Kerala Court February 2016 Judgments
Union of India, Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and Ot ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. These two writ appeals have been filed against common judgment dated 20.7.2010 in W.P(C) No.25534 of 2013. First respondent in W.A No.2022 of 2010 was the petitioner. The writ petition has been decided directing payment of Rs.10 lakhs to the writ petitioner as his share towards salvage money. Both the parties being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge have come up in appeal. 2. Parties shall be referred to as described in the writ petition. 3. In the writ petition, counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents to which, reply was also filed. In the writ appeals, an affidavit dated 20.11.2015 was also filed by Union of India to which reply affidavit dated 17.12.2015 has been filed by the writ petitioner. 4. Brief facts of the case as emerged from the pleadings of the parties are:- The petitioner, an officer of Indian Navy, was on deputation to the Coast Guard between September, 1995 to December, 1996. Petitioner was the commanding officer o...
Tag this Judgment!S. Alan Vs. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-2016
Facts: 1. The petitioners are the members of the sixth respondent Co-operative Society with a membership base of 23,000. The Society issued Exhibit P2 notification to hold the elections on 21.02.2016. The division of wards took place as per Exhibit P1 bye-laws. It has, after the commencement of the election process, published the final voters list containing 1182 names out of 23,000 members. 2. The petitioners have assailed both Exhibit P1 bye-laws and Exhibit P2 notification on these grounds: that the division of wards in Exhibit P1 bye-laws is not as per the law namely, Section 28 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (for short 'the Act'); that many eligible members have been excluded from the final voters list; that Exhibit P3 minutes of the general body meeting had the signatures of the members forged; and that the objections filed by the petitioners and other members as regards the executive members have not been properly considered by the Electoral Officer. 3. Ventilating the...
Tag this Judgment!Indus Motors Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income T ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-2016
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. A Division Bench hearing these appeals entertained a doubt regarding the correctness of an earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in Joy Alukkas India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ITA No.230 of 2013). By reference order dated 18.08.2015, the Division Bench opined that the judgment in Joy Alukkas case (supra) requires reconsideration, consequently the Income Tax appeals have been placed before this Full Bench for consideration. 2. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals need to be noted for appreciating the issues which are up for consideration before us. These three appeals have been filed by the assessee (Indus Motor Company Pvt. Ltd) against the common order dated 25.07.2014 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench by which order the three Income Tax appeals filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) were decided. The three appeals arose out of different assessment years; 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. It...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Joseph Vs. M. Venkata Rao and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-2016
Shaffique, J. 1. This case has been referred for consideration by a Full Bench, as per reference order dated 20th August, 2015 on account of an apparent conflict between two Division Bench judgments of this Court in T.A. Kuriakose v. Ittoop and others (M.A.C.A No.693/2004) decided on 4/6/2008 and Abraham v. Johny (M.A.C.A No. 990/2005) [2009 (4) KLT 679] decided on 4/11/2008. 2. The appeal is filed by a claimant in a motor vehicle accident alleging that his vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-5/T-6379 sustained damages, in an accident which occurred on 23/8/2009. An assessment was made by a Surveyor, according to whom the damages were assessed at Rs.5,62,511/-. However, he gave a report stating that after depreciation, the cost for repairs would come to Rs.4,14,244.85 ps. Petitioner submitted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the MV Act) claiming the said amount. The Tribunal by its award dated 30/11/2012 having found that the petition...
Tag this Judgment!M. Senthil Kalidas Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
1. The petitioner was a successful bidder in an auction conducted by the 4th respondent on 18.07.2009 of properties comprising of 0.2833 hectors in Re-Sy.No.22/3 and 0.3237 hectors in Re.Sy.No.24/2 of Muthalamada-II Village in Chittur Taluk. The auction was conducted for the purposes of realisation of an amount of Rs.1,12,14,099/- which was due from Sri.M.Abdul Wahab towards sales tax dues for the assessment year 2001-2002. It would appear that the properties belonging to the said Sri.Abdul Wahab were put up for sale on 18.07.2009 on which date 7 persons, including the petitioner, participated in the auction sale and the petitioner turned out to be the highest bidder for an amount of Rs.2,77,000/-. The petitioner subsequently paid the entire bid amount to the revenue account by challans dated 22.07.2009 and 13.08.2009. In the writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the steps taken by the respondents to cancel the sale of the properties in favour of the petitioner. It is his case ...
