Kerala Court April 2001 Judgments
Commandant, Defence Security Vs. Secretary, N.C.C.G.U.E. Assn.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR435]; (2001)IILLJ1170Ker
Kurian Joseph, J.1. The scope of S. 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal is at the instance of the petitioner in O.P. No. 29835 of 1999 and it is preferred against an order dated 6.11.2000 in C.M.P. No. 12425 of 2000 in O.P. No. 29835 of 1999 directing payment of last drawn wages to the respondents workmen under S. 17-B of the Act. The Original Petition is filed challenging Ext. P13 award passed by the Labour Court, Calicut. The operative portion of the said award reads as follows:'18. In the result, an award is passed holding that the termination of the service of the workers including that of Mrs. Geetha Ashok is unjustified. The management shall reinstate them in service with continuity of service and other attendant benefits within one month from the date of publication of this award in the official gazette. They are entitled to backwages from the date of termination of their service til...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Vs. Madhusoodhanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-2001
Reported in: I(2002)ACC508; 2002ACJ508
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal is preferred by National Insurance Company Limited along with one Calliope under S. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award dated 23.6.1998 in O.P. (M.V.) No. 793 of 1994 on the file of the M.A.C. Tribunal, Palakkad. Challenge is against the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. Tribunal fixed 75% contributory negligence in favour of the second appellant who was the owner of the vehicle. They wanted to fix the entire negligence on the claimants and pleaded that they are not liable to pay the compensation. Accident occurred while respondent-claimant's car collided with the lorry driven by the first respondent before the Tribunal of which second appellant herein is the owner and the first appellant is the insurer. The Tribunal fixed the liability at the ration of 75% : 25% and directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount of Rs. 7,37,500/- and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 26.4.1994 till date of realisation. ...
Tag this Judgment!Shajan Vs. Biny Mathew
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Ker350; II(2001)DMC166
G. Sasidharan, J.1. This appeal is filed b the respondent-husband in petition filed by wife for declaration that the marriage is a nullity or in the alternative for dissolution of marriage. The present appellant filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition praying that he question of jurisdiction had to be heard and decided as a preliminary issue. The learned Single Judge dismissed the C.M.P. on finding that this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge was t hat as per S. 45 of the Indian Divorce Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), all proceedings will be regulated by the code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and hence the jurisdiction of the Court has to decided with reference to Ss. 15 to 20 of the Code. The learned Single Judge found that since there is a prayer in the Original Petition for declaration that the marriage is a nullity on the ground that consent for the marriage was obtained by f...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Venad Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas516(Ker)
K.V. Sankaranarayanan, J.1. By these three reports, the official liquidator has sought directions as regards the liability for capital gains tax as regards sales of properties of the companies under liquidation, effected by the official liquidator. He has also sought directions for payment of advance tax.2. Notice has been given to learned Central Government standing counsel representing the Income-tax Department. I have heard learned counsel for the official liquidator and counsel representing the Income-tax Department.3. Learned standing counsel for the Income-tax Department has pointed out that a Division Bench of this court in Income-tax Officer v. Official Liquidator, Swaraj Motors (P.) Ltd. [1978] 48 Comp Cas 11 has held that capital gains tax will be part of the cost charges and expenses incurred inthe winding up and must be paid on a preferential basis. However, in the reports learned counsel for the official liquidator has pointed out a number of instances where the company co...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Majeed Musliyar Vs. Mammed Koya
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Ker71
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Petitioners challenge Ext. P1 judgment passed by the District Judge, Kozhikode in CMA 2278/2000. The order passed in favour of the petitioners was set aside as per the said judgment. Petitioners submitted that on 17.3.2001, when Ext. P1 was passed by the District Judge Kozhikode in CMA 2278/2000, the Wakf Tribunal had been constituted in Kozhikode and therefore the District Court did not have any jurisdiction to entertain that appeal in the light of S. 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995. This is the only ground urged.2. Wakf Tribunals are constituted to try the suit and other proceedings relating to the Wakf. Naturally, the bar of jurisdiction provided for under S. 84 will be in respect of such suits and proceedings which are pending. It cannot have any effect on the appellate jurisdiction exercised by the District Court in terms of the Code of Civil Procedure. Wakf Act does not in any way affect the appellate jurisdiction exercised by the District Court. Therefore, Ext. ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Sreekumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4146
