Kerala Court February 1999 Judgments
Baby Vijayan Vs. Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-1999
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ155Ker
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard counsel for the appellant. Appellant is the wife of the deceased petitioner in the original petition who is impleaded as the legal representative of the petitioner in the Original Petition. The Original Petition was filed praying for a writ of certiorari to. quash Ext. P6 award of the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam by which the deceased employee who was found guilty and was dismissed from service of the Indian Overseas Bank and for other reliefs.2. The deceased employee was given a charge sheet on December 16, 1983 for misconduct committed by him. A domestic enquiry was ordered into the charges. The enquiry was conducted by the disciplinary authority. The management examined the witnesses and produced documents to prove the allegations against the appellant's husband. The deceased employee has neither examined any witness nor produced any documents to substantiate his defence even though opportunity was given to him. The Enquiry Officer, after considering the ev...
Tag this Judgment!Sreedharan Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)206; [1999(82)FLR364]; (1999)IILLJ639Ker
D. Sreedevi, J.1. This original petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P8 and to direct the 2nd respondent to refer the issue regarding retrenchment compensation, notice pay and gratuity to the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam.2. Petitioner is the General Secretary of Kerala Cashewnut Workers Federation, which is a registered trade union. The 3rd respondent purchased P.K.D. Cashew Factory, Eravipuram belonging to M/s. Bakul Cashew Company on March 18, 1981 as a going concern and undertook to employ all the workers with continuity of service with all past liabilities. As per Ext. P1 Memorandum of Settlement, the 3rd respondent undertook the liability in respect of the workmen and staff under the predecessor management. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent issued Ext. P2 notice. The workmen had put in 27 years' of service in M/s. Bakul Cashew Company. As the wages for the year 1981 fell due, the workers struck work. Ultimately, the dispute was settled by Ext. P3 agre...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala and anr. Vs. N. Ramani
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-1999
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ485Ker
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the State of Kerala and the Registrar of this Court against the judgment of A. S. vENKATACHALA MOORTY, J. dated June 30, 1999 in O.P. No. 20000 of 1995. The respondent, who was working as a Senior Grade Assistant in this Court, filed the Original Petition seeking to quash Exts. P2, P3 and P5 and the conditions imposed in Ext. P1, and also to declare that the conditions imposed in Ext. P1 is illegal and that the petitioner/respondent herein is entitled to all service benefits for the period from August 23, 1993 to August 22, 1994 when she was on leave in continuation of her maternity leave. A further prayer by way of mandamus was also asked for the grant of eligible benefits of increment due in July, 1994 and other attendant benefits to the petitioner for the period she was ,on leave without allowances from August 23, 1993 to August 22, 1994.2. The respondent herein was sanctioned maternity leave from May 25, 1992 to August 22, 1992 as pe...
Tag this Judgment!Pattanakad Coir Mats and Matting Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Project ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ1605Ker
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. Petitioner in the Original Petition is the Pattanakkad Coir Mats & Matting Co-operative Society Ltd. second respondent is a clerk working in the Society. By Ext.P3 dated September 18, 1997, the second respondent was suspended from service in order to facilitate a detailed enquiry into the allegations levelled against him. He challenged Ext. P3 before the first respondent, the Project Officer (Coir), Alappuzha. The Project Officer (Coir), Alappuzha is the Registrar for the petitioner Society. First respondent has now passed Ext. P8 order exercising his powers under Rule 176 of the Co-operative Service Rules by which he had rescinded resolution No. 125 dated September 17, 1997 of the petitioner Society placing the second respondent under suspension. It is challenging that the Original Petition is filed.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Society has every right to initiate disciplinary action against erring members of the staff and that such ac...
Tag this Judgment!Aliyathammada Beethathebiyyapura Pookoya Haji Vs. Pattakal Cheriyakoya ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker289
ORDERC.S. Rajan, J.1. The legal question to be decided in this case is whether the 5th respondent has jurisdiction to entertain Ext. P2 petition filed by respondents 1 to 3 and to decide the same under Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The prayer in Ext. P2 is topass a decree declaring that the office of Mutawalli of the Mosque scheduled in the petition is vested with the Pattakkal family and that the first plain-tiff in Ext. P2 was duly chosen to be the Mutawalli of the Mosque and for consequential reliefs.2. According to the petitioners, Section 83(2) of the Act clearly contemplates that any person aggrieved by the order passed under the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder may file an application challenging the same. Therefore in the absence of any order passed either by the Wakf Board or by the Chief Executive Officer under the provisions of the Act, determining the Mutawalliship of the Mosque, the 5th respondent cannot decide any ...
Tag this Judgment!Hajee P. HussaIn Khan Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: [2000]241ITR308(Ker)
P. Shanmugam, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. In this original petition, he challenges exhibit P-16 notice of sale issued under Section 49(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act. He has also prayed for a declaration to declare that the respondents are not entitled to demand any amount as arrears of agricultural income-tax based on exhibits P-6 to P-15 assessment orders.2. The assessment orders relate to the periods from 1975-76 to 1990-91. These orders have become final. This original petition, filed without challenging these assessment orders before the appellate authorities for a declaration under article 226 of the Constitution to declare them as unenforceable, is not maintainable for more than one reason. Firstly, the petitioner has not exhausted the effective alternative remedies available to him. Secondly, the assessment orders of the years 1975-76 to 1990-91 which were all passed from the years 1982 onwards and the last of the order under challe...
Tag this Judgment!Eastern Condiments (Private) Ltd. Vs. General Manager, District Indust ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: [2000]119STC250(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act'). The question involved herein relates to the grant of exemption from payment of sales tax under Government notifications issued under Section 10 of the Act.2. The petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of chilli powder, coriander powder and other curry powders. It is a small-scale industrial unit registered with the Industries Department evidenced by the provisional registration certificate No. 09/9E/11/529/SSI.PROV dated December 6, 1989 (exhibit P-7). The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Act and is an assessee on the files of the third respondent. The petitioner had set up the unit and started commercial production on February 28, 1991. It is stated that permanent registration as SSI unit was given to the company as per certificate No. 09/11/02017/PMT/SSI/531 dated January 2, 1992. The petitio...
Tag this Judgment!N. Gopalakrishnan Vs. Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-1999
Reported in: [2001]104CompCas276(Ker)
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. This is an application under Section 433(e) read with Section 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, praying that the Asianet Satellite Communications Limited be wound up on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debts. The applicant is a financial consultant. According to him his services were utilised by the company. He was to be paid remuneration for his services rendered at the rates agreed upon. The services expected to be rendered by the applicant and the percentage of remuneration payable to him by the company are reflected by the minutes of the fifth meeting of the board of directors held on June 23, 1993. The applicant rendered services and he submitted an invoice dated March 11, 1995, claiming remuneration at Rs. 67,00,000. Subsequently on March 13, 1995, he served the invoice along with a covering letter to the managing director of the company. The amount was not paid. Since the debt due to the applicant was not paid in spite of the notice...
Tag this Judgment!Hamsa Vs. Abdul Jaleel
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-1999
Reported in: II(1999)DMC229
K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. The petitioner in both the revision petitions is the same person. Crl. R.P. No. 728/98 is directed against the order dated 27.11.1996 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Pattambi in Crl. M.P. No. 2133/96 and M.C. No. 49/95. Crl. R.P. No. 729/98 is filed against the order dated 27.1.1996 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 1471/96 and MC. No. 47/95 by the same Court. 2. The revision petitioner filed M.C. Nos. 46,47,48,49 and 53/95 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Pattambi claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- each from his five sons under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. Though M.C. 53/ 95 was filed at a later point of time, that M.C. was disposed of first by the lower Court by passing an ex parte order against the respondent therein on 18.1.1996 directing him to pay maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. After the order in that M.C. was passed the respondent in the other M.Cs. filed petitions in the respective...
Tag this Judgment!Hamsa Vs. Abdul Jaleel and anr. Etc.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2217
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. The petitioner in both the revision petitions is the same person. Crl. R. P. No. 728/98 is directed against the order dated 27-11-1996 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Pattambi in Crl. M.P. No. 2133/96 and M.C. No. 49/95. Crl. R.P. No. 729/98 is filed against the order dated 27-11 -1996 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 1471/96 and M.C. No. 47/95 by the same Court.2. The revision petitioner filed M.C. Nos. 46, 47, 48, 49 and 53/95 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Pattambi claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- each from his five sons under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. Though M.C. 53/95 was filed at a later point of time, that M.C. was disposed of first by the lower Court by passing an ex parte order against the respondent therein on 18-1-1996 directing him to pay maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. After the order in that M.C. was passed the respondents in the other M.Cs. filed petitions in the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »