Kerala Court December 2000 Judgments
Uthaman Vs. K.S.R.T.C.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR423]
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. The petitioners in these Original Petitions were employees of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. They have not been paid the retiral benefits due to them. That is why they have approached this Court seeking directions for payment of the retiral benefits. They submitted that even though the monthly pension and DCRG have been sanctioned only 50% is directed to be paid. The balance 50% is directed to be paid in four equal annual instalments. This is illegal. The entire amount of retirement benefits shall be paid in lumpsum.2. During the fast few months, I noticed that several cases are being filed in this Court by retired employees of the K.S.R.T.C. seeking payment of retirement benefits. Even admittedly 50% of the amount also was not being paid to the employees. Every day atleast half a dozen cases of the same nature were coming up for admission and similar directions were used to be issued in all the cases directing payment within three months. This be...
Tag this Judgment!M.E. Abdul Rahiman Vs. Deputy Tahsildar, Kerala State Financial Enterp ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas306(Ker)
M. Ramachandran, J.1. The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited, the second respondent herein, had opted to proceed against the petitioner, a surety, in respect of the defaults of the fourth respondent, who was principally responsible for repayments after prizing of a kuri. Revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner are subjected to challenge in this original petition. 2. I had also heard standing counsel appearing for the Financial Enterprises. The naive and rustic submission of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent is possessing sufficient funds but in spite of that the petitioner is subjected to troubles. It is complained that the second respondent is in error in not proceeding against the principal-debtor. 3. Advocate Pulikool Abubacker highlighted the factual points urged in the original petition. The fourth respondent and his wife were subscribers to chitties, had availed of the proceeds, and had executed all necessary documents for due performance ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Mahim Udma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-2000
Reported in: [2001]251ITR671(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. These civil miscellaneous petitions had been filed to recall the judgment dated October 8, 1999, in I.T.R. Nos. 180 to 192 of 1997 (CIT v. K. Mahim Udma : [2000]242ITR133(Ker) ). An affidavit has been filed by Sri George K. George, who appeared in the above income-tax reference cases. It is stated in the affidavit that twelve connected cases were disposed of by a common judgment dated October 8, 1999. The earliest of the assessment years concerned was 1972-73. It is stated that by judgment dated November 5, 1994, reported in CIT v. K. Mahim [1995] 213 ITR 820, this court directed the Tribunal to consider afresh the earlier order. After the remand, the Tribunal considered the question afresh in the light of the observations in [1995] 213 ITR 820. The Tribunal reversed its earlier finding and passed the order on March 13, 1996. But, this order was not brought to the notice of this court. The case was argued on the basis of the earlier findings of the Tribunal which...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. K. Aboobacker and ors. Vs. K.K. Abdulla Haji and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3179
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. These two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are at the instance of 'B' Party and 'A' Party respectively in M.C. No. 122/99 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasaragod at Kanhangad, which is a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After initiating the case, the Sub Divisional Magistrate also passed an order appointing a Receiver in respect of the subject matter of the case invoking the powers under Section 146 of the Cr.P.C. While 'A' Party challenges both the aforesaid orders in Crl. M.C. No. 5616/2000, the challenge in Crl. M.C. No. 2513/2000 is the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Kasaragod, modifying the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed under Section 146 of the Cr.P.C. and appointing three persons as joint Administrators.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.M.C. No. 5616/2000 submitted that the proceedings of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate are ab initio void in so far as there was no material before him ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. K. Mahim
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Ker)211
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.These civil miscellaneous petitions had been filed to recall the judgment dated 8-10-1999 in IT Ref. No. 180 to 192 of 1997 (reported as CIT v. K. Mahim Udma : [2000]242ITR133(Ker) ). An affidavit has been filed by Sri. George K. George, who appeared in the above income-tax reference cases. It is stated in the affidavit that twelve connected cases were disposed of by common judgment dated 8-10-1999 (supra). The earliest of the assessment year concerned was 1972-73. It is stated that by judgment dated 5-11-1994, CIT v. K. Mahlin (1995) 213 ITR 820, this Honourable court directed the Tribunal to considered afresh the earlier order. After the remand, the Tribunal considered the question afresh in the light of the observations in (1995) 213 ITR 820 (supra). The Tribunal reversed its earlier finding and passed the order on 13-3-1996. But, this order was not brought to the notice of this court. The case was argued on the basis of the earlier findings of the Tribunal ...
Tag this Judgment!Samyuktha Thozhilali Union Vs. Omana Johnson
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-2000
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ580Ker
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The Original Petition was disposed of on 29.11.2000. According to the petitioner in the review petition he had entered appearance on receiving notice in the Original Petition on 24.11.2000 by filing vakalath and counter affidavit. But he could not appear when the case was taken up and disposed of on 29.11.2000, as his name did not appear in the cause list. Therefore, the review petitioner did not have any opportunity. The judgment deprives the employment chances of the members of the review petitioner. The judgment was rendered without hearing the review petitioner. Therefore it has to be reviewed.2. I verified the records and found that though vakalath and counter affidavit have been filed by the review petitioner, the second respondent in the Original Petitionon 24.11.2000, his appearance was not noted in the cause list thereby disabling the counsel to be present on 29.11.2000 when the case was heard and disposed of. Therefore, the review petitioner has to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeev Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-18-2000
Reported in: I(2001)DMC562
R. Bhaskaran, J. 1. This Original Petition is filed for a direction to the second respondent to accept the original of Ext. P1 and take necessary action on it. Ext. P1 is an application for registering the marriage under the Special Marriage Act. The submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the Registrar of Marriages has informed the petitioner that since one of the parties to the marriage is not an Indian citizen, the marriage cannot be registered. When this Original Petition came up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the marriage is not registered because Ext. P1 application is not properly filled up and if proper corrections are made in the application form, the marriage will be solemnised. Learned counsel for petitioner pointed out the decision reported in Marian Eva v. State of Himachal Pradesh (AIR 1993 Himachal Pradesh 7) which shows that even if one of the parties is not an Indian citizen, the marriage can be solemnized under the Special ...
Tag this Judgment!Vanaja Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR374(Ker)
K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. This original petition is filed by the petitioner to quash exhibit P-9 and for declaration that the petitioner is entitled to benefits of immunity under the amnesty scheme declared under exhibits P-10 to P-19 in respect of the assessment year 1986-87 and to declare that the prosecution launched by the second respondent against the petitioner in CC No. 66 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, is unwarranted, unjustified and incompetent.2. The petitioner filed a return of income on December 31, 1986, declaring a net income of Rs. 8,790 after claiming deduction of more than Rs. 1 crore for depreciation, investment allowance, etc. Subsequently, the petitioner sent exhibit P-1 letter dated February 3, 1987, stating that they are filing a revised return of income for the assessment year 1986-87 for claiming the correct amount of depreciation on the basis of the exact date of installation of machinery. They fil...
Tag this Judgment!Vanaja Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)166CTR(Ker)177
K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.This original petition is filed by the petitioner to quash Exhibit P9 and for declaration that the petitioner is entitled to benefits of immunity under the amnesty scheme declared under Exhibits P10 to P19 in respect of the assessment year 1986-87 and to declare that the prosecution launched by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner in C.C. No. 66/88 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, is unwarranted, unjustified and incompetent.2. Petitioner filed a return of income on 31-12-1986, declaring a net income of Rs. 8,790 after claiming deduction of more than Rs. 1 crore for depreciation, investment allowance, etc. Subsequently the petitioner sent Exhibit P1 letter, dated 3-2-1987, stating that they are filing a revised return of income for the assessment year 1986-87 for claiming the correct amount of depreciation on the basis of exact date of installation of machinery. They filed a revised return of income on 11-...
Tag this Judgment!Benny Mathew Vs. Philomina
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-2000
Reported in: I(2002)DMC541
K.A. Mohammed Shafi, J.1. This O.P. is filed by a Christian husband to declare his marriage with the respondent is a nullity under S. 19 of the Indian Divorce Act.2. The petitioner marrried the respondent on 8.2.1987, in accordance with Christian rites and ceremonies. It was an arranged marriage. After marriage, they lived together in the house of the petitioner for 3 days and thereafter in the house of the respondent for 3 days. Subsequently, they went to Indore. The petitioner has contended that after 4 weeks of living in Indore, the respondent showed signs of mental illnesss and therefore she was taken to a Homoeo Doctor at Indore who said that she may be suffering from home sickness. The parents of the petitioner was informed and her father, mother and sister went to Indore and gave some medicines to the respondent. When the condition of the respondent was improved, the father and sister returned first. Subsequently the mother also returned. Again she became ill. As she insisted th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »