Kerala Court March 2012 Judgments

T.K. Aboobacker Vs. the State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Pro ...

Court: Kerala

P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. 1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner, who is the second accused in C.C. 562 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class - II, Hosdurg, seeks an order to quash all further proceedings against him. The offence alleged is under Section 420 IPC. The plea is that the matter has been settled between the first accused and the complainant and accordingly, the first accused was acquitted under Section 320(8)of the Code of Criminal Procedure as evidenced by Annexure A3 order. The fact that the complainant and the first accused compounded the matter would not enable the second accused to have an order of acquittal under Section 320 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Neither is he entitled to get an order to quash further proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the event the matter is settled between the petitioner and the complainant, the offence being a compoundable one, though with the permission of th...

P.V. Raju Vs. the Circle Inspector of Police and Others

Court: Kerala

S. Siri Jagan, J. 1. A tipper lorry belonging to the petitioner was seized on allegations of illegal transportation of river sand in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act . A First Information Report has been registered, wherein the allegation is that the vehicle was seized at 11.30 a.m. on 25.11.2011 while loading river sand without having any permit or licence. The petitioner contends that actually the vehicle was seized at 8.30 p.m. on 25.11.2011 from the petitioner's residence and that the vehicle was not used for transporting sand and there was no sand in the lorry. He would submit that at the relevant time, the petitioner was under treatment after a road accident and therefore he had no occasion to use the lorry for any purpose. According to the petitioner, a false case has been foisted on the petitioner. The petitioner's case was supported by 39 persons including the neighbours of the petitioner, who submitted a...

Krishnakumar and Another Vs. CochIn Devaswom, CochIn Devaswom Board Of ...

Court: Kerala

Thomas P. Joseph, J. 1. The following substantial questions of law are framed for a decision. “(i) Is the finding of the lower appellate court that there was no Karaima right for the family of appellants in accordance with the law? (ii) Has the lower appellate court construed the pleadings in accordance with the law? (iii) Did the first appellate court act in accordance with law in the matter of appreciating the evidence? (iv) What is the effect of the Kerala Hindu Joint Family System (Abolition Act) 1976 (for short, "the Act") on the claim of parties to the suit? (v) What are the power of the Cochin Devaswom Board in relation to the rights of the parties? (vi) Has the 4th respondent any hereditary right to be in office in preference to the appellants.” 2. Shorn off frills and embroideries, the dispute concerns right to perform 'Malakazhakam' (preparation of garlands for the deity) in the Peruvanam Sree Mahadeva Temple (for short, "the Temple") which is under the governance...

Aniben and Others Vs. Krishnankutty and Others

Court: Kerala

ORDER 1. Petition under Sections 439(2) and 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure. Petitioners are the injured in Crime No. 487 of 2011 of the Puthencruz Police Station for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 308 and 427 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They would seek an order to quash Annexure H order whereby the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, in Crl. M.C. No. 2093 of 2011, granted pre-arrest bail to respondents 1 to 4 who are accused 1 and 3 to 5 in the above case. The plea of the petitioners is that despite the serious nature of the crime including attempt to commit culpable homicide and without considering the objection raised by the prosecution, the Additional Sessions Judge granted pre-arrest bail. 2. Going by the First Information Statement contained in Annexure- A, I find that the allegation against the accused are that at about 10.30 p.m. on 14.1.2011, the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and being members of unlawful assembly,...

Kailasan Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Court: Kerala

R.Basant, J. 1. In the Indo-Anglo Saxon adversarial system of administration of criminal justice, which we follow, witnesses are the eyes and ears of the Court. It is they who help the Court to ascertain truth and to administer justice. The system is built on the solid rock of sanctity of oath. Unless this sanctity of oath is imbibed by the polity and the witnesses, the system would crumble down and discredit itself. To preserve the sanctity of oath, it is important that the trial is conducted expeditiously. When there is unreasonable gap of time between the culpable event and the trial, the very foundations are shaken. Righteous indignation gives way to misplaced sympathy and the truth discovery process gets defeated and discredited. This is a classic case which points to the urgent need for innovation and reform of the system, if discovery of truth and administration of justice is the real and dominant purpose of the voyage of trial. 2. The appellant has been found guilty, convicted ...

Joy Francis and Another Vs. Joseph Netto and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(2)KLJ325; 2012(2)KLT54(SN)(C.No.52); 2012(2)ILR(Ker)272

1. Original petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: (i) To call for the entire records of E.A.No.347/2011 in E.P.No.189/2011 in O.S.No.125/2006 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Kollam and set aside Ext.P7 order and allow E.A.No.347/2011 in E.P.No.189/2011 in O.S.No.125/2006 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Kollam. (ii) To call for the entire records of O.S.No.700/2011 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Kollam and direct the court below to consider the case as expeditiously as possible. (iii) any other direction or order in the facts and circumstances presented in the case circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioners are the additional judgment debtors 3 and 4 in E.P.No.189/2011 in O.S.No.125/2006 on the file of the Principal Munsiff’s Court, Kollam. A compromise decree passed in the suit is being executed in the aforesaid execution petition by the 1st respondent/decree holder. Respondents 2 and 3 were the defendants in the suit. The 2nd respondent/f...

Kerala Financial Corporation, Rep. by Managing Director Vs. the Assist ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The question raised is only with regard to the validity of reassessment completed under Section 147 to disallow provision for bad debts. On merits, the appellant has no dispute that the provision is not allowable. Further, whatever is the bad debt claimed and disallowed, it can be claimed as and when the provision now created becomes real bad debt. 2. After hearing appellant's counsel and on going through the Tribunal's order, we do not find any ground to  interfere with the Tribunal's order with regard to the validity of the reassessment completed under Section 147 because under the amended provisions, all what is required is sufficient reason for the Assessing Officer to initiate proceeding to bring to tax escaped income which includes any allowance wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Provision for bad debt is allowable only for Banks subject to conditions provided therein and no Financial Institution like the appellant is entitled to claim the p...

K.L. Constantine and Another Vs. Bruss Foods B.V., and Another

Court: Kerala

1. The original petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs: i. to call for the records in I.A. No. 3436 /2011 in O.S. No.43/2009 on the file of the Ist Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. ii. To set aside Ext.P6 order. iii. To issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction with this Honorable Court deem fit iv. To award cost of proceedings. 2. Petitioners are the defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 43 of 2009 on the file of the Ist Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. Suit is one for recovery of money and mandatory injunction. Ext. P1 is the copy of the plaint. Plaintiff is engaged in the business of trading sea food including tuna, and its operations involve procurement of sea food from various countries and also supply to other countries. It had business transactions for a period of time from 2006 to 2007 with the 1st and 2nd defendants, and on several occasions it placed orders with the 1st defendant to various persons identified by the plaintiff. According to the terms of eac...

V.V. Muraleedharan Vs. P.G. Shaji

Court: Kerala

1. The Original Petition has been filed to set aside Ext.P7 order passed by the District Judge, Thrissur in A.S. No.39/2012 arising from O.P.No.30/2010 on the file of the Principal Munsiff’s Court, Thrissur, Petitioner was a candidate in the election held on 25-10-2010 from Ward No.15 of Puthoor Grama Panchayat in Thrissur district. The respondent herein was declared as the elected candidate. Petitioner challenged the election of the respondent as the returned candidate alleging that seven persons who voted for the respondent, had exercised double voting in asmuch as casting two votes in wards/panchayath. On the materials Placed, upholding the challenge of the petitioner, seven votes cast in favour of the respondent were found void and his election was set aside. Petitioner was declared as the elected candidate. As against that decision, the respondent preferred the aforesaid appeal, A.S. No. 39/2012 referred to above. In that appeal, he applied for a stay of the operation of the...

M/S. Mgf Motors Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The question raised in the revision filed by the assessee is whether the replacement of parts of automobile during warranty period without collecting any price for the same from the vehicle owner amounts to sale that attracts sales tax. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondent. 3. The issue stands covered against the petitioner by the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ekram Khan and Sons v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., reported in 136 STC 515. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Single Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Commercial Tax Officer (Anti-Evasion), Jodhpur v. Marudhara Motors, reported in 2010 (29) VST 114, wherein the Rajasthan High Court after distinguishing the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court held that free replacement of parts of vehicle sourced from the manufacturer of the vehicle does not involve any sale. Learned couns...