Kerala Court August 2000 Judgments
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Sudha thejus and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-31-2000
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas1116(Ker)
Bhaskaran, J. 1. The respondents in O.P. No. 11095 of 2000 are the appellants in the appeal. The petitioners were having deposits in the post office under the recurring deposit scheme. They opened their accounts on different dates prior to the amendment of Rule 9A of the Post Office Recurring Deposit Rules, 1981. As per the unamended Rules, the holder of an account could prematurely close the account after one year from the date of opening of the account provided that interest at the rate of Post Office Savings Account shall alone be payable on premature closure of the account. Rule 9A was amended by Notification dated 4-11-1999. By this amendment, the facility of premature closure was taken away. Therefore, the petitioners filed the original petition for the issuance of direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners to have premature closure of the recurring deposits maintained by them with the third respondent as allowed in unamended Rule 9A of the Post Office Recurring Deposi...
Tag this Judgment!Fakhrudheen Ahmed Baramy Vs. the Accounts Officer (T.R.i.), Department ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-31-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Ker42
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. Heard both sides.2. The question that arises for consideration in the instant case is whether for default in payment of telephone dues by the partner of a firm with regard to his individual telephone, the telephone allotted to the firm of which he is a partner can be disconnected?2A. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that telephone No. 700589 of Kozhikode Exchange is allotted to the firm byname 'M/s. Hajee Mohamed Baramy Sons' and that telephone No. 300020 of the same Exchange is a telephone allotted to the partner by name B. Abdulla Baramy. Based on the decisions in Abraham v. Telecom District Manager (1996) 2 Ker LT 241 : (AIR 1996 Kerala 359) and K.S. Bulkies v. Union of India (2000) 2 Ker LT 252) it is contended that only the others telephones, if any, in the name of the defaulting subscriber can be disconnected and that the firm is distinct from the individual partners.3. The learned standing counsel for the Central Government pointed ou...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Refrigeration and Allied Industries Ltd ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-31-2000
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Ker)498
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.At the instance of revenue , following question has been referred to this court for opinion under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B':'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that even though the business was closed there was a passsive user of the machinery and as such the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on the machinery during the assessment year 1971-72 ?'2. The factual position is almost undisputed assessee owns a could storage at Karnal. During the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1971-72, Income Tax Officer noticed that the machinery, installed was not put to use during the whole of the previous year. The non-user was on account of the facts that there was very weak crop of potatoes available in the season and potatoes did not come from the hirers in...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Premarajan Vs. Superintendent of Police, Kasaragode and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-30-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ker417
Savant, C.J. 1. Heard all the learned counsel; Shri T. G. Rajendran for the petitioner, Shri M. K. Damodaran, Advocate General, for the respondents, Shri P. Santhallngam, amicus curiae, Shri Siby Mathew, Shri V. Giri. Shri Razaak, Shrl K. V. Sohan and Shri Jose as interveners. 2. This petition has been placed before this special Bench pursuant to the order passed by the Chief Justice on a reference made by a Division Bench on 24th July. 2000 referring the matter to a Larger Bench. The need to refer the matter to a Larger Bench arose since all the learned counsel appearing before the Division Bench viz; Shrl Rajendran for the petitioner, Shri Mohammed Yousef, Addl. Advocate General for the respondents and Shri Santhalingam, Amicus Curiae, pointed out that there was a clear conflict between the view expressed by a Division Bench of two learned Judges in Bar Council of Kerala v. Thankappan Pillai, 1985 Ker LT 738 and that expressed by a Larger Bench of five learned Judges in the same case...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala State Beverages (M and M) Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-30-2000
Reported in: [2001]123STC302(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. The petitioner is a Government of Kerala Corporation engaged in marketing of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The main activity of the petitioner is wholesale distribution of IMFL after buying it from manufacturers from outside Kerala. The assessment in question pertains to the year 1987-88. During that year, the petitioner had 4 warehouses and 14 retail shops in Kerala. The petitioner was granted FL-9 licence for the warehouses and FL-1 licence for the retail shops under the Abkari Act. The petitioner's sales from warehouses were only to dealers who were licensed vendors of IMFL under the Abkari Act and who were also registered dealers under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. However, the sales from petitioner's retail shops were to consumers. As an FL-9 licence holder, the petitioner was forbidden from selling to customers from the warehouse and the petitioner could sell a IMFL to licensed dealers under the Abkari Act. The petitioner has stated that there is n...
