Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1998)IIILLJ1174Ker
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. Management of an industrial establishment has come up with this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 order of the Authority under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act. The order directs payment of subsistence allowance in terms of Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972 to the 3rd respondent. 2. Admittedly by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent was placed under suspension from October 19, 1987. There is no case for the petitioner either before the statutory authority or before this Court that the 3rd respondent had at any time been paid subsistence allowance or part thereof. When suspension of an employee is admitted and there is no case for the employer that the subsistence allowance had been paid, the natural consequence from the Authority constituted under the said Act is to direct payment of subsistence allowance because that is the statutory liability of the employer concerned. Therefore, I see no reason to set aside Ext.P6. 3. The Manageme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1998)IIILLJ488Ker
Usha, J.1. These appeals are filed by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and United India Insurance Company Ltd., challenging the orders passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in different Workmen's Compensation cases on application filed under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, claiming compensation for personal injuries sustained by the applicants in accidents arising out of and in the course of their employment. The main common contention raised in these appeals is that the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner should not have applied the amended provisions contained in Sections 4 and 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 while assessing quantum of compensation, interest etc. in respect of claims arising from accidents happened before the amended provisions came into force.2. By virtue of the provisions contained under Sections 4 and 5 of the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act, 1995 (Act 30 of 1995), there had been enhancement in the rate of compensa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1997Ker259
Balakrishnan, J. 1. In these two Writ Appeals a common question of law arises. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment declared that Clause 9(a)(ii) of the guidelines prescribed by the University is arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable. The appellant-University challenges the decision.2. We heard appellants counsel and counsel for the respondents. Petitioners in the Original Petition had appeared for the pre-Degree examination conducted by the Appellant University. In anticipation of the result, they appeared for Engineering entrance examination. In order to get admission to the Engineering course, candidates belonging to general category must obtain a minimum of 50% and candidates belonging to other backward communities a minimum of 45% marks in the qualifying examination. In the Prc-Degree examination, these students could not secure the minimum marks required for getting admission to Engineering course. They filed application for revaluation. Even by the marks obtain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1998)IIILLJ1052Ker
C.S. Rajan, J. 1. An interesting question, on which there can be two opinions, arises in these Original Petitions. The question is whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain these Original Petitions in view of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In order to decide the above question it is necessary to look into the prayers in these Original Petitions. The main prayers in O.P. No. 1937 of 1993 are as follows :'(a) A writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, direction or order prohibiting respondents 1 to 3 from terminating the services or denying work to the petitioners 2 to 22 in the maintenance department ;(b) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to renew the identity cards of the petitioners for entry in the INS Venduruthy so long as they are employed in the maintenance department of the Sailors Married Accommodation in the INS Venduruthy ;(c) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1997Ker253
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi, J. 1. The defendants in arbitration O.S. No. 772/89 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thrissur are the revision petitioners. The judgment dated 11-7-1996 of the Lower Court referring the disputes involved in the suit to an arbitrator for adjudication is challenged in this revision petition.2. The respondents filed the above suit under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes on claims Nos. 1 to 7 mentioned in the plaint. The revision petitioners contended that as per the conditions of the contract through a clause for arbitration is provided, the claim made by the respondents being excepted matters, cannot be subjected to arbitration. They have also contended that as per Clause 25 which is the arbitration clause in the contract, the Managing Director of the revision petitioners--Corporation alone is competent to appoint the arbitrator and therefore, the contract condi-tions being self conta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1998]233ITR656(Ker)
K.K. Usha, J.1. The revision cases are at the instance of the assessee under the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act. They relate to the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, respectively. The following questions of law are raised in the revision petitions :'a. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in interfering with the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) in AITA No. 13 of 1985 dated March 11, 1986 ?b. Whether the assessing authority has the right to adopt a different method for the valuation of coffee pooled other than the method that was being adopted by the assessee and accepted without challenge by the Department during the past years ?c. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding, inter alia, that the valuation of coffee made by the revision petitioner was incorrect even in the absence of the allegation made by the assessing authority that the revision petitioner has deliberately undervalued the coffee pooled...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1998]91CompCas264(Ker)
T.V. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The short but difficult question to be decided in this appeal is whether a bank guarantee executed by the appellant--the Punjab and Sind Bank--in favour of the respondent--Fenner (India) Limited--has come into operation in the facts and circumstances of the case. The trial court has held that it has come into operation and has granted a decree as prayed for, for realisation of a sum of Rs. 32,61,250 with 15 per cent, future interest per annum on the principal amount of Rs.30 lakhs from the date of suit till realisation and proportionate costs of the suit in enforcement of the bank guarantee sued upon, Aggrieved by the decree and judgment, the defendant has filed this appeal.2. The relevant facts necessary to be stated are thus : The respondent-company engaged in export business, entered into exhibit A-1 agreement dated April 23, 1991, with Vijay Exports, a business concern, for purchase of cashew kernels for the purpose of export. As per the agreement, Vijay Exp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1997Ker133
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. A question of considerable public importance arises for consideration in this case. Even though there is hue and cry all over, and Academicians, Educationists, Administrators and grown up politicians have all voiced their concern to eradicate politicalintervention in Schools and Colleges, there has been little effort to find out any concrete solution to do away with campus violence in Schools and Colleges. Students are unfortunately drawn into politics by political parties as well as certain others, completely disrupting the educational system. At times, it creates an atmosphere of tension, lawlessness in School and College campuses, and sometimes even in class rooms. Violence has grown to such an extent of snatching away the lives of innocent students, who come for studies in Schools or Colleges. Many of the students in Govt. Schools and Colleges are from weaker sections of the society.DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND EDUCATION...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1997CriLJ878
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner in O.P. 246/95 is the appellant. He prayed that there shall not be any criminal prosecution and investigation against him on the basis of Ext. P6 and also the FIR 53/95 of R.K. Puram Police Station, New Delhi on the ground that these proceedings are illegal and void. The appellant was a member of the Border Security Force and he retired from that service on 31-10-93. According to respondents, in an enquiry conducted by the D.I.G. (HQ) FHQ it was found that the appellant involved himself in some recruitment scandal and, therefore, criminal proceedings were initiated against the appellant and steps were taken to arrest him. On 7-1 -94 two officers of the B .S.F. came to Thiruvananthapuram and on 9-1 -94 with the help of local Sub Inspector the appellant was arrested and the B.S.F. officers took him to Delhi. According to the respondent, the appellant managed to escape from custody while he was undergoing treatment in a hospital. According to the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1997)138CTR(Ker)51; [1999]240ITR825(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. We are expected to answer the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the repairs will not fall within the mischief of Section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the production of white cement. For the assessment year 1984-85, the Income-tax Officer disallowed an amount of Rs. 1,94,889 under Section 37(3A) with reference to expenses such as advertisement, payment to hotels and motor car expenses.3. The matter was taken up before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to argue that repairs to car allowed under Section 31 must be excluded while making disallowance.4. The first appellate authority considered the question in paragraph 6 of its judgment. It was argued that under Section 31 of the Act, the car expenses would have to be excluded. The first appellate authority decided that under Section 37(3A) disallowance can be made...
Tag this Judgment!