Kerala Court June 1999 Judgments
State of Kerala Vs. Yoosuf Kunju
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-1999
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ1548Ker
Labour and Industrial - correction - Rules 140 to 143 of Kerala Service Rules - denial of application for correction of date of birth in service book challenged - on grounds that application belated and not accompanied by corrected SSLC book at time of original presentation - in light of precedent accompainment of SSLC book with application for correction not mandatory - said application neither belated nor liable to rejected on ground of non-accompainment of corrected SSLC book - no justification for denial of consideration of petitioner's case for correction on merits - Government directed to pass fresh orders on application for correction of date of birth in service book within prescribed time....
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Sasidharan Vs. the Forest Range Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4844
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Question that has come up for consideration is whether second respondent is disabled from proceeding with Section 61-A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, if there is failure on the part of the Authorised Officer in reporting the seizure to the Magistrate in accordance with Section 52(2) of the Act.2. Idukki Flying Squad Range Officer got information of illegal transportation of forest produce from the Cardamom Hill Reserve near Kizhakke Mattukada. The Range Officer and his staff intercepted Jeep bearing registration No. KL-6-1511/ carrying Choorapathri timber on 10-11-1997. Timber seized did not bear any Government stamp mark or any private property mark. As soon as the jeep was intercepted, driver and certain persons, who were in the jeep, escaped and they could not be apprehended. Vehicle and the timber logs were seized and the matter was reported by the Officer to the-Divisional Forest Officer, Kottayam, vide his letter dated 11-11-1997, along with the mah...
Tag this Judgment!Santha Vs. Sree Kumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1999
Reported in: II(1999)DMC770
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The defendant in a suit O.S. 96/95 on the file of the Munsif's Court, Varkala had approached this Court seeking an order for transfer of the suit to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram.2. Family Court is a special Court established for the purpose of trying the specific suits mentioned in Section 7(1) and explanation thereto. Therefore any suit, even though the parties are same, cannot be directed to be transferred to Family Court from a Subordinate Civil Court. The petitioner submits that the defendant is her husband and the subject-matter of the suit is in respect of the residential house occupied by the petitioner. There are pending cases before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Therefore, this shall be transferred.3. If the subject-matter of the suit is one within Section 7(1) or the explanation thereunder, necessarily the subordinate Civil Court will have any jurisdiction to entertain it. Therefore, as the suit is one filed after establishment of ...
Tag this Judgment!M.H. Industries Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1999
Reported in: [2000]118STC114(Ker)
Mrs. K.K. Usha, J.1. This tax revision case is at the instance of the assessee. Relevant assessment year is 1994-95. The assessee is a manufacturer of plastic cups used for the purpose of collecting latex. The only question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the exemption from tax granted to latex collection plastic cup being an agricultural implement as per the amendment to S.R.O. No. 1727 of 1993 dated November 4, 1993 brought in by S.R.O. No. 326 of 1995 dated May 14, 1995 has any application for the assessment year 1994-95. The assessing authority as well as the first appellate authority and the Appellate Tribunal rejected the contention.2. S.R.O. No. 1727 of 1993 dated November 4, 1993 issued in exercise of the powers conferred Under Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 granted exemption in respect of the tax payable under the Sales Tax Act on the turnover of sale or purchase, as the case may be, of goods mentioned in Schedule II. Under Sched...
Tag this Judgment!Thottoli Moideen Koya and ors. Vs. Kariatt Kunhammed Haji and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker324
Usha, J. 1. The question that is referred for consideration of the Full Bench is whether the period of 90 days made mention of in Rule 44 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971, hereinafter referred for short as 'the Rules,' can be treated as prescription of period of limitation in the matter of filing of revision petitions under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred for short as'the Act' and whether a separate petition to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is required, if the revision petition is filed beyond the period of 90 days. 2. Section 20 of the Act which deals with the revisional jurisdiction provides that in cases where the appellate authority empowered under Section 18 is a Subordinate Judge, the District Court, and in other cases the High Court, may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under...
Tag this Judgment!Thressiamma Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1999
Reported in: 2000(120)ELT602(Ker)
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. The above Writ Appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P. No. 14526 of 1993. The Original Petition was dismissed by judgment dated 23-12-1998. In the Original Petition, the petitioner had prayed for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ and set aside Ext. P7 order dated 21-7-1993 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'. The grievance of the petitioner which was highlighted in the Original Petition is as follows :2. The petitioner/appellant is the proprietrix of Vijaya Packers. The petitioner, on behalf of M/s. Corn Products Company (India) Ltd, who market Glucovita Glucose D, had undertaken the process of mixing and blending Dextrose Mono Hydrate with 0.6% of Tricalcium Phosphate and 0.00025% Vitamin-D on job work basis. According to the petitioner, Tricalcium Phosphate was added as an anti-caking agent and Vitamin D to improve the quality of Dextrose without any chemical chan...
Tag this Judgment!Devaki Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ477
K. Narayana Kurup, J. 1. The accused in S. C. No. 53/97 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Court convicting the appellant for offences under Sections 302, 307 and 309, I.P.C. and sentencing her to undergo imprisonment for life. The prosecution case in brief is as follows :2. The accused was married to one Harikumar (deceased). One Akhil and PW2 are born in that wedlock. After the death of Harikumar, the husband of the appellant, the appellant has been moving freely with PW. 9, one Omanakuttan who runs a provision shop near her house. According to prosecution, PW9 used to visit the house of the accused which gave rise to a gossip about the illicit relationship between the accused and P.W. 9. There were quarrels between the accused and the wife and mother of P.W. 9 about the alleged illicit relationship. This illicit relationship was also disliked by the members of the family of the accused...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Electrical and Allied Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Raveendran Pilla ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-1999
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ1001Ker
Mohammed, J. 1. The central point posed before us here relates to the power of the appellant-company to cut down the amount of gratuity payable to the respondents-employees by invoking the provisions contained in the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 1994. 2. The respondents herein filed writ petition, O.P. No. 619 of 1998, praying for a direction to the appellant herein to pay the balance amount of gratuity available to them. They further prayed for a declaration that they are eligible for the gratuity limiting the maximum to 20 months' wages pursuant to Ext. P1 Standing Orders framed by the Company. 3. The respondents 1 to 3 joined the service of the appellant- company on January 23, 1959, December 1, 1956 and March 1, 1960 respectively. Ext. P1 is the Standing Orders provided for employees who are classified by the Management as managerial personnel and such other employees as are not 'workmen' as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as amended from time to time. By virtu...
Tag this Judgment!Everestee Vs. District Labour Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-1999
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ851Ker
Ar. Lakshmanan, Ag. C. J. 1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant/petitioner, who has voluntarily retired from service and who has accepted the benefits of the voluntary retirement, can be treated as a workman as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. We heard Mr. R. Pushpangathan Pillai for the appellant and Mr. Antony Dominic for the respondent.2. The appellant filed the present Original Petition to call for the records leading upto Ext. P3 and for a mandamus directing the first respondent District Labour officer, Ernakulam to reconsider the matter and to refer the case to the Government for further necessary action in the matter, or initiate conciliation proceedings as per law. The further prayer is for a declaration that the appellant is a workman under the provisions of law and hence entitled to be dealt with accordingly.3. The case of the appellant in short is that he took voluntary retirement from the service of respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Omprakash Shivprakash Vs. K.i. Kuriakose and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3836
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. The sixth accused in C.C. No. 755 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Ernakulam has filed this M.C. to quash Annexure-C order passed by the Magistrate and entire proceedings initiated against him.2. On the basis of Annexure A1 complaint, filed by the Food Inspector, Corporation of Cochin, Ernakulam, accused 1 to 5 who are the respondents 2 to 6 herein, were standing trial for the offences punishable under Section 2(ia), (h), (i), 7(i) and 7(v) read with Section 16(1A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 44-A and Rule 80 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The allegation made in the complaint is that the turdal was purchased by the complainant from the first accused exposed and exhibited by him for sale to public for the purposes of analysis and after analysis the same was found to be adulterated. The first accused informed the Food Inspector that he purchased the food article from the second accus...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »