Kerala Court March 2000 Judgments
Anandavally Amma Vs. Federal Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: [2002]111CompCas523(Ker)
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. This appeal is filed under Order 43, Rule (1)(j) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by judgment-debtor No. 2 challenges the dismissal by the executing court of an application filed by him under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The dismissal was on the ground that the judgment debtor was not ready to proceed with the enquiry. The order reads :'Petitioner is not ready. Hence dismissed.'2. According to us, the dismissal is one for default and the remedy of the appellant lies in moving the executing court under Order 21, Rule 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No appeal lies under Order 43, Rule (1)(j) of the Code against such an order. This view was taken in Velappan v. Sahasranaman [1978] KLT 806, wherein it was held that an order dismissing an application under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code for default is not appealable under Order 43, Rule (1)(j) of the Code. We see no reason to differ from that statement of the law. When we pointed out t...
Tag this Judgment!Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies (General), Palakkad and anr. Vs. S ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ker274
Pasayat, C.J.1. Doubting correctness of view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in Padmanabhan v. Joint Registrar, 1995 (1) KLT 630 : (1995 AIHC 5581) following question has been referred to a larger Bench for opinion :Whether Clause 36-A of the bye-laws of the Bank, which permits co-option, can be operative notwithstanding the specific provisions in Rule 38(5) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules as to the manner in which the vacancies have to be filled up?The question has to be considered tn the light of Section 110(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (in short, the Act).2. Dispute arose in the following background : Respondent-Syed was elected as President of the Kumarampathur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). Election to the Managing Committee was conducted and the term of office of the Managing Committee was to expire in February, 2000. Nine members were elected to the Managing Committee, out of whom five members sen...
Tag this Judgment!Jose Varkey Vs. State Transport Authority, Trivandrum and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ker285
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. Petitioner is a stage carriage operator. He has got two buses having registration Nos. KL-6-4201 and KCF-9093. According to the petitioner, the buses having registration Nos. KL-8D-2349 and KL-8C 7362 are having permits to ply on the route Pala-Mangalore, which is an inter-State route. Since these buses had stopped operation of services temporarily, petitioner applied for substitute permits for these two buses. The application was presented on 25-11-1999. It was granted on 22-12-1999. Copy of the order of the State Transport Authority is produced as Ext. P1. The order directs the petitioner to get counter-signature of the State Transport Authority, Kamataka. Petitioner is aggrieved by this condition.2. Permits granted were for four months or till the earlier grantee starts operation, whichever is earlier. Petitioner filed appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal has not disposed of the appeal and...
Tag this Judgment!Chacko Vs. Vythiri Plantations Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR389]; (2000)IIILLJ1070Ker
D. Sreedevi, J. 1. Petitioner was working as an Assistant Tea Maker in the Tea Factory at Thalamala Estate owned by the third respondent. His services were terminated on July 23, 1989. The said termination was challenged in I.D. 34 of 1990 on the file of the Labour Court, Kannur. Later it was established that the petitioner is a workman under the industrial establishment as per the decision in WA No. 605 of 1993. As per the provisions of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972 the petitioner is entitled to subsistence allowance from the third respondent. He was suspended from service from June 16, 1988 to September 23, 1989. As per the provisions of the Act, he was not awarded subsistence allowance. He was awarded subsistence allowance only in October, 1993 for the period from June 16, 1988 to December 31, 1988 and denied subsistence allowance for the subsequent period from January 1, 1989 to September 23, 1989. Petitioner filed application for the subsistence allowance f...
Tag this Judgment!Balachandran Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3311
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. This M.C. is filed by the petitioner to direct the 2nd respondent, Director General of Police to take necessary action and to direct his subordinates to take all action contemplated under law against the Superintendent of Police, Palakkad for his criminal acts committed against the petitioner.2. The petitioner is a Police Constable with General No. 4317 in KAP-II Battalion now under suspension. According to the petitioner, on 27-1-2000 after his duty at Puthoor Matha Amrithananda Mayi Madam while he was proceeding to meet his uncle near the civil station in a bus some unfortunate incident happened. It is alleged that the petitioner has molested a women travelling in the bus, though according to him, he accidentally happened to touch the body of that woman. According to the petitioner, she got wild, raised hue and cry and tried to assault the petitioner and she got out of the bus and raised alarm. The constable who was on duty there, caught hold of the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. C. Ashokan Nambiar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-2000
Reported in: [2000]245ITR37(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short, 'the Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, should not the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) have under law given an opportunity of being heard to the Valuation Cell, and the Tribunal is right in law in rejecting such a contention ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the disagreement of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) with the cost fixed by the Valuation Cell, should not the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who has a 'duty to act judicially' a duty to accord a hearing to the Valuation Cell before rejecting their report and is not such compliance of natural justice 'implicit in the exercise of such power' as opined by the Suprem...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dr. C. Ashokan Nambiar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-2000
Reported in: [2000]111TAXMAN431(Ker)
Pasayat, C.J.At the instance of the revenue, following questions have been referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Income Tax Act by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, for opinion of this Court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, should not the Commissioner (Appeals) have under law given an opportunity of being heard to the Valuation Cell, and the Tribunal is right in law in rejecting such a contention ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the disagreement of the Commissioner (Appeals) with the cost fixed by the Valuation Cell, should not the Commissioner (Appeals) who has a 'duty to act judicially', a duty to accord a hearing to the Valuation Cell before rejecting their report and is not such compliance of natural justice 'implicit in the exercise of such power as opined by the Supreme Court in Binapani Dei : (1967)IILLJ266SC ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahman Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-2000
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ796Ker
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. Both these Original Petitions are filed against the same order passed by the Chairman, Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Local Committee, Kozhikode dated November 26, 1999. The above order is produced as Ext. P2 in O.P. No. 5266 of 2000 and produced as Ext. P3 in O.P.No. 1653 of 2000. In O.P. No. 1653 of 2000, petitioners are transporting and handling contractors and forwarding agents. Petitioners in O.P. No. 5266 of 2000 are two employees union and two members of the unions. Short facts in these cases are as follows:2. There are three railway yard houses/goods sheds in Calicut. They are one at Kallai, one at Kozhikode and one at West Hill. The work load in both Kallai and Calicut stations is high. But the Railways have decided to expand the goods shed at West Hill with the result most of the handling of goods will be at West Hill. The railway goods shed is an establishment coming under the Kerala Headload Workers Act. The Committee under the headload workers ...
Tag this Judgment!Mailadumpotty Janakiya Samrakshana Samithi and ors. Vs. Chungathara Gr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ker288
AR. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Heard Mr. Mathal M. Paikeday, Senior Advocate for petitioner, Mr. K. M. Sathyanatha Menon for first respondent, Mr. Alexander Thomas, Government Pleader for Respondents 2 and 3, Mr. Anil George for 4th respondent and Mr. A. P. Chandrasekharan for 5th respondent.2. The petitioner, a registered Association of the Inhabitants of Chungathara Grama Panchayat, challenges the conduct of the Panchayat to convert an area of 1.25 acres of land in Survey No. 748/5A within the Panchayat into a burial ground in violation of the rules applicable to burial grounds and in contravention of the statutory directions issued in this behalf by the Health Inspector and the District Medical Officer that the land should not be used as burial ground. The mass petition preferred by the local residents objecting to the burial of two dead bodies in the property was ignored and on both occasions the Panchayat issued a so-called permission to bury them in the property. According to the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Naduvattam G.M.V.S. Sangham ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR316]; (2000)IILLJ950Ker
K.K. Usha, J.1. This is an appeal at the instance of the E.S.I. Corporation challenging the order passed by the E.I. Court, Palakkad in I.C. 4/96. Respondent-Society engaged in the manufacture of tiles, bricks and pottery items, was the applicant before the E.I. Court. It challenged Ext. A 2 notice dated October 30, 1995 as well as Ext. A 6 notice dated November 14, 1995 demanding damages under Section 85-B of the E.S.I. Act in respect of delayed payment of E.S.I. contribution for different periods ending in November 1989 and interest on the above amount. E.I. Court accepted the contention raised by the applicant and set aside Exts. A 2 and A 6 notices.E.S.I. dues from the applicant for the period ending November, 1989 was finally determined as per Ext. A 5 proceedings dated November 9, 1990 of the opposite party. An amount of Rs. 87,060/- was arrived at as dues by the Society on negotiation between the parties and the Society was granted instalment facility to remit the above amount. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »