Kerala Court March 2001 Judgments
V.P. Paul Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-2001
Reported in: [2001]122STC569(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. The main question raised by the assessee is that he is a dealer in timber. During the year 1992-93, timber was assessed only on the first point of sale. So he paid tax for the purchase of timber. During the year 1993-94 this was taxed at two stages. The closing stock of timber for the year 1992-93 was subjected to tax during the year 1993-94 because of the amendment. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this cannot be done. Learned counsel brought to our notice, the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. N. Sami Iyer [1966] 17 STC 338. That was a case where the tobacco underwent taxation in Malabar when it was formerly part of State of Madras. With the integration the tax was charged under the Kerala law. Hence, the goods were tried to be taxed as per the Kerala law. This was negatived by the Supreme Court on the ground that, in the same year there cannot be two assessment for the same substance. But, so far as the present case is co...
Tag this Judgment!Beemakunju Vs. F.C.i.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-02-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR683]; (2001)IILLJ671Ker
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Is it mandatory under the principles of natural justice of conduct a domestic enquiry in the case of disciplinary action for unauthorised absence is the question to be decided in this Writ Appeal.2. Additional respondent 3 to 5 in O.P.No. 6935 of 2000 are the appellants. They are the legal representatives of the deceased workman A. Sainalabdeen. The Original Petition was filed challenging the award in I.D.NO. 6 of 1996 of the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam by the District Manager, Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the management'). The question referred to the Tribunal for adjudication was :-'Whether the action on the part of the management of Food Corporation of India in terminating the service of Sri. A. Sainalabdeen Watchman w.e.f., 27.8.1979 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?'The management justified its action mainly placing reliance on Regulation 19(4) of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, ...
Tag this Judgment!Sreerajan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)ALT(Cri)295; 2001CriLJ1944
ORDERN. Krishnan Nair, J.1. Whether a Magistrate is competent to authorise the detention of an accused in custody for a period exceeding 60 days where the investigation related to an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extent up to 10 years as per the proviso to S. 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.? That is the question involved in this case.2. This application for bail is filed by the second accused in Crime No. 715/2000 of the Kottarakkara Police Station. The said crime was registered alleging the commission of the offence punishable under S. 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. The allegation is that on 24.3.2000 at about 8.30 p.m., the Asst. Sub Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara found one Unnikrishnan engaged in the sale of illicit arrack in toddy shop No. 11 of the Chengamanad Village. The Asst. Sub Inspector seized 20 litres of arrack form the toddy shop and also arrested the said Unnikrishnan. Subsequent investigation revealed that the petitioner was in charge of the toddy shop on the...
Tag this Judgment!Kunjunni Janardhanan Vs. Kunjunni Bhaskaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-02-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Ker322
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. This C.R.P. Is directed against the order in I.A. No. 147/97 in C.M.A. No. 42/98 dated 19-1-2000 passed by the District Court, Alappuzha, The C.M.A. was preferred by the petitioner against the order in I.A. 1763/92 in O.S. 72/83 passed by the Munsiff s Court, Mavelikkara with the above petition to condone the delay of 397 days in filing the appeal.2. The petitioner has contended that against the order in I.A. No. 1763/92 he preferred C.R.P. No. 347/96 before this Court as per wrong legal advice given by his counsel and that C.R.P. was dismissed holding that the order passed by the Munsiff s Court cannot be said to be erroneous, perverse or unreasonable and the revision petition is of no merits, by order dated 12-2-1996. Subsequently on proper advice from another counsel it was revealed that no revision will lie against the order passed by the lower Court and the petitioner can prefer appeal before the appellate Court. Therefore, appeal was filed before the...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Asharaff Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-01-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1967
Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that is posed for consideration is whether non-consideration of the bail application and the order granting bail by a Magistrate would vitiate the Detention order issued Under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smugglinng Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA') especially when whose documets were placed before the Detaining Authority by the sponsoring authority.2. This writ of habeas corpus is moved by the brother of one. A Sharaffudin who is under detention in the Central Prison. Thiruvananthapuram Under Section 3(1)(i) of COFEPOSA to release and set him at liberty. Detention order dated 1-6-2000 is challenged on various grounds. Main ground is non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority on the bail application preferred by the detenu and the bail order in Cr1. M.P. No. 4161 of 2000 dated 22-5-2000 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam.3. Short facts which are...
Tag this Judgment!Malappuram District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Malappuram District Co- ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-01-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1390Ker
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. These Writ Appeals are filed against the common judgment delivered by KOSHY, J. and the judgments which have followed the same judgment. Appeals have been filed by the Kerala State Co-operative Bank Employees Welfare Fund Committee, Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Pathanamthitta District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kozhikode District Co-operative Bank Employees Welfare Fund Committee, The Kozhikode District Co-operative Bank Ltd., The Malappuram District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Malappuram District Co-operative Bank Employees Welfare Fund, the Committee of Management of the Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank Welfare Fund. O.P. No. 483/2000 is filed by certain persons challenging the non-payment of benefits under the welfare fund scheme.2. The Government framed what is called 'Rules for the Kerala State Co-operative Bank Employees Welfare Scheme and District Co- operative Bank Employees Welfare Scheme' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Scheme'). This was approved...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›