Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007(2)KLJ653
K. Thankappan, J.1. The accused in S.C. No. 412 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (trial of Abkari Act Cases), Neyyattinkara is the appellant. He faced trial for the offence punishable under Section 58 of the Abkari Act.2. The prosecution case against the appellant was that on 19-8-1997 while the Assistant Excise Inspector of Amaravila Excise Range was on patrol duty, he found the accused in possession of 5 litres of arrackin ablack jerry can at Vellarada Kudappanamoodu-Kuttappu road near Kuttappu junction, Kovilloor Desom. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 6 and produced Exts.P 1 to P7 as well as MO. 1 can. On the side of the defence, DW.1 was examined, but no documents were produced. After closing the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Denying the allegations levelled against him, the accused stated that the excise officials had foisted the case against him. However, after considering t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2007)212CTR(Ker)231
H.L. Dattu, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the Kerala Agricultural Tribunal, Kottayam in Agricultural Income-tax Appeal, AITA No. 27 of 2000 dt. 30th Dec, 2005.2. Brief facts are: This appeal is filed under the provisions of the Kerala Agrl. IT Act, 1991 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act') The assessment year in question is 1992-93. The appellants/petitioners before us in this appeal are the legal representatives of late Thommy Varghese. He was in possession and enjoyment of an agricultural land to an extent of 7.99 acres. While he was alive, he did not file any returns under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the assessing authority had issued the proposition notice, inter alia directing the assessee to file his returns for the assessment year in question. The assessee had filed his objections to the said notice inter alia contending that his agricultural holding is less than 3 hectares and, therefore, he would not come within the purvi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2007Ker225
ORDERS. Siri Jagan, J.1. A nationalised bank, viz., Canara Bank, challenges the order of the Central Information Commission directing the bank to furnish the information requested for by the 2nd respondent employees of the bank. Ext. P8 is the said order.2. The information requested for were the following:(i) Posting/transfer of clerical staff of the Canara Bank to other branches for the period 1-1-2002 to 31-7-2006.(ii) Officials promoted and posted to other branches in Ernakulam district.(iii) Clerical staff transferred in Ernakulam district on temporary basis during the period 1-1-02 to 31-7-06.(iv) Details of appointment/promotion of clerical staff other than mentioned in (i) and (ii) above during 1-1-02 to 31-7-06 in district Ernakulam.(v) Furnish copies of transfer guidelines pertaining to clerical staff during 1-1-02 to 31-7-06. The applicant has sought the aforesaid information as per the pro forma drawn by the (sic) him.The bank seeks to deny furnishing of these informations t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2007Ker266; 2007(3)KLJ108
ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner is the father of the pupil, in relation to whom, the Education Department has issued Ext. P1 certificate, which shows the name and date of birth of that pupil. According to the petitioner, Ext. P2 is a copy of the passport issued to his son. Ext. R1(a) shows that the birth of one 'Samal' on 17-8-1983 is registered on 26-8-1983 and on that day itself, a certificate of such registration of birth is issued. The controversy is as to whether the petitioner's son is 'Samal' in Ext. R. 1(a) and still further, as to whether, if that be so, could the date of birth as disclosed in Ext. R 1(a), be corrected. The plea of the petitioner is that he was employed elsewhere in the service of the Indian Army at the time of the birth of his son and his semi-literate brother had furnished details, which would have resulted in any registration, if at all there is one.2. Going by the counter-affidavit of the Municipal authorities, the petitioner had appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2007)10VST622(Ker)
H.L. Dattu, C.J.1. The orders of penalty passed for the assessment years 1993-94 to 1996-97 under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 by the assessing authority against the petitioner were the subject-matter of the writ petition. The learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition. Questioning the correctness or otherwise of the said order is the subject-matter of this writ appeal.2. The assessee is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, 'the KGST Act') and also the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'). The activity of the assessee is the distribution of TV signals.3. For its business activity, the assessee had approached the authority under the KGST Act for grant of registration certificate as required under Section 7 of the CST Act read with Rule 3(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. While making the application, it was the specific request of the assessee, that, h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2008]299ITR400(Ker)
H.L. Dattu, C.J. 1. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are common, by consent of the counsel for the parties to the lis, the matter is taken up for final hearing, though they are posted for admission before this Court today.2. Aggrieved by the orders of re-assessment for the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1996-97, passed by the assessing authority in exercise of his powers under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, the assessee had carried the matter by way of first appeal before the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals-III). Along with those appeals, the assessee had also filed appeals against the orders of re-assessment for the assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1995-96.3. Before the first appellate authority, the assessee's learned representative, in fact, had not objected to the orders passed by the assessing authority, in the sense, that, he was really not questioning the correctness or otherwise of the orders of re-assessment passed by the assessing authority fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007(3)KLJ127; 2007(4)KLT135
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The ambit of the powers of the civil court under Rule 1 as well as under Rule 2 of Order XIX of the Code of Civil Procedure for compelling the attendance of deponents for cross-examination and the amplitude of the guarantee under Article 20(3) of the Constitution against testimonial compulsion are among the questions involved in this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. The defendant is the petitioner and he is aggrieved by Ext.P15 order of the learned Subordinate Judge directing him to be present in court for the purpose of cross-examination by the plaintiff for answering certain specified questions, some of which are incriminating ones, since the court felt that for arriving at a 'true and comprehensive decision in the case', such cross-examination is necessary. Under Ext.P15 the petitioner is reminded that he shall appear to answer the questions in cross-examination lest adverse inferences should be drawn by the court against him. 3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2007Ker257; I(2008)DMC34; 2007(2)KLJ714
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Question that is posed for consideration in all these cases is whether Section 15(f) and Section 16 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, are mandatory provisions or directory provisions war ranting a liberal interpretation taking into consideration of the hardship and inconveniences caused to the parties.2. A learned single Judge in Giby George v. Marriage Officer : AIR2007Ker152 interpreting Section 15(f) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, took the view that a ceremonial marriage between persons who were residing within the jurisdiction of special Marriage Officer can be registered even if such ceremonial marriage was solemnized within 30 days of the filing of an application for registration. Learned Judge then gave a direction to the Marriage Officer to receive the application and also to register the marriage without waiting for the period of 30 days. Further, the learned Judge also gave a direction to publish the factum of registration in the notice board wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007(2)KLJ801
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioners in these Writ Petitions are employees of the Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council, Kerala, which is a company, registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The Government of Kerala, it is submitted, have pervasive control over the said company. The Minister for Agriculture is the Chairman of the company. The Agricultural Production Commissioner is also a member of the Board of Directors. There are two other nominees of the Government also among the Directors of the Board. The Chief Executive Officer of the company is also appointed by the Government. So, the petitioners submit, it is a company, amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. These Writ Petitions are filed, challenging their termination from the service of the Company. The respondents would point out that the Government have only 23% shares in the company. Majority of the shares is held by the farmers organisations. Therefore, a preliminary objection is raised by the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007(3)KLT702
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The main question which arises for consideration in this Writ Appeal is whether a person whose family possesses large extent of lands could apply for invoking the powers of the Government under Rule 24 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, to assign, in public interest, dispensing with the provisions contained in the Rules, land adjoining his extensive lands and that too, to get assignment of an extent of land more than that could be assigned under the Rules. 2. The petitioner in the Writ Petition (appellant herein) was in possession of 34.97 acres of land. He filed a statement before the Land Board, as required under Section 85(A)(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Land Board transferred the statement to the Taluk Land Board, Meenachil, under Section 85A(3) of the said Act. The Taluk Land Board, in its proceedings dated 11-9-1976, accepted the return and held that the petitioner was not required to surrender any excess land. He was not required to surrender exce...
Tag this Judgment!