Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006CriLJ413
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1207 of 2004 and 1083 of 2005 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 2373 of 2004 arise from the judgment rendered by the 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur in S.C. No. 201 of 1995, which, in turn, arose from C.P. No. 2 of 1994 of JFCM, Kunnamkulam (Crime No. 95 of 1993 of Kunnamkulam Police Station registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 342, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code). Criminal Appeal No. 1544 of 2004 is filed by the complainant in C.P. 1 of 1995 on the file the JFCM Kunnamkulam from which S.C. 202 of 1995 arose. That Criminal Appeal is directed against the acquittal of the respondents in that appeal stated to have been passed in S.C. No. 202 of 1995.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the appeals and Criminal Revision Petition are as follows : Deceased Suresh Babu was an active worker of Bharatheeya Janatha Party (BJP for short). He was employed as a motor winding mechanic at Kunnamkulam. Ther...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2009(234)ELT53(Ker); 2008(2)KLJ593; 2008(3)KLT440; (2008)18VST73(Ker)
ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. Since the assessee is common in both these revision petitions and since the legal issue involved is identical, these revision petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioner is a dealer engaged in purchase and sale of public call office monitors, (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'PCO Monitors') for use in telephone booths, for the assessment year 2000-01, the petitioner had filed annual returns conceding total and taxable turnover of Rs. 5,53,200.00 and Rs. 3,96,750.00 respectively. For the assessment year 2001 -02, in the returns filed, petitioner had conceded total and taxable turnover of Rs. 5,65,875.00 and Rs. 5,29,265.00 respectively. In the returns filed the petitioner had conceded liability to tax at the rate of 4% treating PCO Monitors as a type of computer falling under Entry 56 of the First Schedule to KGST Act.3. Since the conceded turnover was less than Rs. 15,00,000/-the assessing authority h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1991]81STC254(Ker)
D.J. Jagannadha Raju, J.1. This is a revision by the assessee against the order dated 18th April, 1989 in T.A. No. 1173 of 1987 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam. We are concerned with the assessment year 1982-83. The background in which the revision has been filed (briefly stated) is as follows : The revision-petitioner is a dealer in allopathic drugs, tarpaulin, etc. The petitioner, treating the tarpaulin as an unclassified item taxable at multi-point at 4 per cent, collected the tax at that rate from the customers and paid it to the Government. The assessment for the year 1982-83 was made treating tarpaulin as an unclassified item chargeable at 4 per cent. The assessment order was passed on 28th January, 1984. The Deputy Commissioner, Ernakulam, acting suo motu under Section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, invited objections of the petitioner, and then relying upon a clarification issued by the Government in G.O. (R) No. 60/86...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : ILR2010(4)Ker621
1. In these petitions filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. the petitioners who claim to be A1, A2 and A4 to A9 in Crime No. 186 of 2010 of Agali Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 464, 465, 468, 420 and 120 B read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and Sec. 3 (1) (iv) and (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 seek anticipatory bail. The petitioner in B.A. 5910 of 2009 is A4, the petitioner in B.A. 5914/2010 is A1, the petitioners in B.A. 6594 of 2010 claim to be A5 to A9 and the petitioner in B.A. 6673 of 2010 is A2. According to the petitioners, the names of the various persons arrayed as accused persons in the above crime, so far, are as follows:- A1 - Binu S. Nair of Agali in Palakkad District A2 - Joy K.S. of SholayurA3 - Sankaranarayanan @ Periya Thambi of Palakkad District A4 - Prem Shameer of Beppur, Kozhikode A5 - Chandrasekhara Panicker of Kottayam District A6 - Linish T.M. of Kottayam District A7 - T.V. Somasekharan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2002]128STC236(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner is questioning exhibit P6 order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue in a suo motu revision setting aside the first revisional authority's order and confirming the order imposing penalty by the assessing authority. Facts are not disputed in this case as can be seen from the averments in the original petition and counter-affidavit. Petitioner is engaged in the business of roller flour mills at Kanjikode, Palakkad and it is a registered small-scale industrial unit. Petitioner is manufacturing wheat products, such as atta, maida and sooji from wheat in its factory at Kanjikode. During the year 1992-93 petitioner filed tax returns claiming exemption for the entire turnover being sales turnover of wheat products. Petitioner, being the first seller of wheat product in the State, according to the sales tax authorities he has to pay tax at the rate of 4 per cent. The Karnataka High Court in New Swastik Flour Mill v. State of Karnataka [1992] 84 STC 49 as well as t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : III(2005)ACC617; 2005(3)KLT190
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.J.1. The necessity of enforcing the provisions of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 was highlighted by the Apex Court in Church of God v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association, 2000 (3) KLT 651 (SC). Rule 3(1) of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 provides for the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for different areas/zones as specified in the Schedule annexed to the Rules. Responsibility as to the enforcement of noise pollution control measures has been narrated therein. So also, its consequences. The principle laid down by the Apex Court was followed by a Bench of this Court in W.A.3125 of 2001 and the following directions were issued.'We, therefore, dispose of the Writ Appeal and the Original Petition by directing the State of Kerala, the first respondent, to take necessary steps to identify the zones and generally to fulfil all the requireme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2004]136STC545(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The scope and content of Section 5A(1)(c) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') arise for consideration in these cases. Petitioner also incidentally challenges the constitutional validity of the said section.2. T.R.C. Nos. 20, 24 and 26 of 1996 and T.R.C. No. 338 of 2000 are filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam, under Section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') against the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam. The appeals which are the subject-matter of T.R.C. Nos. 20, 24 and 26 of 1996 were disposed of by the Tribunal by a common order dated May 30, 1995 and the appeal which is the subject-matter of T.R.C. No. 338 of 2000 was disposed of by order dated June 19, 1999 in T.A. No. 1281 of 1998. O.P. No. 25135 of 2000 is filed by the respondent-assessee challenging the provisions of Section 5A(1)(c) of the Act. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2006Ker86; II(2006)BC411; [2006]132CompCas855(Ker)
Siri Jagan, J.1. An interesting question regarding payment of Court fee on counter claims filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal during the interregnum between 17-1-2000, which is the date of introduction of Sub-section (8) in Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act'), allowing filing of counter claims by defendants and 21-1-2003, which is the date of amendment of Rule 7 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (for short 'the Rules') prescribing Court fee for application to counter claim arises in this case. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal which lie in a very narrow compass, are as follows.2. The appellant-Federal Bank filed O.A. No. 161/2002 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam for recovery of certain amounts due from the 1st respondent herein. On 22-7-2002, the 1st respondent filed a counter claim raising money claims against the Bank in accordance with Section 19(8) of the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(1)KLT678
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Does the limitation on the right of the landlord against splitting up of the unity and integrity of the tenancy, inhering in the inhibitions of his own contract, visits the assignee of the part of the reservation is the interesting question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. It is trite law that a landlord cannot split up the unity and integrity of the tenancy and recover possession of a part of the demised premises from the tenant. Law is well settled that where there is a single indivisible contract of tenancy it cannot be split up by a court unless there is statutory provision to that effect or by a contract between the parties. Alienatio rei praefertur juri accrescendi, means, alienation is favoured by law rather than accumulation and the assignee is clothed with all the rights and liabilities of the assignor. Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act however, provides a statutory exception to this rule and enables an assignee of a pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008CriLJ909
J.B. Koshy, J.1. In all these cases, main questions to be considered are common. Validity of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance') and jurisdiction of District Judge under the Ordinance after enactment of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'P.C. Act') are the main questions to be considered in these cases. In Cri. Appeal No. 1400 of 2007 appellant was facing investigation for the case registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act alleging that the appellant had amassed wealth disproportionate to his income. The check period is 1-1-1994 to 12-5-2005. While the investigation was continuing, an application was filed by the Investigating Officer before the District Court for attachment of his properties invoking provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of the Ordinance. The District Court passed an order attaching certain properties scheduled in the petition. When the ...
Tag this Judgment!