Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007ACJ1810; AIR2007Ker103; 2007(1)KLT38
M.N. Krishnan, J.1. The first three Writ Petitions mentioned above had been referred by the learned Judge of this Court by his order dated 9th November, 2005. The scope of reference is to consider whether the dictum laid down in Sobha Mohankumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2002 (3) KLT 293 requires reconsideration. The contention is whether Order 21 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to the execution proceedings of an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and whether Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act and other provisions bars application of Order 21 of CPC and further whether the decree holder is entitled to interest on interest. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these Writ Petitions are as follows. O.P. 22527/04 is filed against the order of the Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha in E.P. 26/02 in OP(MV) 295/89. The executing Court held that the costs and interest have to be adjusted first and the contention of the judgment debtor that it has ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2007)6VST390(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Common questions arise for consideration in all these cases and hence we are disposing of these cases by a common judgment.2. Appellant in O.T.A. No. 6 of 2006 is the petitioner in W.P.C. No. 16721 of 2006. Appeal was preferred under Section 62(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with Rule 80(1) of the Rules challenging the clarificatory order dated April 7, 2006 passed under Section 94 of the VAT Act by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Trivandrum. W.P.C. No. 16721 of 2006 was preferred seeking a declaration that serial number 66 inserted as per exhibit P2 notification dated January 21, 2006 is inoperative and unenforceable so far as it varies from HSN Code 8516.79.20.3. Appellant, hereinafter referred to as 'the company', is engaged in the manufacture, sale and marketing of household insecticide, pesticides such as Mortein mosquito coils, mat vaporisers, liquid vaporisers, multi-insect killers and disinfectants such as Harpic and Lizol and Det...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007(1)KLT1
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The only question arising for consideration in this Writ Appeal before us is as to whether a resolution adopting a no-confidence motion against the President of a Cooperative Society is capable of being rescinded by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Rule 176 of the Co-operative Societies Rules or whether the same could only be canvassed in an election dispute under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (for short 'the Act').2. The facts of the case fall in a very narrow compass. The 1st respondent in this Writ Appeal was elected as the President of the Neyyattinkara Government Servants Co-operative Society Ltd. No. (T) 280 on 1-6-2003. On 24-8-2006, a meeting of the managing committee passed a no-confidence motion moved by seven members of the Society against the 1st respondent as evidenced by Ext. P1. Alleging that this resolution was passed in violation of the procedure prescribed by Rule 43A of the Rules, the 1st respondent filed Ext. P3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ128
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994 (Act of 1974) is under challenge in all these original petitioners. A few of the writ petitioners have sought for a declaration that Section 2(1)(d), 2(1)(g), 2(1)(i) and Section 3 of the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994 (in short 'Entry Tax Act') are discriminatory and ultra vires of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 246, 265, 286, 301, 304(a), 304(b) and other consequential reliefs. State maintained the stand that the Act is within the legislative competence of the State since it was promulgated in exercise of its powers under Articles 245 arid 246 read with Entry 52 List II of the VII Schedule to the Constitution of India. Two batches of cases have also come up for our consideration; some pertaining to the levy of entry tax with regard to the goods brought from outside the State to the State of Kerala and some others with regard to the goo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2007Ker214; 2007(2)KLJ241
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The first respondent filed the suit for partition claiming 1/2 share in the plaint schedule property. According to the plaintiff, the property belonged to Chellappan Achari, father of the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 to 5 and the husband of the first defendant. Chellappan Achari died on 29-10-1978. The plaintiff has 1/6th share in the property. She purchased the shares of defendants Nos. 4 and 5. Thus she claims 1/2 share in the property.2. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit. They contended that the property did not belong to Chellappan Achari, but it belongs to first defendant.3. The trial Court held that the plaintifi has 1/6th share in the property and she having purchased 2/6 share of defendants Nos. 4 and 5, is entitled to 1/2 share in the property. The contention that the property was acquired by Chellappan Achari was accepted by the trial Court. There was a prayer for a declaration that the document executed by the first defendant in favour of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007(1)KLT303; (2007)7VST293(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Kerala Taxon Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994 (Act 15 of 1974) isunder challenge in all these Original Petitions. A few of the writpetitioners have sought for a declaration that Section 2(1)(d),2(1)(g), 2(1)(i) and Section 3 of the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994 (in short 'Entry Tax Act') are discriminatory and ultra vires of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 246, 265, 286, 301, 304(a), 304(b) and other consequential reliefs. State maintained the stand that the Act is within the legislative competence of the State since it was promulgated in exercise of its powers under Articles 245 and 246 read with Entry 52 List II of the VII Schedule to the Constitution of India. Two batches of cases have also come up for our consideration; some pertaining to the levy of entry tax with regard to the goods brought from outside the State to the State of Kerala and some others with regard to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2007Ker87; 2007(1)KLT237;
Kurian Joseph, J.1. What is the court fee to be paid in a Writ Petition challengingseveral orders on the same set of facts and on same grounds is the question to be considered in this case. The matter was placed before us by reference order dated 28th July 2006 of the Division Bench. It would be profitable to refer to the factual matrix in order to appreciate the issue. Petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. According to him on account of continuous loss he had stopped production during June 2005 upon due intimation. On account of the stoppage of production statutory monthly returns were not filed. It is the contention of the petitioner that though there was due intimation regarding the closure of business, notice on the proposal to levy penalty was issued in the same address and thereafter penalty orders were passed for failure to file monthly returns for the months of April 2005 to February 2006. The orders are marked as Exts. P1 to P1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007(1)KLT365
V.K. Bali, C.J.1. K. Parukutty Amma, the petitioner herein, is the widow of late Justice M. Madhavan Nair who was elevated as Judge of this Court on 22.6.1960 and on attaining the age of superannuation retired on 1.11.1970. In the present writ filed by her under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, she sought the following reliefs:(i) Declare that the words restricting the application of the High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 1986 to High Court Judges who retired on or after its commencement are arbitrary, discriminatory and liable to be struck down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India;(ii) Declare that the heirs of High Court Judges who retired before the commencement of High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 1986, are also entitled for family pension at the present rate of Rs. 7,800/- per month;(iii) Declare that the amendment brought by the High Court Judges ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2007)6VST805(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner-assessee, a company with head office at Chennai, has operations all over India including in the State of Kerala. It is engaged in leasing of equipments on rental basis and it is also selling goods under hire-purchase scheme. The assessing officer, under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 hereinafter called the 'the KGST Act', assessed lease rentals and hire charges received by the petitioner in Kerala for sales tax. Even though the petitioner filed successive appeals, assessments were confirmed by the appellate authorities, including the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. These tax revision cases are filed in this court against the final orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal upholding the levy.2. The assessments involved are for the years 1989-90 to 1991-92 and from 1994-95 to 1997-98. The revisions for the first three years are reaching this court a second round. In the first round of revisions against orders of Tribunal upholding assess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ226
V. Ramkumar, J.In this appeal preferred from the Central Prison, Kannur, the appellant who was the sole accused in S.C. 122/05 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Court, (Adhoc-II), Thalassery, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him by the said court for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 I.P.C.The Prosecution Case2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:The accused namely Vazhayil Puthen Purayil Vinodan @ Bose of Kanhirode amsom, Thalamunda desom married the deceased namely Olachery Sreeja, D/o. Gopalan of Balakandi house, Koodali Amsom. Their marriage was solemnized on 8-12-2002 as per religious rites. One month after their marriage, they started living in the house of Sreeja. The accused used to come home consuming liquor and ill-treat her both mentally and physically demanding more money. On 2-3-2004, Sreeja had gone to the house of a relative of hers to attend a funeral ceremony. The accused had also gone there. While in...
Tag this Judgment!