Tag this Judgment!Purandaran Vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR522]; (2001)IILLJ52Ker
1. The petitioners 1 to 3 and 5 to 23 were the employees of the Tata Oil Mills. With the merger of the Company with the Hindustan Lever on 19.3.1993, the petitioners became the employees of the 1st respondent. The petitioners were tempted to adopt the Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced by the respondent and they left the service of the respondents. Thereafter, they came to understand that there was a change of terms in the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the Company under which 15% more than what the petitioners got was admissible. The dispute based on the claim of the petitioners for the enhanced benefit reached the Labour Court, but, as per the impugned order marked as Ext. P1 in this case, the Labour Court found that the petitioners, having adopted the Voluntary Retirement Scheme which tantamount to resignation are not entitled to claim the status of 'workmen' for the purpose of S. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, the claim was found to be not maintainable and d...
Tag this Judgment!E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Chellappan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR702]; (2001)ILLJ333Ker
Ms. K.K. Usha, J. 1. Appeal, at the instance of the E.S.I. Corporation, is against the judgment of the E.I. Court, Alappuzha in I.C. 67/1995. Respondents, who are the father and mother of late C.P. Baiju, filed the application for a declaration that the fatal injury sustained by Baiju was the result of the employment injury caused during the course of his employment -and in view of that, applicants are entitled for dependents' benefits. The E.I. Court allowed the claim. Aggrieved by the above, the Corporation has come up in appeal.The fact that Baiju was employed as a toddy tapper attached to T. S. 33 at Mattathiveli and he was a covered employee under the E.S.I. Scheme, is not disputed. The contention raised by the appellant is that the death of Baiju did not occur out of the employment and: therefore applicants are not entitled to any benefit. Baiju, while on his way to do tapping, was attacked by certain persons on January 17, 1994 and as a result of the injuries, he died. Appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Abubaker and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)ALT(Cri)61; 2001CriLJ404
ORDERG. Sasidharan, J.1. The final report in a crime was submitted in Court after three years of the date of occurrence. The occurrence took place on 14-5-1995 and the final report was submitted in Court on 9-6-1999. The petitioners who are the accused in the crime seek to quash the proceedings in the criminal case alleging that cognizance of the offences was taken by the Magistrate after three years of the occurrence.2. Section 468, Cr.P.C. provides that the period of limitation for taking cognizance of the offences punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years is three years. The offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners in the final report are punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years. Section 473, Cr.P.C. deals with extension of period of limitation in certain cases. What that section provides is that notwithstanding anything contained in the other provisions in Chapter XXXV, the Court may take cogn...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Chacko Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1179
Narayana Kurup, J.1. These appeals arise out of the judgment of the Sessions Court, Kottayam, in Sessions Case No. 60 of 1993 dated 29-12-1997 by which the accused was found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 449, 302, 397 and 201, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for various terms including imprisonment for life under Section 302, I.P.C.2. The prosecution case in brief is that on the wee hours of 6-8-1988 at about 3 a.m. the accused a master criminal, notoriously known as 'Ripper' Chacko trespassed into the Kollammattel house in Thadiyampadu, Idukki District, through an opening made near the kitchen door of the house; got access to the bed room where the entire family consisting of Johny, his wife Mariakutty, daughters Rani (15) and Hony (11) and son Sony (9) were sleeping; hit at their heads with the butt of M.O. 12 axe causing grievous injury; removed the nighty of the girl Rani; gagged her mouth by inserting a portion of her own nighty and thereafter remov...
Tag this Judgment!N.D. Narayanan Nambiar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: [2001]121STC537(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. The assessee is the revision-petitioner. The assessment year is 1989-90. The question for consideration arises in this case is whether the mosquito repellant is an electrical item. The assessee filed return showing the total turnover amounting to Rs. 91,888 regarding mosquito repellants. It was assessed as an unclassified item taxable at the rate of 5 per cent at all points. According to assessee, the mosquito repellant is an electrical instrument used for repelling mosquitos. The mosquito mats are placed on the instrument worked by electrical energy. It is an item falling under entry 67 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The relevant entry is as follows :67. Electrical goods (other than those specifically mentioned in this Schedule), instruments, apparatus, appliances including fan and lighting bulbs, electrical earthenwares and porcelain and all other accessories and component parts, either sold as a whole or in parts.2. All the a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »