Court : Kerala
Decided on : Nov-21-2002
Reported in : 2003(1)KLT87
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. Defendants 2 and 3 in a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and injunction are the revision petitioners. This C.R.P. is filed against the order passed by the learned Sub Judge dismissing an application filed by the revision petitioners to send two documents containing the disputed signature and handwriting for expert opinion.2. Respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and for consequential injunction. According to respondents 1 and 2, they are the legal heirs of deceased Anil Kumar and they alone are entitled to succeed the estate of Anil Kumar. The case put forward by respondents 1 and 2 in the plaint is that late Sri. Anil Kumar married the first respondent in accordance with the provisions of the Special Marriage Act and in that wedlock the second respondent was born. The first defendant who is the 4th respondent in the C.R.P. is the mother of deceased Anil Kumar. It is alleged that the su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : May-28-2002
Reported in : AIR2002Ker313
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. S.A. No. 362 of 1990 has come before us on a reference by one of us, Bhaskaran. J., by order dated 21st December, 2001. Suit, O.S. No. 233 of 1980 was filed for redemption of mortgage. Two questions of law raised in the Second Appeal, which are as follows:(1) Can a composite decree for redemption of mortgage, drawn in Form 7D under Order 34 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure as provided by notification dated 10.12.1973 issued by the High Court of Kerala, be drawn up after the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act 104of 1976? (2) Is not the decree now granted irregular and improper, inasmuch as, it is not in conformity with Order 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act 104 of 1976? The suit out of which, the present Second Appeal is filed is O.S. No. 233 of 1980. The suit was filed for redemption of mortgage evidenced by document dated 11.12.1951.2. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on 28.5.1984. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Apr-11-2002
Reported in : 2003(1)KLT311
Cyriac Joseph, J. 1. The petitioner Delia Tony is the wife of Tony John Koothoor who is detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA Act') in the Central Jail, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner prays for a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents, namely, Union of India, State of Kerala, the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Central Revenue Buildings, I.S. Press Road, Ernakulam and the Assistant Commissioner, Air Customs, Thiruvananthapuram to produce the body of Sri. Tony John Koothoor and release him from custody or detention forthwith. She also prays for quashing Ext. P12 order passed by the Government of Kerala under Section 8(f) of the COFEPOSA Act and Ext. P13 order of the Government of India rejecting the representation dated 3.8.2001 of Sri. Tony John Koothoor against his detention.2. On 6.1.1993 the Officers of the Air Intelligence Unit, Air Customs, Thiruvananthapur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jul-17-2002
Reported in : 2002CriLJ4374
B.N. Srikrishna, C.J. 1.These Writ Petitions under Section 226 of the Constitution of India challenge the Constitutional validity of Section 6 of the Kerala Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'KESMA'). The petitions have been brought by different organisations representing Government servants and individual Government servants. Since they arise the same question, they are heard together and disposed of by a common judgment.2. On account of the financial stringency faced by the State Government, the State Government by an order dated 16.1.2002 curtailed, modified and postponed some of the benefits available to Government servants. There was wide spread opposition to this move of the Government and different organisations representing government servants threatened to go on strike. Anticipating such a strike, the State Government issued a notification dated 1st February, 2002, in exercise of its powers under Section 2(1)(a) of the KESMA declaring the ser...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jan-31-2002
Reported in : (2002)176CTR(Ker)268; [2002]258ITR679(Ker)
B.N. Srikrishna, C.J. 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the constitutional validity of Service Tax levied under the Finance Act, 1998 (2 of 1998) on taxable service rendered by practising Chartered Accountants.2. The petitioner is an Association of Chartered Accountants in Kerala registered under the Travancore Cochin Charitable Societies Act, which impugns the service tax levied on its members by reason of Sections 64 to 96 of the Finance Act, 1994, (32 of 1994), as amended by Finance Act, 1998 (2 of 1998).Background of the levy : As an off-shot of the recommendations of the Dr. Raja Chelliah Committee in 1990, for the first time, in the Union Budget for 1994-95, a levy of service tax on service relating to three categories, ie., stock brokers, general insurers and telephone services was imposed. The Raja Chelliah Committee had observed that indirect tax at the Central level should be broadly neutral in relation to production and consumption ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-25-2002
Reported in : [2002]110CompCas721(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. First respondent in this appeal (referred in this judgment as the petitioner for convenience) filed a petition under Section 237 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') to direct the Central Government to appoint one or more competent persons as inspectors by declaring that the affairs of the Premier Plantations Ltd., first appellant ('as company') ought to be investigated and to report thereon within a specified time limit. Before going into the facts of the case we may first discuss the power of this Court under Section 237(a)(ii). Section 237 reads as follows :'Investigation of company's affairs in other cases.- Without prejudice to its powers under Section 235, the Central Government--(a) shall appoint one or more competent persons as inspectors to investigate the affairs of a company and to report thereon in such manner as the Central Government may direct, if--(i) the company, by special resolution; or(ii) the Court, by order, declares that the affairs of the comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Oct-05-2002
Reported in : 2003(1)KLT546
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Revision petitioner, the alleged sub lessee, was the second counter petitioner before the Rent Control Court. Eviction was sought for against the counter petitioners under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11 (4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (in short 'the Act'). Rent Control Court dismissed the petition holding that ground of subletting was not established. On appeal by the landlord, Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Control Court and allowed eviction under Section 11(4)(i).2. For the disposal of this case, we will refer to the parties according to their status before the Rent Control Court. The landlord submitted that the petition schedule building was rented out to the first counter petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 700/- as per the rent deed, Ext. A1dated 7.2.1994. Petitioner landlord stated that the first counter petitioner was conducting a wholesale business in rice and later conducted business in coir, coir matt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jul-02-2002
Reported in : 2002(2)ALT(Cri)367; 2003CriLJ650
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This writ of habeas corpus has been filed by the brother of the detenu challenging the order of detention passed under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short COFEPOSA) to revoke order of detention dated 23.8.2001 and to set him free.2. The order of detention was passed under Section 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the COFEPOSA by which one Siddique was detained based on his involvement in the seizure of illegal export of foreign currencies and Indian currencies totally valued at Rs. 2,55,86,013.85. The Kerala Regional Unit of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted Siddique from Trivandrum International Airport on 3.5.2001. On search of his registered baggage resulted in the seizure of above mentioned foreign currencies and Indian currencies along with other incriminating materials. Statements were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and he was arrested and produced ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Oct-25-2002
Reported in : [2006]146STC61(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. In both these writ appeals, appellant is same. He is the petitioner in the original petitions. W.A. No. 1501 of 2002 is filed against the judgment in O.P. No. 38164 of 2001*, while W.A. No. 1503 of 2002 is filed against the judgment in O.P. No. 37942 of 2001. The prayer in O.P. No. 38164 of 2001* is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the fifth, sixth and seventh respondents to issue the forms as prescribed Under Sub-clause (4) of clause 1 read with Schedulev.annexed to the Notification in S.R.O. No. 1728/93 to the petitioner for the works executed by them during the periods 1995-96 and 1996-97 for them to claim reduced rate of tax at 4 per cent. The facts of the case are as follows:2. The petitioner was awarded contract for supplying, installing, testing and commissioning of diesel generator sets to various telephone exchanges of Department of Telecom, Kerala, which are within the administrative control of third to seventh respondents. The petitioner has been ...
Tag this Judgment!