Tag this Judgment!Meethal Mohammed Kunhi and Others. State Of Kerala, Represented By The ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
Ashok Bhushan, CJ. 1. This Writ Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Judgment Dated 12/12/2013 in W.P.C.No.30687/2013 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioners had been dismissed on the ground of laches. 2. The brief facts necessary for deciding the writ appeal are: The petitioners' land was acquired for establishment of Naval Academy by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the LA Act') dated 22/02/1983. Petitioners did not make an application for reference under Section 18 of the LA Act. Other land holders, whose land was acquired by the same notification, had made an application for reference under Section 18 of the LA Act. The Sub Court, Payyannur disposed of various Land Acquisition References. With regard to LAR No.94/92, an appeal was also filed in the High Court and the amount of compensation was further enhanced. Sub Court, Payyannur, in the proceedings under Section 18 of the LA Act in LAR No.120/87, awarded an ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanan Kutty and Another Vs. The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative So ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
Facts: 1. The petitioners, being the members of the sixth respondent Society, laid challenge against Exhibit P2 amended bye-laws and also Exhibit P1 election notification on two grounds: (a) In contravention of the third proviso to Section 28 (1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (for short 'the Act'), the Society has divided its area into six wards instead of eleven, the total number of wards; and (b) despite the statutory mandate that the Society should maintain a Form 32 Register in terms of Rule 18A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (for short 'the Rules'), it is going to hold election without maintaining any register. Rival Submissions: Petitioners': 2. In the above brief factual backdrop, Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has drawn my attention to the third proviso to Section 28(1) of the Act to hammer home his contention that if eleven members have to be elected to the Managing Committee, inclusive of the reserved categories, the area of t...
Tag this Judgment!The Executive Director, Index Chits and Finance Private Ltd. Vs. V.K. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
K. Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The first respondent in O.P.(M.V.)No.2169 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur is the appellant herein. The first respondent herein filed the above claim petition claiming compensation for the personal injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident involving a motor cycle with registration No.KL-8/V- 9839 registered in the name of the first respondent, driven by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent and in the possession of the fourth respondent. According to the claimant, he sustained severe injuries in the accident. He is an agriculturist, aged 65 years, having a monthly income of Rs.4,000/- and claimed a total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- under various heads. 2. The appellant, who is the first respondent in the lower court, entered appearance and filed a counter contending that on the basis of the hire purchase agreement, the second respondent is in possession of the vehicle and he is in possession ...
Tag this Judgment!Niju Peter Jose Vs. Shanavas Nalakath Kannikandathil House and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
1. The petitioner herein is the defacto complainant in a prosecution brought under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (EO), Ernakulam. On the complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance as C.C No.375/2011 and the case now stands transferred to the register of long pending cases. On the ground of territorial jurisdiction in view of the recent amendment brought to the Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioner made an application before the court below to transfer the case to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor. The learned Magistrate declined the request and dismissed the said application on 1.2.2016 on the ground that a case now pending in the register of long pending cases, cannot be transferred. The said order is under challenge. 2. What is provided under Section 142(a) (1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act by way of amendment recently is a statutory transfer. Once the court finds that it does not have ter...
Tag this Judgment!Subash Soman, Managing Director, M/s.Maramon Hotel and Resort Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
1. Do the Abkari Act and the Rules made there under draw a distinction between a domestic terminal and an international terminal of an International Airport for the purpose of establishing an Executive Lounge where liquor is served to transiting passengers? 2. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, represented by its Managing Director, has Hotels and Resorts. In the writ petition, however, the Managing Director projected himself as the petitioner instead of representing the Company a minor, curable discrepancy. In the course of time, the Company obtained Exhibit P1 licence from the fourth respondent, the Airport Authority of India, to establish an Executive Lounge in the domestic terminal of the International Airport at Thiruvananthapuram. In terms of clause 4 of Exhibit P1 licence, the Company is entitled to sell Beer and Liquor at the Executive Lounge on the production of licence from the State Excise Department and also subject to payment of certain amounts to the Airport Author...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »