Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VELAPPAN, S/O.KOCHUSANKARAN versus ANTONY JOHN, S/O.JOHN

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


VELAPPAN, S/O.KOCHUSANKARAN v. ANTONY JOHN, S/O.JOHN - MACA No. 141 of 2006 [2007] RD-KL 4302 (26 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA No. 141 of 2006()

1. VELAPPAN, S/O.KOCHUSANKARAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. ANTONY JOHN, S/O.JOHN,
... Respondent

2. SHAJIMON, S/O.KUMARAN,

3. KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.S.NANDANAN

For Respondent :SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.JOHN MATHEW (RETD.JUDGE)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.V.RAMAKRISHNAN (RETD.JUDGE)

Dated :26/02/2007

O R D E R

K.JOHN MATHEW (RETD.JUDGE)

&

T.V.RAMAKRISHNAN (RETD.JUDGE)

M.A.C.A.141 OF 2006

Dated this the 26th day of February, 2007

A W A R D The parties have settled the dispute as per the earlier award dated 15.7.1993. The 3rd respondent deposited the award amount and the claimant withdrew the same. After the remand from the High Court there is some reduction in the award amount. The parties now agreed to settle this claim for the earlier award amount which the 3rd respondent has deposited. In other words, the claimant need not refund any amount to the 3rd respondent. The appeal is settled as above. K.JOHN MATHEW

(RETD.JUDGE)

T.V.RAMAKRISHNAN

(RETD.JUDGE)

ps

? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

+WA No. 412 of 2007() #1. A.J.THOMAS, M/S.AMBATTU RUBBER STORES,
... Petitioner

Vs

$1. THE SALES TAX OFFICER,
... Respondent

2. SRI.SAM THOMAS, SON OF SRI.THOMAS KOSHI,

3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

! For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.THANU PILLAI

For Respondent :SRI.S.ANILKUMAR

*Coram

The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

% Dated :26/02/2007

: O R D E R

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,Ag.C.J & M.N.KRISHNAN,J.

W.A.NO. 412 OF 2007 - B

Dated this the 26th day of February, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Radhakrishnan, Ag.C.J. The writ petition (No.25257 of 2006) was filed seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to issue eight numbers of Form 25 declarations to the petitioner. The learned Single Judge did not grant the relief to the petitioner and the writ petition was dismissed.

2. Appellant is a registered dealer of rubber goods. The dispute raised is about the non-furnishing of sufficient number of Form 25 by the first respondent to the appellant. We find that the transaction was effected in the financial year 2003-2004 and he has applied for Form 25 forms only in the year 2006.

3. The fact finding authorities have come to the conclusion that the appellant had indulged in clandestine transportation of rubber across the border of Tamil Nadu. Further the appellant is applying for the forms very after a period of two years. WA NO.412 OF 2007 Under such circumstances, we find no reason to issue a writ of mandamus to issue the forms. The writ appeal lacks merits and the same is dismissed. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, Acting Chief Justice M.N.KRISHNAN, Judge Mbs/ WA NO.412 OF 2007

K.THANKAPPAN, J

Crl.Appeal NO. OF 2001

J U D G M E N T

DATED:13-02-2007

WA NO.412 OF 2007


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.