii) Are the Dentists discriminated by treating them not on par with Medical doctors? (iii) Is it a matter of mere perspective and can a Dentist aspire to the post of Director of Medical Education? (iv) Is there a common seniority list of Tutors in the Medical College Service and Dental College Service in the State? These are the broad questions raised in the above appeal. 2. The appellant, a Principal of a Government Dental College, stakes his claim for the post of Director of Medical Education in the State of Kerala. The brief facts leading to the creation of Directorate of Medical Education and thereafter is necessary before focusing on the specific claim made by the appellant. Prior to the creation of the Directorate, the Medical Colleges and the Dental Colleges in the State were under the Department of Health. The Dental Colleges were situated within the campus of the Medical Colleges and did ...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. K.R. Ramakrishnan, Gok ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/insurance company in CC.502/10 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1.lakh with interest at 9% from the date of the order. 2. The dispute is with respect to the mediclaim amount claimed by the complainant for having undergone treatment at Giridhar Institute for administration of intravitreal for choroidal neovascular membrane. He has incurred a sum of Rs.1,30,300/-. The coverage is limited to Rs.1.lakh. 3. According to the opposite parties the I.P treatment was not at all required and only on account of the condition in the policy that at least 24 hours hospitalization is required he was admitted in the hospital for one day. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of PW1 and 2, Exts.A1 to A8 and B1. 5. It was brought out in evidence that the complainant is a man aged 79 years and having defective vision of left eye. He is a known diabetic for 40 years with a history ...

The Commissioner of Income Tax-ii Vs. Dr. T.M. Kuriachan

Court: Kerala

RamachandranNair, J. 1. The short question raised in the appeal filed by the Revenue is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that in order to transfer a file by an Assessing Officer to another Assessing Officer to assess an assessee based on information gathered in search conducted on the premises of another assessee, the Officer transferring the file should record his satisfaction about the undisclosed income to be assessed at the hands of other assessee under Section 158BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). 2. We have heard learned Senior Standing Counsel Shri.P.K.R.Menon appearing for the Revenue and Shri.Arun Raj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent assessee. 3. Facts leading to the controversy are the following:- The assessee and his wife are running a clinic at Adimali. In the course of search conducted in the premises of a Company by name M/s.Eastern Retreads (P) Ltd., in which the assessee's son was a Director, the Depa...

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur Vs. C.S. Ajayakumar

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Heard learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Shri.Anil D.Nair, learned counsel for the respondent assessee. 2. The question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in cancelling assessment of undisclosed income for the broken period for which, time for filing return was not over as on date of search. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Binoy Mathai, reported in 311 ITR 226. However, we find that the facts in this case are different in as much as the assessee has paid at least one installment of advance tax of Rs.5.80 lakhs in respect of the income of the previous year in which search took place, even before date of search. The further finding is that the assessee remitted total advance tax of Rs.16.90 lakhs for the income assessed, namely Rs.36 lakhs, as undisclosed income of the assessee. Section 158BB(1)(d) provides for exclusion of only income for the block...

Joshi Thomas Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Kerala

1. The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order passed by the Custodian of Enemy Property for India under Section 8 and 12 of the Enemy Property Act 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Ext.P5 is in different parts. The first part contains a certificate dated 21/7/2008 issued under section 12 of the Act, which inter alia states that 1/3rd share of immovable property in R.S.No.18/2 of Kolathumala Desom, Paduvilayil Amsom, Tellichery Taluk, Cannanore District having a measurement of 1.22 acres belonging to or held by Sri.Kaliadath Pathakkalan Umer, is enemy property vested in the custodian of enemy property for India, since the aforesaid person was a Pakistani national. The second part of Ext.P5 is an authorisation order under Section 8 of the Act which again is dated 21/7/2008 authorising the District Collector, Kannur District to take over the control and to manage the said property for the preservation and management of the said enemy property. Another part of Ext.P5 is a communicatio...

Cleetus and Others Vs. the Sub Registrar and Another

Court: Kerala

S. Siri Jagan, J. 1. The 1st petitioner executed a settlement deed in favour of the 2nd petitioner by Ext.P1 registered document dated 6.2.2007. Subsequently, they presented Ext.P2 cancellation deed for registration cancelling Ext.P1 settlement deed. On the said document, the petitioners paid stamp duty as provided under Article 14 of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act. But the 1st respondent insisted on the petitioners paying stamp duty as applicable to a conveyance deed as defined under Section 2(d) of the Kerala Stamp Act on the ground that the cancellation of Ext.P1 would amount to re-conveyance of the property by the 2nd petitioner to the 1st petitioner. According to the petitioners, when Article 15 specifically provides for the stamp duty for a cancellation deed, the petitioners are liable to pay only that stamp duty and no other stamp duty. The petitioners seek the following reliefs; "i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing E...

Manager, L.M.S. Special Schools Vs. State of Kerala and Others

Court: Kerala

1. The petitioner is an Assistant teacher in a blind school. She has 26 years of service and is the senior most fully qualified teacher for promotion as Headmaster. 2. By Ext.P1 applications were invited for appointment to the post of Headmaster. The petitioner did not get appointment and the 6th respondent was appointed to the said post. Though the petitioner challenged the matter before the competent authorities, her claim had been rejected finally by Ext.P11 which is under challenge and she also seeks for a direction to promote and appoint her as the Headmistress. 3. The respondent however contended that the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed as the Headmaster as per the qualification criteria prescribed under Note (3) of Clause 1 (A) of Ext.P1, wherein it is indicated that handicapped persons shall not be recruited or promoted as Headmaster of special schools. It is further contended that the respondent institution is a minority institution coming under Article 30(1) of th...