Disposed

Superintendent v. Sajeeshkumar

Kerala HC18 Feb 2013RP/52/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Judge disposed of a review petition filed against a Writ Petition decree. The Court clarified that the petitioners in W.P.(C).37406/2007 must be governed by the Division Bench judgment in W.A.1382/2011 as amended by the order in R.P.466/2012.

What did the court decide?

Review petition disposed of; petitioners in W.P.(C).37406/2007 declared to be governed by the reviewed judgment in W.A.1382/2011.

Superintendent Vs Sajeeshkumar — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/29TH MAGHA 1934

¶5

RP.No. 52 of 2013 (C)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C).37406/2007 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 21-03-2012.

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S):RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 IN W.P.(C)

¶8

1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE,SERVICE TAX RANGE CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, MUTTUPALAYAM STREET PALAKKAD 678 001.

¶9

2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE NEW DELHI.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM,SC,C.B. EXCISE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN W.P.(C).

¶12

1. SRI.SAJEESHKUMAR.S,AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.M.K.SIVANKUTTY, "MANNATH", VASUDEVA NAGAR ROBINSON ROAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.678 001.

¶13

2. RAMLAL C.B., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.BALAN C.R., CHAMBAMKULATH HOUSE CHATHAMANGALAM P.O., KALNADU, NENMARA PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 678 508.

¶14

3. S.BHASKARAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.SUBRAMANIYAN, GANGA NIVAS, GOVANI ROAD KANNAKI NAGAR, PALAKKAD 678 501.

¶15

4. G.BHASKARAN, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O.K.GOPALAMOOTHAN, 33/378, MOOTHANTHARA PALAKKAD-12.

¶16

5. SHARMILA GOKULDAS, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.LATE PREMAKUMARAN, KALLENGOTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE KANNADI P.O., PALAKKAD.

¶17

R.P.NO.52/2013

¶18

6. G.MOHAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.K.G.NAIR, 19/17, MURIKKAV WEST YAKKARA PALAKKAD 678 001.

¶19

7. C.V.VINCENT, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.C.O.VARUNNI, CHALISSERRY HOUSE, OLLUR THRISSUR DISTRICT. 686 306.

¶20

8. N.J.ROY, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.N.V.JOSEPH, NELLISSERI HOUSE, VAKKALA ELAVAMPADAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN 678 711.

¶21

9. SUBIN.C.B., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.C.C.BABY, CHEERAN HOUSE, PATTANI STREET PALAKKAD.

¶22

10. K.SATHYABHAMA, W/O.M.K.SIVANKUTTY, MANNATH, VASUDEVA NAGAR, ROBINSON ROAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 701.

¶23

11. THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY PALAKKAD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD 678 001.

¶24

12. THE SECRETARY PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, PALAKKAD 678 001. BY SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) BY SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON

¶25

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

tss

R.P. NO.52/2013

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES.

¶30

A- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 14.10.2011 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL 8390/2011 AND CONNECTED CIVIL APPEALS AND SLP 276 36/2011.

¶31

B:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 28.9.2011 IN SLP. 27248/2011 FILED BY RETAILERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA.

¶32

C:- COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT OF IN W.A. 1382/2011 DTD. 24.2.2012.

¶33

D- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. NO.37406/2007 DTD. 21.3.2012.

¶34

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶40

R.P.52/2013 in W.P.(C).37406/2007

¶41

Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2013

¶42

ORDER

¶43

Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners and the respondents.

¶44

Writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 21^st March 2012, taking note of the fact that the issues raised are covered by the Division Bench judgment in W.A.1382/2011 and connected cases and clarifying that the petitioners in the writ petition will also be entitled to the benefit of the Division Bench judgment. It is now brought to my notice that subsequently, the judgment in W.A.1382/11 and connected cases was reviewed by order in R.P.466/12 and connected cases. In paragraph 6 of the aforesaid order, the Division Bench has held thus:

¶45

“There will be a direction to the respondents to comply with the Supreme Court orders, if any, issued modifying the stay orders in Home Solutions Retails (India) Ltd case (supra), on being intimated by the department, within three weeks from the date of intimation, failing which department can recover the entire arrears of tax.”

¶46

R.P.52/13

¶47

¶48

In the light of the above, this petition is filed seeking review of the judgment in the writ petition and to make to consistent with the judgment of the Division Bench.

¶49

As already noticed, the writ petition was disposed of in the light of the Division Bench judgment in W.A.1382/11 and connected cases. The Division Bench has reviewed the judgment by its order in R.P.466/2012 and connected cases. Therefore, the petitioners are justified in their prayer to review the judgment in the writ petition also so that, the judgment will be consistent with the judgment in writ appeal as reviewed.

¶50

Accordingly, this review petition is disposed of clarifying that the writ petitioners will be governed by the judgment in W.A.1382/2011 and connected cases as reviewed by the order in R.P.466/2012 and connected cases.

¶51

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶52

mrcs

¶53

/true copy/ PA To Judge

Superintendent v. Sajeeshkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Superintendent v. Sajeeshkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murugan Vs Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

Manjayya Gounder S T Vs State Bank of Travancore

Shanil Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Bank

C.Gopalakrishnan Vs P.Giri & Others

Mrs. Mayble Jose Vs Mathew Francis Alappatt

Sisupalan K.N. Vs the District Collector