Kottakkal Educational and Charitable Trust vs State of Kerala
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 31 Mar 2008]
Education - Appeal disposed of in terms of the direction made in Para 19 of the decision of this Court in St. Johns. Teachers Training Institute vs. Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education & Anr. (2003 (3) S.C.C. 321) - Order accordingly.
|
Najeeb and Others vs State of Kerala
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 03 Mar 2008]
Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 - Exemption - Whether the land was to be included in the holding of the declarant? - Held, question of exemption arises only when land in excess of the permissible limit is held by a public trust and exemption is sought for on the basis of what is provided in the proviso (i) or (ii) - It is not the case of the State that the Wakf was required to be registered - Appeal allowed.
|
M. Mohammed Yousef vs State of Kerala
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 18 Feb 2008]
Sales Tax - Held, in view of the fact that the judgment in Sales Tax Revision No.9 of 2006 relying upon which the High Court dismissed the Sales Tax Revision out of which the present appeals arise, has been set aside by this Court in the case of Peekay Re-rolling Mills (P) Ltd. (supra), set aside the impugned orders of the High Court - Appeals allowed.
|
Messrs Padinjarekara Agencies Limited vs State of Kerala
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 08 Feb 2008]
Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963; Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Production of sale of centrifuged latex - Benefit of exemption provided in the Government Notification SRO No. 1003/91 which was subsequently replaced by Government Notification SRO No. 1727/93 - Conditions for availing exemptions were that rubber should be used for manufacture of "goods" and that tax was leviable on the products manufactured by such rubber - High Court, held that since raw-rubber and centrifuged latex are one and the same commodity under Entry 110 (preceded by Entry 161) the assessee was not entitled to claim concessional rate of duty - Appeal against - Held, assessee was not bound by the orders/directions issued by the Commissioner to the AO, therefore, on the scope and effect of each of the above exemption Notifications, the matter needs to be remitted to the AO for fresh decision in accordance with law - If the assessee satisfies the terms and conditions mentioned in the Exemption Notification, the assessee would be entitled to the benefit thereunder notwithstanding the circular issued by the Board/Commissioner - Remitted the matters to AO - Appeals allowed.
|
State of Kerala and Others vs Messrs Kurian Abraham Private Limited and Another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 08 Feb 2008]
Sales Tax Act, 1963; Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Reopening of assessments - Held, completed assessments were sought to be reopened by the AO on the ground that the circular No. 16/98 was not binding - If the State Government was of the view that such circulars are illegal or that they are ultra vires s. 3(1A), which it is not, it was open to the State to nullify/withdraw the said circular under s. 60 of the 1963 Act - Appeals dismissed.
|
Berin P. Varghese vs State of Kerala
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 18 Dec 2007]
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE R. BASANT1. A person attempts to commit suicide. He is culpably abetted by another to so commit suicide. Providentially he escapes and he does not die. Is the law helpless against the one, who abets
|
Yesudas vs S.I. of Police
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 17 Dec 2007]
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE R. BASANT1. What is the correct procedure to be followed by the Investigating Officer when composition of a compoundable offence (with or without permission of the Court -S.320(1) or (2)) is reported
|
Bini vs Sundaran
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 12 Dec 2007]
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH1. The need for and role of conciliation for reconciliation and settlement in disputes relating to marriage and family affairs pending before the Family Courts is the crux of the subject
|
Abdul Salam vs State of Kerala
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 10 Dec 2007]
Petition for issuance of direction to Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge to permit petitioner to recall witnesses and cross examine them - Petitioner was allowed to call witness before with direction to pay cost to Legal Service Authority and Rs. 100/- each to witnesses which cost of Rs 250/- he alleged to have deposited and was to pay Rs 100/- when witnesses came but later realised that summons was not issued as he had not deposited cost of witnesses and had not taken steps to produce postage stamps for summoning - Held, error on part of the petitioner may be gross, but he must be given an opportunity to cross examine subject to appropriate conditions - Petitioner can renew request at defence stage to recall said witnesses for cross examination - Petition allowed.
|
State of Kerala vs Messrs Philips Carbon Black Limited
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 10 Dec 2007]
Kerela General Sales Tax Act, 1963 - Revision petition to challenge order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal - Whether Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that purchase turnover of water was not exigible to tax u/s. 5A of the Act? - Whether Tribunal was not in error in its construction/interpretation on s. 5A, while holding that purchase turnover of water was not exigible to tax u/s. 5A? - Held, questions of law is no more debatable in view of declaration of law made by this court in case of State of Kerala v. Cochin Shipyard Ltd. Wherein it was held that water charges paid was exigible to purchase tax u/s. 5A of the Act even if not consumed for making of end product since it was consumed otherwise - Petition disposed of.
|
Thrivikraman Namboodiri vs Cochin Devaswom Board
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 10 Dec 2007]
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN1. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether the Poojari of a temple managed and administered by the Board can directly deal with the devotees and
|
Usha.V.J vs Manager, Federal Bank Limited
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 07 Dec 2007]
Writ petition to challenge steps taken by 1st respondent-Bank for realization of its dues and for direction to Bank to proceed against immovable property deposited by her rather than against her monthly income - Petitioner and her husband had mortgaged immovable properties to secure loan from Bank and petitioner was also surety to loan - Held, respondent being only scheduled Bank is not amenable to writ jurisdiction and particularly where Bank is only seeking to enforce its contractual rights - It is up to the Bank to choose the options that are available to it and if it has chosen to proceed against surety, that action of Bank cannot be faulted - Petition dismissed.
|
Chandy Varghese vs P.A.Abraham
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 07 Dec 2007]
Revision petition filed to challenge order dismissing application filed to correct decree - Held, C.R.P.No.1184 of 2002 was dismissed by the order dated 9.12.2004 wherein it was held that there is no ground to interfere with finding arrived at by court below; in view of dismissal of C.R.P.No.1184 of 2002, this Civil Revision Petition is also liable to be dismissed - Petition dismissed.
|
P.C.Jolly vs (1) State of Kerala; (2) Tahsildar, Moovattupuzha Taluk Office; (3) Thirumaradi Grama Panchayat; (4) Narayanan
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 07 Dec 2007]
Writ petition filed for issuance of direction to Panchayat and respondent to take action for removal of encroachment - Respondent submitted that it was due to reasons beyond control of the Surveyor concerned that measurements could not be conducted - Held, no laxity on part of respondents 1 and 2 in matter of conducting measurement - Directions issued - Petition disposed of.
|
Josey vs Ramakrishnan
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 07 Dec 2007]
Revision petition to challenge order dismissing application filed for appointment of Commissioner to locate boundary of suit pathway and to measure property with reference to survey records - It was submitted that Commissioner was not able to inspect because it was hartal on that day and so was not able to make arrangements for Commissioner's visit and Commissioner surrendered warrant stating that petitioner had not cooperated on which ground order was dismissed - Held, court below should have granted opportunity to plaintiffs to make arrangements so that Commissioner could inspect property on near date - Petition allowed.
|
Saraswathi vs Mathevan Pillai
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 07 Dec 2007]
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR1. The point that arises for decision in this Writ Petition, filed under Art.227 of the Constitution Of India, 1950c039.xml, is whether the award passed by a Joint Registrar of
|
Anil Kumar vs Perumal Pilla and Another
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 05 Dec 2007]
Writ petition filed for issuance of directions to Magistrate to consider prayer of petitioner's counsel on 6/12/2007 - Petitioner submitted application was filed to re-open evidence and petitioner was given opportunity to cross- examine complainant but complainant could not be cross-examined and when matter was posted for 6/12/2007 petitioner's counsel had unavoidable difficulty on that day in connection with obsequies to be performed in respect of death of his brother - Held, inconvenience of counsel will certainly be taken note of by court and accommodation granted wherever possible; if counsel is not able to appear on 6th, he will have to appear on 7th and do cross- examination, if it is inconvenient for him on 7th also, he will have to take court into confidence and satisfy court that 7th is also inconvenient and it may be posted to next date - No need to issue any directions to Magistrate - Counsel must file an affidavit specifying his difficulty, if any, and must satisfy why next day and day after next day are not convenient to him and must specify date on which he will be able to appear and take part for trial - Petition dismissed.
|
Aravindakshan Nair vs Sukumaran Nair
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 05 Dec 2007]
Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1959 - s. 4A - Petition to challenge order dismissing application for restoration of suit dismissed for non-payment of balance court fee on ground that it was time barred - Held, even if no separate application is filed for condonation of delay, Court shall consider whether sufficient reasons are made out for condonation of delay and sufficient averments are there in application to found a ground for restoration - If case was posted to 21.2.1997 for settlement of issues and for payment of balance court fee, such order would be illegal and opposed to Section 4A of Act - As per Section 4A, balance court fee need be paid only within a period of fifteen days from date of framing of issues - If issues were settled and balance court fee was not paid within time, normally, Court would have rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC - Petition allowed.
|
Sreemachandrasn Nair vs Varkey Mathew
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 05 Dec 2007]
Petition to challenge order in proceedings in execution - Revision against order issuing warrant against revision petitioner was admitted in 2001 and though notice sent to respondent was not returned no steps were taken and stay granted also expired in 2001 and there was no need to keep revision pending - Petitioner submitted to pay decree debt and for grant of breathing time - Held, two months' time is granted to pay decree debt - Petition disposed of.
|
Raghavan Viswambharan vs Neelakantan Madhavan
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 05 Dec 2007]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Was lower appellate court justified in not passing any order in applications filed by respondents in Second Appeal to receive additional evidence under O. 41, r. 27 of CPC? - Held, if Court finds that party producing additional documents was prevented for sufficient cause in not producing those documents before trial court or that notwithstanding exercise of due diligence such evidence was not within his knowledge and, therefore, he could not produce same or if the appellate court finds that such documents are necessary for effectual and complete adjudication of dispute, documents may be received in evidence - It was absolutely necessary for appellate court to have considered question whether additional documents could be accepted in evidence or not, having not done so, there was no effective and complete disposal of appeal on merits - Appeal disposed of.
|
Albert Stanley vs (1) Secretary, Kollam Corporation; (2) Taluk Surveyor, Taluk Office; (3) Subairathu Beevi
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 05 Dec 2007]
Petition for issuance of direction to first respondent-Corporation to conduct necessary inspection - Petitioner alleged that third respondent was constructing building in violation of plan and building rules - Order issued by court in favour of third respondent by Munsif's court - Petitioner submitted that issues before civil court and and in complaint were entirely different - Held, court is not inclined to decide merits of grounds raised; since complaint is pending before 1st respondent-Corporation, it is only appropriate that Corporation takes decision on complaint - Directions issued - Petition disposed of.
|
Assumption College vs State of Kerala
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 05 Dec 2007]
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE A. K. BASHEER1. Some important questions pertaining to the right of the management of private aided colleges, which claim minority status, have cropped up in this bunch of Writ Petitions.2. The primary
|
(1) P.T.Najma Haris; (2) Muhammed Haris vs (1) Pramodkumar; (2) Shaju Joseph; (3) Selex Mammen
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 04 Dec 2007]
Appeals to challenge order declining to grant relief as sought for in transfer petitions - Transfer petitions were filed for transfer of suits filed by respondent for realization of money from appellant, to Sub court where no suit between parties were pending and appellants submitted that they had filed suit before Munsiff's court for return of certain documents against respondent - Appellants had not sought for transfer of suit filed before Munsiff's Court to Sub Court, Kozhikode but only wanted transfer of all the suits from Thiruvalla to Kozhikode - Held, when these suits are filed in competent court of jurisdiction, transfer cannot automatically be granted unless there are good grounds shown - Contention as raised could very well be raised in defence in money suit pending before court at Thiruvalla - Appeals dismissed.
|
Gigimol vs Director of Higher Secondary Education
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 04 Dec 2007]
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN1. We are in these cases primarily concerned with the question as to how the 25% vacancies of the H.S.S.T. as provided in GO.(MS) No.l62/98/G.Edn. dated 13-5-1998 have to be filled
|
(1) Lissy; (2) Sujatha vs State of Kerala
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 03 Dec 2007]
Appeal to challenge proceedings initiated against appellants-sureties for non-appearance of accused - Held, to show cause notice issued to them they had no explanation to be offered except that accused had gone to Gulf and that they had no role to play in accused slipping out to the country, this can hardly an explanation to the show cause notice - However, since Apex Court in Muhammed Kunju and another v. State of Karnataka has given remission to sureties in similar case, court is inclined to reduce penalty by 50%, accordingly, penalty imposed on each of revision petitioners is reduced to Rs.5000/- which if not paid within one month shall entail imprisonment of the defaulting surety in a civil prison for a period of three months - Appeal disposed of.
|