Court : Kerala
Reported in : I(2006)BC92; [2005]127CompCas219(Ker)
K. Thankappan, J.1. This revision petition is filed by a public limited company against the order passed by the Sub-Court, Kottayam, in I. A. No. 512 of 2000 in O. S. No. 455 of 1993. The revision petitioners are defendants Nos. 4 and 5 in the suit. The suit was filed by the first respondent for realisation of an amount of Rs. 1,27,984 from the defendants. As per the plaint averments, the plaintiff wanted to realise the amount due from defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 availed of a loan of Rs. 75,000 from the first respondent-bank, plaintiff in the suit, for domestic purpose on May 10, 1990, on executing a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, promising to pay off the said amount on demand with interest at the rate of 17.5 per cent, per annum. It is also averred in the plaint that as security for the loan, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 secured Unit Certificate No. 872307690 of the revision petitioners, valued for Rs. 1,00,000 as constituted by 1,000 units of Rs. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2005]141STC434(Ker)
P.R. Raman, J.1. Petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93. Originally the assessments were completed based on the return filed by the assessee. Final assessment for the year 1991-92 was thus completed as per office proceedings No. 25131716/91-92 dated December 4, 1992. Likewise for the year 1992-93 final assessment was completed as per proceedings No. 25131716/92-93 dated April 20, 1994. Later on the Intelligence Officer, Sales Tax, Thrissur detected certain unaccounted purchase made by the dealer during the year 1992-93. For the assessment year 1991-92 also he detected certain inter-State purchase which were not accounted in the books of accounts maintained by the petitioner. The assessee admitted the facts before the Intelligence Officer and compounded the offence for the year 1991-92 as evidenced by exhibit P1 proceedings of the Intelligence Officer dated January 31, 1995. Likewise for the assessment year 199...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2005)194CTR(Ker)12; [2005]273ITR386(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner is a reputed homoeo doctor with a homoeo clinic at Kottayam and is an assessee under the IT Act being assessed by the second respondent. A search conducted by the first respondent in the residence and clinic of the petitioner at Kottayam on 30th Dec, 1994 led to seizure of cash around Rs. 6 lakhs, Indira Vikas Patras (IVP) for Rs. 6 lakhs and promissory note for the value of Rs. 3 lakhs. Consequent on certain data collected during search in the petitioner's premises, the first respondent arranged search through his counterparts in Baroda in the residence of two sons of the petitioner, namely, Indravadan R. Patel, and Jawaharlal Patel on 4th Jan., 1995, which led to seizure of IVP's of the value of Rs. 66.7 lakhs and Rs. 2.46 lakhs, respectively. However, in view of admission by the petitioner and his sons in the course of search, the IVPs seized from the petitioner's sons were, also treated as undeclared income of the petitioner and proceeded wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(1)KLT544
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Can the Ministry of the Government of India through an executive order interfere with the Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 issued by the President of India in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 and Clause 5 of Article 148 of the Constitution of India is the question that has come up for consideration in these cases.2. Fifth Pay Commission recommended for revised pay scales and for upgrading pay scales for the post of Radio Operator under the Pension Scheme. Post of Radio Operator was previously having the pay scale of Rs. 1320-2040 which was revised by the recommendation to Rs. 4500-7000. Accepting the report of the Pay Commission, President of India in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 and C1.5 of Article 148 of the Constitution and after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General in relation to persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, issued the Central Civi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(1)KLT406
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether unauthorised use of electricity has to be assessed under Section 24(1) of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 read with Regulation 42(d) of the Regulations Relating to Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy or under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. Writ Petition was preferred Seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 mahazar prepared by the Vigilance and the Anti-Power Theft Section of the Electricity Board and Ext.P8 bill dated 5.10.2004 issued pursuant thereto contending that the invoice has been issued against the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Learned Single Judge ordered reconnection with a direction to dispose of the appeal. Aggrieved by the judgment the Kerala State Electricity Board and its Assistant Executive Engineer have come up with this Appeal.3. M/s. Chicago Builders and Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. has constructed a seven storied commercial complex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(1)KLT269
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.1. This Second Appeal Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed against the concurrent decisions of the Courts below passing a preliminary decree for partition of the separate estates of a husband and wife to whom 'The Christian Succession Regulation', Regulation II of 1092 Malayalam Era, enacted by His Highness the Maha Raja of Travancore, on the 21st December 1916 corresponding to 7th Dhanu 1092 M.E. had applied so long as the said law was in force. The said Regulation is often called the Travancore Succession Act, 1092 and is hereinafter referred to as the 'Travancore Act' for short.2. The first appellant is the son and respondents 1 and 2 are the daughters of the said couple. Appellants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first appellant. The third respondent is stated to be an assignee under the appellants.3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit seeking partition, their father having died in the year 1975 and the mother in the year 1978. A preli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(1)KLT282
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Landlord is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought for Under Sections 11(2)(b), 11 (3) and 11 (4)(i) of Act 2 of 1965. Rent Control Court disallowed the claim Under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act, but allowed the claim Under Section 11(4)(i) of the Act. Fifth respondent before the Rent Control Court, the alleged sublessee, filed appeal R.C.A. No. 96 of 2001 before the Appellate Authority against the finding rendered Under Section 11(4)(i) of the Act. No appeal was preferred by the landlord against the finding Under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11 (3) of the Act. Appellate Authority on facts confirmed the finding of the Rent Control Court holding that the original tenant had sublet the premises to fifth respondent, but disallowed the claim placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in A.S. Sulochana v. Dharmalingam, (1987) 1 SCC 180, holding that the legal heirs of the tenant cannot be visited with the sin committed by the deceased tenant an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2005Ker181; 2005(1)KLT800
ORDERR. Bhaskaran , J.1. In all these Civil Revision Petitions, the common question for consideration is whether a decree passed by a Court of Small Causes can be transferred to a Civil Court for execution by attachment and sale of immovable property of the judgment-debtor.2. These Revisions are placed before us on reference by a Single Judge of this Court who thought that the decision of another Single Judge (K.T. Thomas, J. as His Lordship then was) reported in Raman Namboodiri v. Kunhayamath (1989 (1) KLT 74) requires reconsideration in the light of a Division Bench decision of Travancore-Cochin High Court in Mohammed Mastan Kunju Mohammed Abdul Khadar v. Mytheen Kunju Pakiru Mohammed (1956 KLT 343 = AIR 1956 TC 213). In these C.R.Ps., the original decrees granted were those of the Additional Small Cause Court, Bangalore. The Execution Court dismissed the execution petition relying on the decision in Raman Namboodiri's case. It is stated in Raman Namboodiri v. Kunhayamath that under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(1)ALD(Cri)43; I(2007)BC425; [2005]128CompCas357(Ker); 2005(1)KLT859
J.M. James, J.1. The complainant is the appellant. He filed C.C.No. 556/95 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in short 'the Act' against the 1st respondent/accused. The parties adduced evidence. The copy of the lawyer notice issued on behalf of the complainant was not authenticated by the Advocate, who produced the same before the Court. Therefore, the marking of the notice was objected. A petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. with a copy of the lawyer notice was filed praying to recall PW. 1, the complainant, and mark the copy of notice as Ext.P7. But that was rejected on the ground that it does not comply with the provisions under Section 63 of the Evidence Act. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate found the accused not guilty for want of statutory notice under Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act and therefore, dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused. Hence the complainant came up in appeal b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(3)KLT1010
N.K. Sodhi, C.J.1. Whether the Division Bench before which the contempt petition is posted after a Single Judge has found that a prima facie case is made out against the respondent, is bound to proceed with the trial or can it dismiss the petition at that stage and drop the proceedings is the question which arises in the two contempt cases (civil) Nos. 807 of 2003 and 854 of 2004 which are being disposed of by this order. Since the question has to be answered in the light of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), it is not necessary at this stage to refer to the facts of either of the two cases.2. Rr. 6,9,10,12,13, 14 and 16 are relevant for our purpose and these may first be noticed.'6. Taking cognizance:- Every proceeding for contempt shall be dealt with by a Bench of not less than two Judges.Provided that a proceeding under Section 14 of the Act shall be dealt with by the Judge or Judges, in whose presence or hearing the offence...
Tag this Judgment!