Disposed

The Kerala Cricket Association v. the Cochin Corporation

Kerala HC11 Aug 2017WP(C)/5413/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Kerala directed the Cochin Corporation to consider and decide on the petitioner's refund application within one month after hearing the parties. The court ordered the corporation to hear the petitioner and others affected before passing any order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 application within one month after hearing the petitioner and others likely to be affected.

The Kerala Cricket Association Vs the Cochin… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/20TH SRAVANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 5413 of 2017 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

KERALA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,

¶8

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY JAYESH GEORGE, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.LATE M.V. GEORGE, MANICKANAMPARAMBIL, SRM ROAD, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER SMT.K.AASHA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE COCHIN CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, COCHIN CORPORATION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682011.

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY, COCHIN CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM-682011.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH,SC SRI.P.K.SOYUZ,SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 5413 of 2017 (B)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 6-10-2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE GENERAL CONVENER OF THE ONE DAY INTERNATIONAL CONDUCTED BY THE KERALA CRICKET ASSOCIATION.

¶20

P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE PAYMENT ISSUED ON 2-10-2010 BY THE RESPONDENTS.

¶21

P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE PAYMENT ISSUED ON 11-10-2010 BY THE RESPONDENTS.

¶22

P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR REFUND DATED 19-2-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

¶23

P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR REFUND DATED 16-10-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

¶24

P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR REFUND DATED 28-10-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶25

P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11-9-2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶32

............................................................. W.P.(C).No.5413 Of 2017 -(B ) ............................................................. Dated this the 11^th day of August, 2017

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

The limited prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition is for a direction to 1^st respondent, before whom he has preferred Ext.P4 application seeking refund of entertainment tax amounts paid, to consider and pass orders on the same expeditiously, after hearing the petitioner.

¶35

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

¶36

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I dispose the writ petition with a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 application preferred by the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner and others likely to be affected by the orders to be passed by the 1^st respondent. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgement, together with a copy of the writ petition before the 1^st respondent for further action.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶39

mns/11.08.17

The Kerala Cricket Association v. the Cochin Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Kerala Cricket Association v. the Cochin Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India Vs M/S. Ideal Powertech Limited

Hazeena K Vs the Authorized Officer, Vijaya Bank

M/S.Haritha Homes Vs the Commercial Tax Officer (Wc & Lt)

M/S.Aryanet Trust Vs the Authorized Officer

Edinjavila Mohammed Thaha Vs Authorized Officer (Sarc), State Bank of Travancore

Mavely Jewellery Vs the Commercial Tax Officer