Kerala Court January 1999 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Niyamavedi and Etc. Etc. Vs. Director, Cbi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALT(Cri)176; 1999CriLJ2231
C.S. Rajan, J.1. The ghost of Varghese who met his tragic end in an alleged encounter with the Police 28 years back is still haunting the people of the State. The startling revelations of the additional 5th respondent (in O. P. No. 21142/98) who is a retired Police Constable that he shot Varghese compel1ed by his superior officers stirred up the hornets' nest and these original petitions are the outcome of those self-styled confessions of the police constable. All these original petitions (except O. P. No. 22485/98 filed by the kith and kin of Varghese) are Public Interest Litigations. The prayers in these Original Petitions are :(1) for a direction to the Government to conduct 'a confidence inspiring threadbare investigation' into the custodial murder of Varghese and to book the culprits and launch prosecution against them; and(2) to pay compensation to the kith, and kin of late Varghese to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs.After issuing notice to the State, the learned Additional Advocate Gen...
P.M. Pathrose Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker299
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner and second respondent had executed an agreement for the contract work of construction of 40 beded pacdiatric ward in Government Hospital, Perumbavoor. When the full amount was not paid, petitioner filed O.S. Nos. 612/92 and the decree is Ext. P1(a) which is as follows :'For the reasons stated in the judgment the defendants are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,19,051/- together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till realisation with cost failing which the plaintiff is allowed to realise the same from the defendants and their assets and a copy of the decree and judgment is to be sent to the District Collector for realisation of the Court fee.'It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the decree, the amount is not so far paid. At the same time, steps are taken for realisation of the court fee and Ext. P2 revenue recovery proceedings are taken. Petitioner filed the suit as an indigent person. So, when he succeeded in the suit th...
Indian Overseas Bank Vs. A.B. Senan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker364; [1999]96CompCas639(Ker)
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. The Indian Overseas Bank, Thiruvananthapuram is the revision petitioner. It obtained a decree against respondents 1 and 2 for money along with K. R. L. Engineering and Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. In execution when the Bank sought to proceed against the properties belonging to the respondents, respondents filed E. A. 867/1992 for a direction that they are not personally liable for the decree amount and hence their property cannot be sold in auction. The Court below, by the impugned order, has held that the suit was filed for getting certain amounts from the first defendant, which is a private Limited Company, Respondents 1 and 2, who were defendants 2 and 3, were only Managing Director and Director respectively. Unless any fraudulent act was pleaded, no personal liability can be tacked on to respondents 1 and 2. In the above view of the matter, the Court below held that judgment debtors 2 and 3 cannot be personally proceeded against. It is against that the...
M. Kumaran and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-1999
Reported in: [1999]239ITR848(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. The main question to be decided in this case is whether the Land Acquisition Officer can deduct income-tax at source, from the interest payable on the enhanced compensation on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. While depositing enhanced compensation with interest on the basis of the decree in L. A. R. No. 29 of 1988 of the Sub-Court, Palakkad, income-tax was deducted at source on the interest, by exhibits P-1 and P-2. The petitioners question the same and it is contended that no deduction of income-tax can be made as the entire amount as per the decree should be deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is further contended that the entire amount is a decree debt and as such there is no interest on any income and the decree is for the compensation amount on account of the property acquired by the respondents and, therefore, no income-tax can be deducted. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader. 3. First of all I note that the Income-tax Depa...
Geetha Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-1999
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ1204Ker
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The Kerala Public Service Commission invited applications for selection to the post of LPS./UPS Assistant (Malayalam) in the Education Department for Pathnamthitta District. Notification was published in the gazette dated November 22, 1994. Qualifications prescribed for the post are as follows:(1) Pass in S.S.L.C conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala, or any other equivalent qualification.(2) Pass in TTC conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala, or pass in Pre-degree of Kerala University with pedagogy as optional subject or pass in basic TTC examination (Malayalam) conducted by the Government of Madras or pass in Malayalam Vidhwan examination.2. Several persons submitted applications on the basis of above mentioned gazette notification, including the petitioner. Petitioner passed SSLC examination in March, 1990, and TTC in 1994, both in first class, and was fully qualified for being considered for appointment...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Midas Rubber P. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-1999
Reported in: [1999]237ITR250(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J.1. As directed by this court, the Income-tax-Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue, referred the following questions relating to the assessment year 1985-86 for the opinion of this court :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is engaged in manufacture or production of any article or thing and is not the above finding wrong and unreasonable ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to the claim of investment allowance and deduction under Section 80I ?' 2. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee is mainly engaged in mastication of rubber. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (the 'Act'), in respect of mastication charges collected from others. The Assessing Officer took the view that the assesses is not engaged in any manufacturing activity and, therefore, is not entitled to any...
Mrs. Achamma Chacko Vs. Tahsildar and Assessing Authority, Ernakulam a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker252
ORDERD. Sreedevi, J.1. Petitioner has filed this original petition for an order issuing a writ of certiorari quashing Exts. P3 and P4. Petitioner constructed a commercial building consisting of ground floor and four top floors in Sy. No. 625/8-9 of Ernakulam village, after getting licence from the Cochin Corporation. The construction was completed on 1-12-1984. The First, Second and Third Floors were leased out to different parties. The Fourth Floor was let out to a registered charitable institution known as 'LIS.' Petitioner has submitted a return to the first respondent, as per Rule 4 of the Building Tax Rules, as per notice dated 16-6-1986. Petitioner was directed to produce her title deeds. Later she was directed to produce copy of sanction order of the Cochin Corporation dated 28-11-1984. Petitioner informed the Revenue Inspector the rate of assessment of each floor by the Corporation and pointed out that the fourth floor is exempted. Petitioner claimed exemption for the fourth fl...
Vincent Varghese Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ1268Ker
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. N. Nadakumara Menon for appellant and Mr. P.G. Parameswara Panicker for respondents.2. The unsuccessful Writ Petitioner is the appellant herein. The Original Petition was filed by the appellant challenging Ext. P8 order passed by the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Ernakulam discharging the appellant from the service of the Bank and seeking a direction to the respondent to reinstate the appellant in service with all consequential benefits with effect from the date of his dismissal, and other allied reliefs.3. The appellant, while working as Clerk-cum-Typist in the 1st respondent Bank, was prosecuted pursuant to a complaint filed by his wife, for the charge of an offence punishable under Section 498A of 'the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to as 'I.P.C.'). Section 498A PC deals with the offence of cruelty by husband or his relatives. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Padmanabhan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-1999
Reported in: 1999(108)ELT27(Ker)
ORDERA.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Union of India/Ministry of Finance is the appellant in this appeal. The respondent, who is an I.P.S. Officer in the Kerala cadre, filed the Original Petition to quash Exts. P6, P7 and P5 orders and for a mandamus directing the appellant to sanction and pay the reward to him in accordance with the scale mentioned in the guidelines and to declare that he is entitled to the reward on the guidelines indicated in Exts. P1 and P2. Ext. P1 is issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India dated 30.3.1985 to all heads of departments under the Central Board of Excise and Customs in regard to grant of rewards to informers and government servants. Ext. P1 is again issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance on 13.4.1989 to all heads of departments under the Central Board of Excise and Customs in regard to grant of rewards to the government servants and informers. Under Ext. P2, the Government have reviewed the existing policy, ...
Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Labour Court
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-15-1999
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ1031Ker
Koshy, J. 1. Appellants in the writ appeal which is a Kerala Government undertaking filed the original petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing Ext. P6 preliminary order and Ext. P8 award passed by the first respondent Labour Court. The second respondent Union raised an industrial dispute on behalf of one of its members. The issue referred for adjudication to the Labour Court was 'reversion of Sri. S. Sivasankara Pillai, Manager Grade II'. Sri. S. Sivasankara Pillai, designated as II Grade Manager in the petitioner's establishment was charge sheeted for the misconduct of (1) causing wilful loss to the Corporation; 2) Habitual breach of rules; 3) Making false allegations against superior officers; 4) Gross negligence of duty. The allegations raised against him was that by order dated February 1, 1975 he was put in charge of filling and packing section of the factory. On September 8, 1975 he did not arrange work in the filling section and that occasioned considerabl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »