Court : Kerala
1. Five among the accused in 23 crimes registered at different police stations have come up before this Court with a request to have the cases relating to all those crimes to be clubbed together as one case, thereby enabling the same to be tried together before one among the courts. 2. Petitioners are youngsters of the age group of 25-30. They are hailing from the State of Punjab. They have invested a peculiar modus operandi to cheat the State Bank of Travancore as well as the Federal Bank Limited. They used to fly from New Delhi to Nedumbassery, from where they used to hire a taxi and proceed to Thiruvanathapuram and other different locations, and to return to Nedumbassery. On the way, they used to step down at the ATM counters of the Federal Bank Limited and the State Bank of Travancore. By making use of different ATM cards procured from ICICI Bank, Axis Bank as well as HDFC Bank, they used to withdraw money from the ATM counters of the State Bank of Travancore and the Federal Bank L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed against judgment dated 26th October 2015 in WP(C) No.26684/2013, by which judgment the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent to this appeal has been allowed. The appellants, who were respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition, have come up in the writ appeal challenging the said judgment. Parties shall be referred to as described in the writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The writ petitioner was a member of the Mattancherry Mahajanik Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The Committee of the Society took a decision to fill up the post of General Manager by direct recruitment and Ext.P1 notification was published in Mathrubhumi Daily on 30/9/2012. Petitioner's case in the writ petition is that as per Rule 185 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, the posts in societies have to be filled up by promotion from the feeder categorie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
P.R. Ramachandra Manon, J. 1. Inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in respect of the death of the husband of the appellant herein is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal, preferred for enhancement of the compensation. 2. The accident was on 13.6.2006. The husband of the appellant was travelling as a passenger in a jeep bearing registration No.RJ-20-P/2743 and when the vehicle reached the place of occurrence, a truck bearing registration No.RSH-3387 driven, owned and insured by respondents 1 to 3 before the Tribunal dashed against the jeep causing fatal injuries, leading to the death of husband of the appellant and causing injuries to others. The loss caused in this regard was sought to be compensated by filing a claim petition before the Tribunal by the appellant joining hands with the daughters and son, who in turn have been transposed as respondents in this appeal (for the reason that they were not readily available in station, as put forth by the learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
P.N. Ravindran, J. 1. The petitioners are the tenants in R.C.P.No.143 of 2014 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, a petition filed by the respondent/landlord for an order of eviction under section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short. The tenants had, after they entered appearance and filed a counter statement, filed I.A.No.10047 of 2015 (Ext.P1 in the instant original petition) praying for an order directing the landlord who was joined as the respondent in the said application to produce the following documents: "1. Attested copies of the audited Balance Sheets of M/s KPK and Sons for the assessment years 1994-1995 to 2014-15. 2. Attested copies of the Income Tax Returns filed by M/s KPK and Sons before the Income Tax Department for the assessment years 1994-1995 to 2014-2015. 3. Attested copies of the Sales Tax Returns filed by M/s KPK and Sons before the Commercial Taxes Department for the years 1994...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P11 notice that has been issued by the 1st respondent informing the petitioner that, as a precondition for maintaining Ext.P9 appeal preferred by the petitioner, against Ext.P7 order of assessment under the Kerala Building Tax Act, the petitioner would be required to pay the 1st instalment of the tax amount that was assessed on the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order. The challenge in the writ petition is against this condition that has been imposed by the 1st respondent as a precondition for considering the appeal preferred by the petitioner before him. It is the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, inasmuch as in Exts.P7 assessment order and P8 demand notice, the petitioner has been assessed to building tax in an amount of Rs.17,42,100/-, and the said amount is directed to be paid in four equal quarterly instalments of Rs.4,35,525/- falling due on 25.09.2015, 25.12.2015, 25.03.2016 and 25.06.2016 respectively, his liability to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The appellant herein was the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Ernakulam during 2000-2002. On the allegation that he received an amount of Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification from one Johny on 31.7.2002 at about 4 p.m, as a reward for passing favourable orders in the appeal brought by the said Johny against the assessment order passed and penalty imposed, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Thrissur, the appellant faced prosecution before the learned Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam in C.C 17/2003. The said said Johny is a businessman having some share trading business and other business activities and he has a company by-name 'Johny and Company', started in 1988. On the ground of failure on his part to submit income tax returns in time, the Income Tax Authorities conducted a raid at his office and his residence on 2.2.1994 and seized some documents. Proceeding under the Income Tax Act was initiated against him and in the said proceeding, the Income Tax Commissio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. It has become the fashion of the day to customize the motor cycles to suit the likes of buyers by removing silencers, mudguard and even sari guard. Such removal in a bid to add glamour to the vehicles often pose danger to the public about which the users are unmindful. 2. The petitioner is the proud owner of a Royal Enfield Bullet Motor Cycle (2012 model) evidenced by Ext.P1 certificate of registration and the registration number of the vehicle is KL-07-BV-2841. The vehicle had a standard handle bar and a catalytic converter as silencer as per the proto type approved under Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (the 'Rules' for short). However the vehicle was found 'fitted with a silencer that produced harsh heavy shell noise causing sound pollution and the original handle bar was found replaced with a non-standard one' appearing like a pipe. The vehicle was therefore intercepted by the third respondent Motor Vehicles Inspector on 18.02.2016 who issued Ext. P2 check repo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare that the petitioner is fully eligible and satisfies the eligibility condition of teaching experience required under Note to Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of Kerala Education Rules (for short, the KER ) in respect of the category of Principal reckoning her teaching experience with effect from 13.07.1990 in the category of High School Assistant and with effect from 01.08.2000 in the category of Higher Secondary School Teacher (for short, HSST ) in the absence of qualified hands having approved teaching experience of 12 years in the category of Higher Secondary School Teacher in terms of Note under Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of K.E.R. and for other related reliefs, including a declaration that the 6th respondent is not better qualified or better suitable for promotion to the category of Principal over the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner has a checkered history. However, I propose to narrate only the relevant facts that a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Shaji P. Chaly, J. 1. These Original Petitions are filed by the petitioner and respondent respectively against Ext.P6 order of the Family Court, Ernakulam in E.A.No.134 of 2015 in E.P.No.53 of 2014 in O.P.No.2289 of 2012, dated 03.12.2015. By the said impugned order, the petitioner was granted four months time to pay the balance amount of Rs.15 lakhs with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of mediation agreement till the date of deposit, and coercive steps are kept in abeyance till such time. The petitioner/decree holder has filed O.P.(FC) No.608 of 2015 contending that, 6% interest granted by the Family Court is on the lower side and the Family Court should have ordered at least 12% interest on Rs.30 lakhs from the date of agreement dated 24.06.2013 till the date of payment. On the other hand, O.P.(FC) No.82 of 2016 is filed by the judgment debtor contending that the order imposing 6% interest by the Family Court as per the order impugned is illegal since as per the mediati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. During the course of an income tax raid at the house of Dr.Mohanlal, a well known cine artist, four elephant tusks were found at his residence. The matter was reported to the forest officials and consequently, on 21.12.2011, the Deputy Range Officer of the Malayattoor Forest Station and party conducted a search at his house and found four elephant tusks. Since he had no authorisation to keep those elephant tusks in his possession, OR No.14/2012 of Meckappala Forest Station was registered against him. It seems that even on the registration of the occurrence report, the contraband articles were entrusted to the 1st respondent herein, after the seizure. 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri.T.A.Shaji for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel Sri.M.K.Damodaran and Sri.K.R.Radhakrishnan Nair for the 1st respondent and learned Advocate General Sri.K.P.Dandapani for the State. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid action of the forest officials in han...
Tag this Judgment!