Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2010(1)KLT193
Thomas P. Joseph, J.1. The substantial question of law framed for a decision is whether Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph (Amendment) Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') which provides for arbitration of disputes concerning telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arising between the Telegraph Authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is or has been provided, ousted jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a challenge to the validity of bills issued by the Telegraph Authority concerning the telephone apparatus thus provided2. Short facts are: Appellant is a subscriber of telephone No. 832031 under the Edakkad Telephone Exchange, she having obtained it on transfer from Alakkal Vijayan with effect from 27.1.1995. She was issued with bills dated 1.4.1995,1.6.1995,1.8.1995 1.10.1995 and 1.12.1995 and a revised bill in respect of last of those bills, admittedly concerning the said telephone connection given to the appellant. She instituted the suit in the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ramachandran Nair, J. The case has come up before the Full Bench as per Reference Order of the Division Bench dated 21.5.2010. The learned Single Judge referred the matter as per Reference Order dated 10.7.2009. The question referred before the Full Bench for its opinion, is the following: “Where the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered by coequal benches express conflicting principles of law, which cannot stand together and, thus, present a serious problem to the High Courts and Subordinate Courts, what are the principles to be followed in choosing one or other of the conflicting judgments by the High Court when in a case the applicability of the conflicting decisions rendered by the apex court has decisive impact in its disposal.” 2. The factual matrix is in a narrow compass. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the judgment debtors in E.P.No.14/2005 in O.S.No.184/1986 of the Munsiff’s Court, Punalur. The suit was one for declaration of title of the plaintiffs...
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 : 2008(1)KLJ109; AIR2007NOC1100(SB)
ORDERV.K. Bali, C.J. and K.P. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. I have gone through the illuminative concurring judgments of Abdul Gafoor and Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. as also the concurring judgments of Kurian Joseph and Padmanabhan Nair, JJ. expressing however, a different view than the one expressed by Abdul Gafoor and Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. The present may be one of the rarest of rare cases where every Honourable Member of the Bench has chosen to write, even though concurring with the other, his own judgment. May be that the Honourable Member of the Bench concurring with the other wished to express the same view point in his own way.2. I have given deep and anxious the (sic) to both the views and after considering and reconsidering the whole issue, I have come to the conclusion that the view expressed by Kurian Joseph and Padmanabhan Nair, JJ. appears to be correct. With respect, thus, I would differ with the view taken by Abdul Gafoor and Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. Tenant means any person by whom o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2009(2)KLJ715
R. Basant, J.1. Has there been proper application of mind by the detaining authority? When a detaining authority is not apprised of and is unaware of the fact that bail subject to conditions has been granted recently to a detenu and proceeds on the grossly erroneous premise that the Detenu is absconding, are those circumstances sufficient to invalidate the order of preventive detention? These questions arise for determination before us.2. The petitioner is the father of a detenu under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act 2007 (hereinafter referred to as KAAPA). There were three cases registered against him. Though the incidents in those three cases occurred on 28/9/2005,16/12/2006 and 31/8/2008 and final reports had not been filed,, it was alleged that he was a known rowdy and his detention was necessary under Section 3 of the KAAPA. Proceedings commenced with Ext.PS report dated 10/9/2008 submitted by the Circle Inspector of Police to the Superintendent of P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. The Range Officer/Authorised Officer, Kerala Forest Department and the Tahsildar, Devikulam, who were respondents 1 and 2 in W.P(C) No.29534 of 2015 have come up in appeal against the judgment dated 26.10.2015 in the aforesaid Writ Petition by which judgment, the learned Single Judge has permitted the petitioner to cut and remove 9 planted Eucalyptus trees from 25 cents of land in R.S. No.49/1-1, Block No.14 of Pallivasal Village. 2. Brief facts of the case as emerged from the pleadings on record are: Petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in business of running hotel, hospitality management, etc. For establishing a hotel in Munnar, petitioner purchased 25 cents of land in R.S. No.49/1-1 by sale deed dated 06.05.2015. The previous owner of the property was given no objection certificate by the Pallivasal Grama Panchayat on 24.01.2007 for construction of a building in the said property. In the property there were 9 Eucalyptus trees planted by the previous owner....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1997]223ITR504(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. In this case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, referred three questions of law for decision of this court. The short facts necessary for adjudication of the said questions are as follows :The assessment year concerned is 1979-80, the relevant accounting period ended on January 14, 1979. The assessee, Neela Productions, Trivandrum, was a proprietary concern of one, Sri P. Subramoniam. He passed away on October 4, 1978. The legal representatives of the late, Sri P. Subramoniam continued the said business from October 4, 1978, to January 14, 1979. The income derived from the conduct of the said business by the legal heirs of the late P. Subramoniam is the subject-matter of this case.2. The legal representatives of the late P. Subramoniam, seven in number, were having other incomes also. Six of the said legal representatives filed individual returns for the assessment year ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1985]58STC282(Ker)
M.P. Menon, J.1. The petitioners are assessees under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Section 18 of the Act providing for 'provisional assessment' was omitted from the statute with effect from 1st April, 1982 by the Kerala General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act 3 of 1983). The Rules framed under the statute were also amended to give effect to this change in policy, but Sub-rules (7) to (14) of Rule 21, authorising provisional monthly assessments, were retained with some minor modifications. And the contention of the petitioners is that these sub-rules cannot validly operate after 1st April, 1982 in view of the deletion of Section 18. The sub-rules are ultra vires the statute as it now stands, it is contended.2. Ignoring details relating to classification of dealers, rates of tax and other matters, Section 5 of the K. G. S. T. Act requires every dealer to pay tax on his taxable turnover for a year. Purchase tax under Section 5A is also geared to the taxable turnover for a y...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1999CriLJ3789
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. The 1st accused in C.C. 526/92on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate'sCourt, Ernakulam has filed this revision petitionchallenging the order dated 13-7-1995 passed in M.P. 4946/95.2. The petitioner along with the co-accused are standing trial before the lower Court for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 473 and 474 of I.P.C. r/w Section 120B of I.P.C. on the basis of the charge-sheet laid by the Special Police Establishment, C.B.I. in Crime Case No. RC. 39(S)/89 and RC. 40(S)/89. After appearance of the accused and charge was framed by the lower Court, the petitioner herein filed M.P. 4946/95 seeking acquittal alleging that the investigation in this case was conducted without jurisdiction and therefore, all the proceedings arising out of that investigation are bad in law. Therefore, he sought to drop the entire proceedings and to acquit him contending that the entire proceedings is ab initio void. The lower Court found that the investig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1964Ker92
Govinda Menon, J. 1. The defendant in O. S. 12 of 1958 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cochin is the appellant. The suit was for recovery of damages for breach of contract in respect of goods purchased and not taken delivery of by the defendant.2. The plaintiff's firm is doing business in Mattancherry in coconut oil both as merchants and commission agents. The defendant is a trader at Coondapoor, South Canara District. He is doing business in coconut oil through commission agents in Mattancherry. The terms of the agreement on the strength of which the plaintiff was transacting business with his customers like the defendant are set out in the plaint. The plaintiff alleged that all oil transactions entered into by commission agents at Mattancherry are governed by the trade usage known as Pakka Aadat system and the defendant was dealing with them under this system with the full knowledge of its incidents.3. In the course of such dealings the defendant placed three orders, one for th...
Tag this Judgment!