Kerala Court January 2000 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.
Mathew P. Thomas Vs. Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-11-2000
Reported in: [2000(85)FLR532]; (2000)IILLJ886Ker
Narayana Kurup, J.1. The appellant was appointed as Junior Manager (Quality Control) in the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. as per Ext. P1 order of the Managing Director dated October 7, 1994, subject to the following condition among other things:'You will be on probation for a period of two years within a continuous service of three years. You will be absorbed in the regular service of this Corporation only on satisfactory completion of the period of probation. If your performance during the period of probation is found unsatisfactory, the Corporation reserves the full right to terminate your service without any prior notice.'2. The appellant on his joining duty was posted as Junior Manager (Quality Control), Calicut. While so, on October 31, 1996 the first respondent herein received a Fax message from the Regional Manager, Calicut intimating that the consignment of Bengal Gram (small) received at the District Depot, Kannur on October 23, 1996 and which was inspected by t...
Tharadevi Asokan and ors. Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ker188
Ar. Lakshmanan, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment of K. S. Radhakrishnan, J. in O.P. No. 20592/98. The appellants, aggrieved by the demand made by the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') for payment of additional security deposit as per Regulation 14(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Supply, filed the above Writ Petition O.P. No. 20592/98. It was disposed of by the learned single Judge along with other connected cases (13 batch cases). The learned single Judge on elaborate consideration of the points urged before him disposed of the writ petition. The learned single Judge was of the view that the Board is perfectly justified In demanding security deposit from the petitioners and accordingly the demand made by the Board for security deposit was upheld. 2. We carefully considered the entire pleadings and also all the arguments advanced by the counsels appearing on either side. We are unable to accept the arguments of th...
Aravindakshan Nair Alias Rajan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ431
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The petitioner is the accused in C.C. 1049 of 1995 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam. The challenge is with regard to the conviction entered by the said Court as confirmed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in Cri. A. 268 of 1998. The learned counsel for the revision-petitioner submits that the accused is still suffering the sentence and that the impugned orders had been passed without proper appreciation of the facts and legal position. What is to be decided is the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned orders as also the propriety of the sentence imposed by the appellate Court namely rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- (in default, rigorous imprisonment for six months) for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted the fact that the investigation in the case is defective in so far as no attempt was made by the Investigat...
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Alwaye Vs. Krishnankutty and ors., Etc.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ276; AIR2000Ker127
Mohammed, J. 1. These appeals are from the common award passed by the M.A.C. Tribunal, Trivandrum dated 31-12-1990 in O. P. (M.V.) Nos. 1073/86, 869/86, 1081/86, 1082/86, 1068/86, 1077/86, 1071/86, 1080/86, 1076/86, 1074/86, 870/86, 1079/86, 868/86, 1075/86 and 1072/86 respectively. The common appellant in all these appeals is M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, Alwaye. 2. The above claim petitions under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act were filed by the claimants claiming compensation for the death or personal injuries, as the case may be, arising out of the accident which took place on 13-7-1986. The vehicleinvolved in the accident was a lorry bearing registration number KRF 2207 which was capsized into a ditch on the western side of the road at a place called 'Singili Edapalayam'. As a result of this accident loading workers travelling in the lorry sustained serious injuries. More than twenty workers sustained injuries and three died. The injured persons as also the lega...
Nirmal Das S. Vs. Assistant General Manager, Union Bank of India and o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-2000
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ75Ker
ORDERD. Sreedevi, J.1. Petitioner is an employee of the Union Bank of India. He has filed this O.P. for a writ of certiorari quashing Exts. P5 and P6 orders. Ext. P5 is an order of punishment and Ext. P6 is the appellate order modifying punishment. He has also sought for a declaration to the effect that he has not committed any misconduct and also to direct the Respondents to consider the petitioner for interview for higher assignment in the same cadre to the post of Special Assistant.2. Petitioner joined the service of the Union Bank of India on February 3, 1970. While so working there, he received a memo directing him to explain as to why he did not make adequate arrangements for honouring cheque No. 124794 for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on September 30, 1993 to the Bank of Baroda. He furnished Ext, P-1 reply. Thereafter he was issued Ext. P2 asking him why disciplinary action shall not be taken against him for dishonour of cheque for Rs. 10,000/-. Subsequently, another memo was issue...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jugalkishore Hargopal Das
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-03-2000
Reported in: [2000]243ITR220(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Pursuant to a direction given by this court in O. P. No. 17983 of 1993, the following question has been referred under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short 'the Tribunal'), for opinion of this court : 'Whether the Tribunal was right in law and fact in cancelling the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The factual position as indicated in the statement of case is as follows : Originally, the assessee had filed a return of income for the concerned assessment year, i.e., 1981-82, declaring a total income of Rs. 23,560 on October 10, 1981, and the assessment was completed under Section 143(1) on January 25, 1984. On January 28, 1986, there was a search in the premises of the assessee under Section 132 of the Act. On December 8, 1987, the assessee filed a return showing a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as income under the head 'Other sources', in addition to the inco...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pierce Leslie India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-03-2000
Reported in: II(2000)ACC146; 2000ACJ1227
P.A. Mohammed, J. 1. The main question that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.2. The facts required for decision can be summarised thus: The respondent No. 1, Pierce Leslie India Ltd., filed O.P. (M.V.) No. 862 of 1988 claiming a sum of Rs. 50,998 as damages caused to the property in the accident occurred on 3.2.1988. The lorry bearing registration No. KED 477 owned by the respondent No. 2 was allowed to be taken inside the factory and to unload coffee. While so unloading it hit against one of the buildings of the factory and thus damage was caused. After the enquiry the Tribunal found that the accident had taken place on account of the negligent driving of the lorry by the respondent No. 2. It accordingly fixed a sum of Rs. 50,998 as compensation for the damage sustained to the building. It further found that the appellant was liable to...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D.K.B. and Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)161CTR(Ker)187; [2000]243ITR618(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Pursuant to the direction given by this court in Original Petition No. 7138 of 1991-S, the following question has been referred for opinion in terms of Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short 'the Tribunal').'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the findings in the quantum appeal, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of penalty ?'2. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. The assessee is a partnership firm, which during the relevant period, i.e., assessment year 1983-84, was having abkari contracts in and around Quilon. The premises of the firm, and the residence of its partners were searched by the Departmental authorities on February 14, 1984. Certain incriminating materials were found, on the basis of which further investigations were carried out. Since the materials found by the Departmental auth...
Falcon Rock Products Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-03-2000
Reported in: [2001]121STC224(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. The petitioner is a partnership-firm engaged in the manufacture of granite stones. It is an assessee on the files of the first respondent. Though registration under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was obtained as early as on February 24, 1997, the petitioner could start commercial production, according to it, only from February, 1998 due to the delayed electrical connection and other factors. The petitioner applied for permission to pay tax at the compounded rates for the year 1997-98 as provided under Section 7(1)(b) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 as amended on December 11, 1997. The first respondent after conducting enquiry passed an order on December 18, 1997 (exhibit P-1) allowing the compounding application and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 27,500 as demanded in exhibit P-2 demand notice. Being aggrieved by exhibit P-1 order and exhibit P-2 demand notice, the petitioner filed exhibit P-3 revision before the second respondent which was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›