Kerala Court February 2016 Judgments
M/s. Parle Agro Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Commercial Taxes Trivandrum
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-05-2016
Anu Sivaraman, J. 1. This appeal under Section 62(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against Annexure 4 order of the authority issued under Section 94 of the Act. The appellant who is a manufacturer of the product "Appy Fizz" had preferred Annexure 2 application for clarification under Section 94 of the Act. The clarificatio sought was whether the product, which had been classified as a 'Fruit Juice Based Drink', is liable to be included under Entry No. 71(5) as similar other products not mentioned under any other entry in the list or any other schedules and would therefore be chargeable to VAT @ 14.5%. Clarification was also sought whether the product classified under Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act is mutually exclusive of the products classified under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6. 2. The main contention urged by the appellant before the authority was to the effect that the product had been class...
Tag this Judgment!Devaki Amma Vs. State of Kerala, rep by Public Prosecutor and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-2016
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. What is under challenge is Annexure-A10. The petitioner has sought for a further investigation in the matter relating to S.T.No.2252 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Ottapalam, on the ground that the 1st accused in the First Information Report has not been arraigned as accused in the Final Report. Presently, the 1st accused in the First Information Report is not an accused in S.T.No.2252 of 2012. 3. According to the petitioner, she along with her sons are the co-owners in respect of the property as is evident from Annexure-A11 release deed. In such case, she can also be treated as a victim of offence. 4. Relying on the decision in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and another [(1985) 2 SCC 537], the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner also can be treated as a victim. In the decision in Bhagwant Singh (Supra) it was held: "The injured p...
Tag this Judgment!K.B. Muhammed Vs. T.V. Achumma and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-2016
Antony Dominic, J. 1. These appeals and cross objections arise from the judgment in W.P(C).38533/10. That writ petition filed by the appellant in the cross objections was allowed by judgment dated 21.7.2015. Aggrieved by that judgment, the official respondents have filed WA.128/16 and the additional 5th respondent in the writ petition has filed W.A.1829/15. The cross objections are filed by the writ petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment, to the extent her challenge against Ext.P14(a) Government Order was not considered by the learned single Judge. 2. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the writ petition. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the writ petitioner joined service as UPSA in the school of the 5th respondent Manager on 16.7.1990. At the time of entry in service, on the basis of the entry in her SSLC Book, she declared 1.6.1959 as her date of birth and this was entered in the service records. 4. Subsequently, on 3.3.1993, s...
Tag this Judgment!Margret D Cruz Versu Union of India Represented by the Secretary Minis ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-2016
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. This writ appeal has been field against the judgment dated 01.03.2013 in O.P. No. 13514 of 1997 by which judgment the learned Single Judge disposed of the Original Petition directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to comply with the order passed by the Prime Minister's Office dated 15.02.2013, sanctioning the financial assistance of Rs.5 lakhs to the family of the petitioner and further directing the State Government to disburse an amount of Rs.1 lakh to the petitioner. The learned Single Judge referring to above payments as settlement left open the legal issues involved in the case. 2. The petitioner aggrieved by the said judgment has come up in this writ appeal. The parties shall be referred to as described in the Original Petition. In the Original petition, statement, counter affidavits and other affidavits were filed by the respondents to which reply was also filed by the petitioner. 3. The facts of the case as emerged from the pleadings of the parties are as fo...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Reena George Vs. University of Calicut, represented by its Registr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-2016
1. All these writ petitions, except W.P.(C) No.9785 of 2015, were filed challenging the notifications issued by the respondent-University, produced as Exhibits P3 to P5 in W.P.(C) No.18659 2015, bearing Nos. (i) 9833/GA-II-C-SO/2013/CU, (ii) 9833/GA-II-C-SO/2013/CU(2) and (iii) 9833/GA-II-C-SO/2013/CU(3) all dated 13.04.2015. W.P.(C) No.9785 of 2015 was filed challenging the earlier notification; in which there was an interim order that one post of Assistant Professor in Psychology should not be filled up. W.P.(C) No.9785 of 2015 is no more relevant, for reason of the subsequent notification and also the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-University in answer to the other writ petitions. 2. I have heard all the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the University and the grounds boil down to essentially three contentions. The Calicut University Act, 1975 and the Calicut University First Statutes,1977 earlier ...
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Sajan Vs. The Land Acquisition Officer Special Tahsildar and Othe ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-2016
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner against the judgment dated 05.10.2015 in W.P.(C) No.4024 of 2014 by which judgment directions have been issued to the 1st respondent to prepare a fresh award in relation to the property acquired from the petitioner, by applying the principles relating to determination of compensation as provided under the 2013 Act. 2. Brief facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings are: The proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short '1894 Act') were initiated proposing to acquire land for the construction of a parallel road, by notification under Section 4(1) dated 25.06.2013 which was also published in the daily newspapers dated 12.07.2013. Notice dated 22.07.2013 was issued under the Kerala Land Acquisition Rules inviting objections from the interested persons. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also issued on 16.2.2014. The land of the petitioner was acquired by the above notifications. 3. The...
Tag this Judgment!Cholasseri Hamza and Another Vs. T.V. Udayaraj
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-2016
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This interlocutory application is filed invoking Sections 24 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the respondents who are defendants in O.S.No.290 of 1994 of the Sub Court, Manjeri. That suit, which was valued at Rs.2,10,874/-, was partly decreed. The plaintiffs appealed it before the High Court. The defendants have filed an appeal before the District Court, Manjeri as A.S.No.110 of 2005. The request is that the said appeal be withdrawn to this Court in exercise of powers under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. When two appeals arise from the same suit, it is obviously a grave error, and an apparent deficit in legal advice, that one of the appeals was instituted before the District Court because the value of the subject matter of the suit from which both the appeals arise; which is the decisive factor; is beyond Rs.2,00,000/- and, therefore, any appeal could have been entertained only by the High Court even if the amount in dispute in...
Tag this Judgment!Kakkoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Joint Registrar of Income T ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-2016
1. The challenge in the Writ Petition is against Ext.P5 order of the 3rd respondent Tribunal whereby the said Tribunal has dismissed an appeal preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P2 order of the 2nd respondent. In Ext.P5 order, the 3rd respondent has found that the Registry has noted a defect in respect of the appeal preferred by the petitioner before it, stating that the petitioner had filed only a single appeal against Ext.P2 order which covered a period of three assessment years namely assessment years 2011-2012 to 2013-2014. The Registry was of the view that the petitioner needed to file three appeals in respect of each of the assessment years that were covered by Ext.P2 order of the 2nd respondent. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in as much as, the appeal before the 3rd respondent Tribunal was preferred only against a single order passed by the 2nd respondent, irrespective of the fact that it covered a period of three assessment years, the r...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala represented by the Deputy Commissioner (Law) Commercia ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-2016
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Heard Smt.Shoba Annamma Eapen, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the appellant/State and Adv.K.N.Sreekumaran appearing for the respondent. 2. This revision under Section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 is by the Revenue against concurrent decisions of the first appellate authority and the Tribunal holding against the Revenue in matters relating to assessment of the respondent dealer having different branches and which had transferred goods from its different branches in India. The assessee challenged the assessment order. The first appellate authority thought it appropriate to take recourse to Rule 38(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, for short, the Rules and therefore, called for a report from the assessing authority. Such report has to be made after verification of records, documents and other evidences. The assessing authority, as is discernible from Annexure B first appellate order, submitted before the D.C...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Vijayan Vs. T.A. Jayaprabha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-2016
Hariprasad, J. 1. This original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India comes up before us pursuant to an order of reference passed by a learned Single Judge. Parties to this proceedings are husband and wife. Wife (respondent-plaintiff) filed O.S.No.82 of 1997 before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Thiruvalla against her husband (petitioner-defendant) for return of `50,000/- allegedly entrusted with him at the time of their marriage and also for the value of her ornaments, said to have been appropriated by him. Learned trial Judge dismissed the suit. An appeal was brought up before this Court as A.S.No.93 of 2000. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal in part and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal. This Court confirmed the finding of trial court that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant had received Rs. 50,000/- at the time of marriage. However, the Division Bench was of the view that the trial court's denial of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »