Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(1)ALD(Cri)30; I(2006)BC489; [2006]131CompCas474(Ker); 2005(4)KLT174
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The common petitioner in all these criminal miscellaneous cases is the common 3rd accused in 8 private complaints filed before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-1, Ernakulam. The common 2nd respondent in all these Crl.M.Cs. is the common complainant in all the private complaints referred to above. The said complainant is a proprietary concern by name 'International Trade Links', Ernakulam. As per the said private complaints produced as Annexure A1 in each of these cases, the 2nd respondent herein has sought to prosecute a partnership firm by name 'M/s. Star Trading', Kochi, which is the 1st accused. One Ali and his wife, who is the petitioner herein, are the Managing Partner and Partner respectively of the said firm and they are arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. The offence alleged is one punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short).2. In each of the said private complaints, the complainant has inter ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : II(2003)ACC682; III(2003)ACC264; 2003ACJ623; 2003(1)KLT701
J.B. Koshy, J.1. In all these appeals, the main question for consideration is whether passengers of private vehicles carried not for hire or reward (gratuitous passengers) are covered by insurance policies called 'Act policies' which are taken only to meet the minimum requirements of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the old Act'). Facts are not disputed. In all these appeals, the accidents took place during the period 17.1.1980 to 10.3.1988, that is, during the period when old Act was in force as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the new Act') came into force only with effect from 1.7.1989. All these appeals except M.F.A. No. 1158 of 1994 were filed by the insurance companies as the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals fastened the liability on the insurance company. In M.F.A. No. 1158 of 1994 arising out of O.P. (M.V.) No. 116 of 1991, the Tribunal held that under 'Act policy', the insurer is not liable to indemnify the ow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2009)25VST147(Ker)
ORDERK. M. Joseph, J.1. Common question arises in these Writ Petitions and they are disposed of by a common Judgment.2. Petitioners call in question the constitutionality of Section 44(10) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Petitioners have been visited with orders imposing penalty under Section 44(8) of the Act. It is, at once, necessary to extract the aforesaid provisions:44. Power to order production of accounts and powers of entry, inspection etc. -(8) If any Officer, while inspecting any place of business under Sub-section (2) or searching any place under Sub-section(3) finds therein any goods not accounted for by the dealer in his accounts and other records required under Section 40 to be kept and maintained by him such Officer may, after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, by order, direct the payment of a penalty, not exceeding fifty per cent of the value of the goods not accounted for, as may be fixed by such Of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(2)KLT1009
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The main challenge in all these Writ Petitions is regarding the validity of the provisions of Sub-sections (2), (2A) and (2B) of Section 5 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short the 'Act') inserted by the Finance Act, 1998 (Act 14 of 1998) published in the KGEx.No.1221 dated 29.7.1998 with effect from 1.4.1998. The said sub-sections read as follows:'(2). Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in respect of manufactured goods other than tea, which are sold under a trade mark or brand name, the sale by the brand name holder or the trade mark holder within the Stale shall be the first sale for the purpose of this Act.(2A). Where a dealer liable to tax under Sub-section (1), sells any goods to a trade mark or brand name holder for sale under a trade mark or brand name, no such dealer shall be liable to pay tax under the said sub-section, if he produces before the assessing authority a declaration in the prescribed form from that trade mark or brand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(3)KLT335
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.T.No. 2240 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur to quash a private complaint filed by the first respondent, Sri Rajaji Mathew Thomas.2. S.T.No. 2240 of 2004 arises from a private complaint filed by the first respondent alleging that the petitioners along with four others committed an offence punishable under Section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant/first respondent is a follower of Communist Patty of India and General Secretary of All India Youth Federation; a Youth Wing of C.P.I. He was also stated to be the Vice President of World Youth Federation known as WFDY for a period of 11 years and a person who presented papers in Seminars held in 40 countries. He is working as Executive Member of C.P.I., Thrissur District and also working as a co-ordinator for Kerala Social Forum.3. Petitioners, who are accused...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(3)KLT238
J.B. Koshy, J. 1.Whether the management of an educational institution established by a minority community has a right to appoint a qualified high school teacher (HSA) of its choice as headmaster without strictly looking into the seniority, claiming protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, is the main question to be decided in this case. A vacancy of headmaster arose in the second respondent's school with effect from 1.4.1999. At that time, petitioner/appellant was working as High School Assistant (Malayalam) in the second respondent's school owned by a Church. She is a graduate in Malayalam. She has passed B.Ed. and has got 19 years of service. Third respondent got inter-management transfer to the school as provided under the Kerala Education Rules. She is also fully qualified (graduation with B.Ed.) to become headmistress. She has seven years of teaching experience as UPSA and 15 years and ten month's experience as HSA. Management appointed third respondent as the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(3)KLT626; [2006]147STC626(Ker)
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioners in these Writ Petitions, except the petitioner in W.P.(C) 16114/2006, are manufacturers of cement. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 16114/2006 is a dealer in heavy vehicles. They have approached this Court, mainly, challenging Clause (ii) of Explanation 111 to Section 2(lii) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. 2003. The said explanation has been introduced by an amendment (Act 39 of 2005) published on 28.8.2005 with retrospective effect from 1.4.2005. The brief facts pertaining to each of the cases are summarised below:W.P.(C) 12809/20062. The petitioner is a public limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act. It is a registered dealer under the K.V.A.T and C.S.T. Acts. It is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cement in the southern States, including Kerala. The petitioner used to allow trade discount to the wholesale dealers and retail dealers, according to the practice, normally prevailing in the trade. The normal trade practice was to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2005Ker225; 2005(2)KLT734
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext.P10 Order dated 23rd July, 2004 passed in A.R.No. 51/2003, an order issued on an Arbitration Request made under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short.2. Notice before admission was ordered in this matter. Respondents have entered appearance. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. The writ petitioner, the Divisional Railway Manager (Works), Southern Railway, Palakkad, acting on behalf of the Railways, entered into an agreement with the 1st respondent herein whereby the 1st respondent agreed to undertake the work of 'transportation of 52 P.S.C. Sleepers from the Bommidi Sleeper Factory, unloading at site, and spreading near Track between K.M. 393.87 and 411.737'. The total value of the work was Rs. 19,33,295/-. It is stated that the writ petitioner terminated the contract at the risk and costs of the 1st respondent as per an order ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(3)KLT253
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. These Criminal Revision Petitions and Crl.M.C. No. 2605 of 2003 are filed challenging a common order passed by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kozhikode dismissing five Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions filed by accused Nos. 4, 6 to 12 and 14 to 16 in S.C.No. 124 of 2002 on the file of that Court contending that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against them and hence they may be discharged under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Crl.R.P. No. 661 of 2003 is filed by the 14th accused in the case. He along with the 11th accused filed Crl.M.P. No. 171 of 2002 praying that he may be discharged. Crl.R.P. No. 782 of 2003 is filed by accused No. 7. A7 to A10 filed Crl.M.P. No. 198 of 2002 for the very same relief. Crl.R.P. No. 865 of 2003 is filed by the 8th accused in Crl.M.P.No. 198 of 2002. Crl.R.P.No. 938 of 2003 is filed by the 5th accused. Though he had not filed any petition for discharge, he has filed the Criminal Revis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2003Ker61
Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Government of Kerala (Public Works Department) represented by the Chief Engineer, National Highway. Trivandrum under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996)(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order in O. P. (Arb.) No. 222 of 2000 of the District Court, Ernakulam. By order dated 28-6-2001 the Court below dismissed the petition filed by the Government of Kerala under Section 34 of the Act and refused to set aside the arbitration award dated 18-8-1999 except with regard to claim No. 1 against which respondent herein has preferred the Cross-Appeal.2. Government of Kerala awarded the work of four lining and strenthening ofAlwaye--Vyttila, Aroor Cherthala and strengthening of Vytiila--Aroor section vide agreement dated 8-3-1994. In response to the notification issued by the Government of Kerala, claimant submitted its tender on 29-4-1993. Tender price quoted for both packages by the cla...
Tag this Judgment!