Kerala Court March 2012 Judgments

A.J. Babu Vs. State of Kerala and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT156; 2012(3)KHC137; 2012(3)KLJ175; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)779

1. The petitioner who is a Circle Inspector of Police, challenges the investigation, that is being conducted by the Superintendent of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB) Special Cell, Kozhikode. The allegation was that, while the petitioner was working in the Police Department, he amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income. The allegation is that he had 30 cents of land near Providence College, Kozhikode, where he has constructed a house spending about Rs.80 lakhs and also purchased another 30 cents of land near Calicut Ramanattukara Bye Pass Road spending several lakhs. It was further alleged that, he had also purchased several lands in the name of his relatives as benami or otherwise. 2. The Deputy Supdt. of Police, VACB, Kozhikode, was directed by the Special Judge to conduct a preliminary enquiry to find out whether there is any truth in the allegations levelled against the petitioner. After getting report from the Dy.S.P., VACB, Kozhikode, and on perusal...

Mt Enrica Lexie, a Vessel Flying the Flag of Italy and Another Vs. Cir ...

Court: Kerala

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On 15.2.2012, two fishermen on a fishing vessel by name St. Antony were shot dead. It was alleged that the assailants were on board of a vessel by name MT Enrica Lexie', which is the first petitioner, owned by the second petitioner. Basing upon the First Information Statement a case as Crime No. 2 of 2012 of Coastal Police Station, Neendakara, for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Consequently, the first respondent was intercepted by Coast Guard during her continued voyage and brought to Kochi and anchored. Subsequently, two security men on board the ship were arrested. After obtaining a search warrant from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kollam, the vessel was thoroughly searched. Weapons and other connected articles were seized by the investigating officer. But the vessel was not allowed to leave the port. In the meanwhile, three Admiralty suits were instituted. As ordered by this Court, in M.F.A....

Soudamini Vs. Kunhathi

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT96

1. A short, in fact, a four line order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Payyannur, on an application moved for interim directions/orders in an appeal preferred from a decree granting a declaratory relief to the plaintiff, regarding her entitlement to claim pension as the widow of a retired Army Personnel, has given rise to serious questions over the jurisdiction of the Civil Court vis--vis the entertainability of a suit before a Civil Court to claim pensionary benefits as the legal heir of a military personnel. 2. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Payyannur on the application moved by the 1st respondent in A.S.No.52/2010, which arose from the decree passed in O.S. No.133/06 by the learned Munsiff, Payyannur. That suit was instituted by the 1st respondent in the aforesaid appeal, as the plaintiff. Shorn off all paraphernalia covering the pleadings of the parties involved in the lis, suffice to state, the suit was laid by the aforesaid respondent claiming herself to be...

The Commissioner of Income Tax, CochIn Vs. M/S. Bimbis Creams and Bake ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT79(SN)(C.No.84)

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Both the appeals filed by the Revenue are against common order issued by the Tribunal cancelling a block assessment completed against the respondent under Section 158BD of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter called "the Act") on the ground that the Assessing Officer before issuing notice for assessment did not record reasons and that the assessment is also barred by limitation. We have heard Senior counsel Sri.P.K.R.Menon appearing for the Revenue and Senior counsel Sri.T.M.Sreedharan appearing for the respondent. 2. First question to be considered is whether the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the block assessment confirmed in first appeal for the reason that Assessing Officer has not recorded reasons for issuance of notice for assessment under Section 158BD of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter called "the Act"). We notice that the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee following their order in appeal in the case of M/s.Panchajanyam Management Agencies case wh...

T.J. Sojimol Vs. State of Kerala and Others

Court: Kerala

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The Registry has noted a defect regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. A clarification was sought whether the matter is to be dealt with by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. Since learned counsel for the petitioner requested to send the matter to the bench, the matter came up for consideration and accordingly it was heard. 2. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner who has been included in the rank list, Ext.P3, published by the Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of H.S.A. (Maths). He is claiming appointment in the reservation quota for disabled (Orthopaedically Physically handicapped –locomotor disability). The challenge is against Ext.P4 order passed by the Government directing the Public Service Commission to advise physically handicapped candidates against serial Nos.33, 66 and 99 in a cycle of 100 vacancies. Various reliefs have been accordingly sought. 3. Shri Benoy Thomas, learned counsel for the petition...

Ragunath Vs. Bindu and Another

Court: Kerala

S.S. Satheesachandran, J. 1. Petitioner is the 2nd defendant in a suit for partition. In the final decree proceedings of that suit, an advocate commissioner deputed by the court, after conducting local inspection and measurement of the properties with the assistance of a qualified surveyor, filed a report and plan before the court, to which, the petitioner/2nd defendant raised objections questioning its acceptability. In the enquiry that proceeded on such objections, the advocate commissioner and also the petitioner were examined. The learned Munsiff, finding no reason to set aside or remit the report, turned down the objections raised by the petitioner/2nd defendant vide Ext.P5 order. Correctness of that order is assailed in this original petition invoking the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Going through Ext.P5 order with reference to the submissions made by the learned c...

Alice Markose Vs. Yesudas Prasad and Others

Court: Kerala

K.T. Sankaran, J. 1. The petitioner, the plaintiff in O.S.No.744 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Additional Munsiff of Kottayam, is aggrieved by the order dated 4.1.2010 in I.A.No.3311 of 2009, by which the court below rejected the prayer made by the petitioner to engross the final decree on stamp paper on deposit of the proportionate value of stamp duty in respect of the share of the plaintiff. 2. The preliminary decree provides for division of the property into four shares. The plaintiff is entitled to 1/4 share. The final decree was passed on 21.1.2009. It was not engrossed on stamp paper. All the sharers were not prepared to deposit in Court the amount required for the non-judicial stamp paper for engrossing the decree in proportion to the value of their shares. The petitioner wanted to get the final decree engrossed on stamp paper. She offered to deposit the proportionate amount in respect of the value of her share. But, she was not prepared to deposit the entire amount re...

K.K. Abraham and Company, Bharath Petroleum Dealers, Kochi (Rep. by th ...

Court: Kerala

1. Whether the petitioner partnership firm is entitled to have the benefit of input tax credit on the opening stock of the goods as on 1-4-2005, in respect of the petroleum products other than petrol and diesel, despite the fact that, the petitioner firm came into existence only much after the relevant period, is the issue to be considered and dealt with in this case. 2. The petitioner firm is a dealer and distributor of the petroleum products marketed by M/s. Bharath Petroleum Company Limited. Earlier, the outlet was being operated as a 'proprietor-ship concern' belonging to one Mr.K.K Abraham, who took his last breath on 23-11-2004. On demise of the owner, the legal heirs took over the business as a running concern, by forming a partnership. Present petitioner is a different entity, as five of the earlier partners were subsequently excluded and the firm is now being run just by two persons, as the partners. 3. The grievance of the petitioner originates from the time when the petition...

Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Vs. M/S. A.V.K. Traders

Court: Kerala

1. Original petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs: (a) To call for the records leading to Ext.P11, P11(a), P11(b) and P12 and set aside the same. (b) To declare that the respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to continue the suit as a Proprietary concern. (c) To direct the court below to frame additional issues as prayed for in Ext.P4. (d) To issue any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.39/08 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. Ext.P1 is the copy of the plaint in the above suit. Suit is for money for various claims stated in Ext.P1 plaint, allegedly, arising from the business transactions of the plaintiff a registered firm with the defendant, a statutory Corporation over the supply of goods to the latter. The defendant resisted the suit claim filing Ext.P2 written statement. The trial of the case is in progress with one among the ...

A.K. Stephen, President, Alappuzha District Vs. State of Kerala Rep. b ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. This is a Public Interest Litigation filed by the President, Kerala Malsya Thozhilali Congress, Cherthala alleging diversion and misutilisation of most of the Tsunami Rehabilitation funds of more than Rs.1400 crores granted by the Central Government specifically for the purpose of rehabilitation of Tsunami victims and for undertaking rehabilitation works in Tsunami affected areas. The petitioner has raised a specific contention that in spite of identifying certain rural roads in the coastal area at Alappuzha for reconstruction under the Tsunami Rehabilitation Scheme and even though the Planning Commission approved the same, nothing is done to improve the roads. Since the total amount allotted by the Central Government was as much as 1441.75 crores, we called for a detailed statement of application of funds by the State Government for the purposes for which funds were released by the Central Government. Even though details of the projects executed and the utilis...