Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(1)KLT65
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether a decree obtained by a bank before the introduction of Section 26B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 would override the first charge created in favour of the State.2. The South Indian Bank Ltd. instituted a suit, O.S.720 of 1992 before Sub Court, Trichur for realisation of amounts due to the bank. Loans were secured by equitable mortgage of immovable properties created by deposit of title deeds by respondents 3 to 5. Suit was decreed on 30.1.1995 for an amount of Rs. 3,51,36,073,18 inclusive of costs with future interest at 23.25% from the date of suit till realisation by sale of items 1 to 12 in the plaint A schedule immovable properties and also the movables described in plaint B to F schedule. Bank also filed OA. 1081 of 1998 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ghennai for recovery of the amounts as per the decree by sale of immovable properties mortgaged in favour of the bank. Notic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2005)197CTR(Ker)298; [2005]278ITR155(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether the export premium received by a supporting manufacturer from an export house would fall under the expression 'brokerage, commission charges or any other receipts of similar nature' contemplated under Sub-clause (i) of clause (baa) of Explanation to Section 80HHC(4A) of the IT Act, 1961 is the question that has come up for consideration in these cases.2. IT Appeal No. 140 of 2001 arises out of the order passed in ITA No. 152/Coch/1999 dt. 30th March, 2001 by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench. IT Appeal No. 62 of 2001 arises out of the order passed in ITA No. 183/Coch/2000 dt. 7th Dec., 2000 and IT Appeal No. 320 of 2002 arises out of the order passed in ITA No. 233/Coch/1996. Common issues arise for consideration in all these cases and hence we are disposing of the same by a common judgment.3. Assessee in IT Appeal No. 140 of 2001 claimed deduction under Section 80HHC(3A) of the IT Act at the assessment stage and the AO excluded 90 per cent of the export house...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2006Ker42; II(2006)BC386; [2007]138CompCas745(Ker); 2006(1)KLT161; [2006]66SCL14(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether permission of the Debt Recovery Tribunal is a pre requisite for a Bank or Financial Institution to invoke the provisions of Section 13B of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'Securitisation Act') after the insertion of the proviso to Section 19 of the Enforcement of Security Interests and Recovery of Debts Laws Amendment Act, 2004, is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. Bank of India, respondent herein, filed O.A.No. 318 of 2001 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal on 23.11.2001 for realisation of an amount of Rs. 4,81,92,595.74 from the writ petitioners and others jointly, severally and personally together with interest at 18% per annum with quarterly rests from 23.11.2001 till date of payment and also for costs of the proceeding. While the O.A. was pending, the Bank invoked the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act vide notice date...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(3)KLT492
P.R. Raman, J.1. Petitioner is the landlord and the respondents are the tenants of building No. 767 situated in the Thrikkadavoor Village of Kollam District. Petitioner initiated eviction proceedings against the respondents by filing R.C.P.No. 16/1999 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kollam. The R.C.P. was dismissed by the Rent Control Court against which he preferred R.C.A. No. 31/2000 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority reversed the order of the Rent Control Court and ordered eviction. It was confirmed in revision by this Court in C.R.P. No. 2111/2002, a copy of the same is produced as Ext.P2 in the present petition. Thereafter the tenants filed Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court. When the matter was pending before the Apex Court a settlement was reached between the parties and the Apex Court by its order dated 7.1.2005, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3 in this petition disposed of the S.L.P. in terms of the settlement dated 29.10...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(3)KLT520
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. This Crl.M.C. filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of a tanker lorry seized by the Assistant Controller (Flying Squad), Department of Legal Metrology, Thrissur, for allegedly violating Section 37(1)(vii) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Enforcement Act' for short), comes up before us on a reference by one of us, (Padmanabhan Nair, J.)2. The aforesaid tanker lorry bearing registration No. KL-7F 6093 of which the petitioner herein (1st accused in S.T.No. 4940/03 on the file of JFCM, Chittur) is the registered owner, was on inspection by the respondent Assistant Controller on 1.8.2003, found to contain a secret chamber inside the 3rd compartment of the main tank. The said secret chamber having a capacity of 121.108 liters was fitted with a special valve which would open to facilitate the secret chamber also to get filled while the main tank was filled with fuel. But while emptying th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : II(2005)DMC629
R. Basant, J.1. The petitioners are spouses. There is acrimony in their marriage. Both of them have come before this Court to invoke the powers of this Court to quash the action taken by the learned Magistrate on a final report submitted by the police after due investigation.2. The parties to these petitions (for the sake of convenience, they are referred to as husband and wife) started living together allegedly on the basis of an agreement dated 8.2.1993. On 19.10.1997, a child was born in the relationship. The husband had a wife by an earlier marriage. She filed a petition for divorce. The Family Court granted divorce. The said divorce was confirmed by this Court as per confirmation order dated 4.8.1995. It is the case of the petitioner that on 28.11.1996, after the said divorce, the parties entered into valid matrimony afresh as per Annexure-1 marriage certificate. The marriage was allegedly performed in a local Church. Harmony did not last long. On 7.12.1999 the wife made a complai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2005)197CTR(Ker)539; [2005]279ITR278(Ker); 2005(3)KLT943
Siri Jagan, J.1. The question posed in this Original. Petition is as to whether the Revenue is liable to pay interest on the amount due as refund of estate duty which became payable on account of orders of the Appellate Tribunal, in the absence of any specific provision in the Estate Duty Act, 1953 for payment of interest on refunds.2. Although facts are not in dispute, some essential facts necessary for disposal of the case may be noted. The petitioner is the accountable person in respect of the property which passed on the death of late Vithal Govinda Rao Saraf who passed away on 18-10-1984. She filed a statement showing (-) Rs. 6,45,345/- as the principal value of the estate of the deceased. The respondent determined the principal value of the estate at Rs. 70,93,950/- and determined the estate duty payable thereon at Rs. 49,94,200/- and interest under Section 53(3) at Rs. 1,74,797/-. This assessment was later revised at Rs. 57,29,355/- and Rs. 39,66,126/- respectively. Against the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2005Ker253; [2005]126CompCas586(Ker); 2005(3)KLT332
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Writ Petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of Sub-section 1(a) to Section 4 of the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 introduced by the Kerala Finance Act, 2002 (Act 7 of 2002) with effect from 1.4.2002 as beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature and also prayed for a declaration that the same is unconstitutional, void and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India to exercise its powers under Section 1(3) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (Central Act) to notify that Act within the State of Kerala. Learned Single Judge rejected the prayers of the writ petitioners and dismissed the Writ Petitions, against which these appeals have been preferred.2. Before examining the above mentioned prayers we may trace the history of both the legislations, Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 as well as the Chit Funds Act, 1982 and the provisions contained therein for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(3)KLT1075
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. Accused Nos. 1 and 4 in S.C. No. 146/01 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-II, Fast Track), Thalassery, are the appellants in Crl.Appeal No. 1599 of 2003. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 6 in the above said case are the appellants in Crl.A. 1685 of 2003. Crl.Appeal No. 800 of 2004 is filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the 5th accused in the said case. The mother of the deceased (K.T. Jayakrishnan Master) has filed Crl.R.P.No. 573 of 2004 challenging the acquittal of the 5th accused. The Investigating Officer who was examined as P.W.30 in the case has filed Crl.M.C.No. 5125 of 2003 for expunging the adverse remarks made against him and also to vacate the direction issued by the learned Sessions Judge to the Government to take action against him. Since all the appellants were found guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death, the learned Sessions Judge referred the case for confirmation under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2005Ker233; 2005(3)KLT891
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. Counter petitioners 1 to 3, 5 and 7 to 9 in O.P. (Trust) No. 129 of 2003, a petition filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave to file a suit in a representative capacity before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram are the revision petitioners. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging an order passed by the I Additional District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram granting leave to the respondents 1 to 6, who were the petitioners therein, to institute a regular suit for the reliefs made in the petition.2. The 1st petitioner is a Society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act (Act XII of 1955), (hereinafter referred to as 'Act XII of 1955') with registration No. 71 of 1986 and having registered office at 'Varada', Nandavanam, Thiruvananthapuram, 2nd petitioner is the President and the 3rd petitioner is the Secretary. Petitioners 4 to 8 are office bearers of the 1st pe...
Tag this Judgment!