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. This application is filed for condoning the dealy of 177 days in filing the Crl. Appeal alone with the application for leave to file appeal against an orders of acquittal. The Sessions Court acquitted the accused and State has filed the above appeal with an application for leave to file an appeal under S. 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure(hereinafter referred to as Code). The preliminary objection raised by the respondents is that S. 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable in this case and hence petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of the above, a Division Bench decision of this Court in Crl.M.P. No. 3375/1993 in Crl.A.....93 was cited before us. In the above case it was held that provisions of the Limitation Act including S. 5 will not apply in view of specific stipulations regarding time in S. 378(5) of the Code. The Division Bench in the above unreported case held as follows:'The application if filed under S. 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Kalpana Lamps and Components Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-2001
Reported in: [2006]143STC666(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This T.RC. is filed against the order in T.A No.1081/99. The relevant assessment year is 1989-90. The facts of the case are as follows:2. The petitioner is a dealer in electrical goods at Ernakulam. The question raised in the case relates to the applicability of the discount in accordance with the regular practice under R.9(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963. The Assessing Authority while completing the assessment for the year 1989-90, disallowed the claim of deduction of special discount under R.9(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules. The Deputy Commissioner affirmed the same. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal. It is against that this revision if filed. In paragraph 4 of the order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal, the Tribunal stated as follows: 'it can be seen that one of the conditions to be satisfied in order to be eligible for the deduction under R.9(a) is that the discount if allowed in accordance with the regular pra...
Tag this Judgment!Jacob Varkey and anr. Vs. the Idukki District Co-operative Bank Ltd. a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Ker408
Kurian Joseph, J.1. While exercising the powers under Section 98 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', is the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator cribbed, cabined and confined only to those powers specified therein, or is he to exercise those powers which are not expressly prohibited since there is a bar of jurisdiction to the civil Court is the question that arises for consideration in this case.2. Petitioers in O.P. No. 3685 of 1997 are the appellants. They were defendants in A.R.C. No. 273 of 1994 before the third respondent. The said Arbitration Case was instituted by the first respondent, the Idukki District Co-operative Bank Limited, hereinafter referred to as the 'the Bank'. The Bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 3,03,500/- to a partnership firm by name M/s. Kalvary Milk Products. There were three partners in the firm and the first appellant was the managing partner. The loan was sanctioned on the security of 30 cents of property owned by the firm...
Tag this Judgment!Surabhi Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-2001
Reported in: [2001]123STC491(Ker)
M. Ramachandran, J. 1. In view of the common nature of the contentions taken up by the parties, and reliefs prayed for, the above four original petitions were jointly heard, and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. In O.P. Nos. 7241 and 7687 of 2001, the State has filed statements clarifying their stand, and it had been submitted that contentions were identical. Preliminary objections were raised by the State to the effect that assessment orders are yet to be issued and the original petitions are premature. And after assessment there is statutory remedy of appeal available to them.3. It is however pointed out that in two of the cases, assessment orders are served, subsequent to the filing of the original petitions and there is proposal disclosed for imposition of penalty and opportunity for filing returns were expressly denied. The interpretation and application of two S.R.Os. are also involved. In the aforesaid circumstances, the matter was decided to be finally heard on meri...
Tag this Judgment!Balachandran and anr. Vs. Gopalan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Ker337
S. Marimuthu, J. 1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 394 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Palghat are the appellants. They filed the above suit for partition. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Hence they filed an appeal in A.S. No. 71 of 1987 before the District Judge, Palghat, wherein also they did not succeed. 2. The above suit was filed by the appellants on the averments that they and respondents 1 to 13 (defendants 1 to 13) are the members of Hindu Ezhava commulity following Hindu Mitakshara Law. One Pangi, maternal grandfather of the appellants, one Karuppan, father of respondents 1 to 7 (defendants 1 to 7) and father-in-law of 8th respondent (Defendant No. 8) and grandfather of respondents 9 to 13 (defendants 9 to 13) and the first respondent (first defendant) executed Ext. B5 Verumpattam Chit in the year 1126 M.E. in favour of the jenmies of the land, viz. respondents 14 to 19 and the executants had been in possession of the suit property. Among the three executa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »