Kerala Court June 2000 Judgments
Smt. Sreedevi Menon Vs. Sub-divisional Engineer (Phones) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Ker12
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J. 1. The question that arises for consideration in the Original Petition is whether the wife of a defaulter is dis-entitled to get a telephone sanctioned or to get refund of an OYT deposit made in her name unless and until the arrears due from her husband in respect of another connection in his name are paid up. 2. The petitioner applied for a telephone in the year 1998 on deposit of Rs. 15,000/-as advance for connection in the OYT General category. Ext. P1 is the relevant demand note. On finding that subsequent applicants were given connection and there was little chance of granting connection to the petitioner the department was moved for a refund of the deposit. In Ext. P4 the department took the stand that the husband of the applicant was a subscriber of Telephone No. Vaikom 335256 in respect of which there was huge arrears and as such the request for cancellation of registration and refund of deposit to the petitioner can be considered only after payment...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Vyapari Vavasayi Ekopana Samithi, Ottappalam and anr. Vs. State ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ker389
Balasubramanyan, J. 1. After this Court declared in Bharat Kumar v. State of Kerala, AIR 1997 Ker 291, that the calling of a bundh and the enforcement of that call is illegal and unconstitutional and that decision of this Court was confirmed in appeal by the Supreme Court, in Communist Party of India (Marxist) v. Bharat Kumar, AIR 1998 SC 184, political parties including the appellant before the Supreme Court started calling for Hartals. In Bharat Kumar's case, this Court had made a distinction between a 'bundh' and a 'hartal' and had pointed out that a 'bundh' involved coercion of others into toeing the line of those who called for the bundh and that act was unconstitutional since it violated the rights of others. This Court proceeded on the basis that a hartal was a peaceful act of non-co-operation or was a passive resistance movement and a call for it did not involve coercion of a person who did not want to join the hartal into compulsorily participating in the hartal. The Supreme C...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanan Nanu and anr. Vs. Manuel Thomas and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-2000
Reported in: 2000ACJ1561
K. Narayana Kurup, J. 1. 0n 27.11.89 a 22 years old headload worker met with a road traffic accident resulting in his death the next day. He was survived by his father (68) and mother (63). The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence brought on record, though fixed the quantum of compensation at Rs. 75,700 with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition, however, exonerated the respondent No. 3 insurance company from liability to pay any amount on the ground that the respondent No. 1 registered owner of the vehicle has transferred the same to the respondent No. 4 on 15.1.1988. Both, the quantum of compensation and the finding of the Tribunal on the question of liability of the insurance company are under challenge in this appeal by the claimants.2. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides we are of opinion that the quantum of compensation awarded is quite fair and reasonable and the same does not call for any interference. Accordingly, we confirm the quantum of comp...
Tag this Judgment!Retnamma Raveendran and ors. Vs. State Election Commission, Trivandrum ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ker337
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J. 1. First petitioner is the President of third respondent Grama Panchayat, second petitioner is the Vice-President and third and fourth petitioners are members of the Grama Panchayat. The fourth respondent along with five others moved a 'no confidence motion'. Ext. P1, dated 3-4-2000 before the Panchayat Deputy Director, Alappuzha. The Panchayat Deputy Director by notice dated 5-4-2000 convened a meeting on 25-4-2000 at 11.00 a.m. The contention of the petitioners is that at the time when 'no confidence motion' was given the Panchayat Deputy Director has no authority to receive 'no confidence motion' and at any event, she has no power to preside over such a meeting. It is also contended by petitioners that when the meeting was conducted at 11.00 a.m. two objections were raised. First regarding jurisdiction of the Panchayat Deputy Director in convening the meeting and presiding over the meeting and the second objection is regarding non issuance of notice to the Vice-P...
Tag this Judgment!Essar Agencies and ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-2000
Reported in: [2000]245ITR257(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. In both these original petitions, assessments were made on the petitioners and in appeal the assessments were set aside. Penalty orders were also issued which were also set aside. However, prosecution proceeding's were taken and writ petitions were filed.2. Learned standing counsel for the Income-tax Department admits that the assessments and penalty orders for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 have been set aside and as such at present the prosecution will not lie. It is submitted that since fresh assessments can be done as the appellate authority has only remanded the matter, criminal proceedings can be kept pending. It is contended that the petitioners have to approach the magistrate's court for that relief instead of filing a writ petition. This court is of the opinion that having admitted that prosecution will not lie at present, in view of the fact that the assessments and penalty orders were set aside, the Department should have withdrawn the prosecution...
Tag this Judgment!Essar Agencies and ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-2000
Reported in: [2001]245ITR257(Ker)
J. B. Koshy J.In both these original petitions, assessments were made on the petitioners and in appeal the assessments were set aside. Penalty orders were also issued which were also set aside. However, prosecution proceedings were taken and writ petitions were filed.2. Learned standing counsel for the Income Tax Department admits that the assessments and penalty orders for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 have been set aside and as such at present the prosecution will not lie. It is submitted that since fresh assessments can be done as the appellate authority has only remanded the matter, criminal proceedings can be kept pending. It is contended that the petitioners have to approach the magistrate's court for that relief instead of filing a writ petition. This court is of the opinion that having admitted that prosecution will not lie at present, in view of the fact that the assessments and penalty orders were set aside, the department should have withdrawn the prosecution inst...
Tag this Judgment!Damodaran Vs. R.T.O.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-2000
Reported in: 2(2000)ACC506
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner is the registered owner of KEF 1185. He had purchased the vehicle and he is the registered owner as can be seen from Ext. P1. According to the petitioner he was not having a pucca permit and was plying on temporary permit. The permit was granted on 12.11.1998 only and no permit was issued prior to that. The petitioner has prepaid the tax as provided under Section 4 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act for the quarter ending 30.9.1998, According to the petitioner even though he had paid the tax for the quarter ending 30.9.1998 the vehicle was not used from 30.9.1998 as the temporary permit was over on 31.8.1998. It is clear from the respondents' records also that permit Was issued in November, 1998. Therefore, petitioner filed refund application for refund of tax. The above refund application was rejected on the ground that refund application was not filed within one week from the date of the alleged non-use, as mentioned in S.R.O. No. 874/75.2. This Cou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›