Kerala Court June 2001 Judgments
Sree Narayana Educational and Cultural Trust Vs. Asst. Labour Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-29-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR284]
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. Will a school affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Educational come under the definition of 'Shop' or 'Commercial Establishment'? This is the question arising for decision in this case.2. Based on an NOC issued by the Government of Kerala and after getting due affiliation from the Central Board of Secondary Education, the petitioner Trust has been running the Sree Narayana Vidhya Bhavan, Chentrapinny. The petitioner Trust was served with Ext. P4 notice by the Assistant Labour Officer, Kodungallur, asking it to show cause why prosecution steps should not be taken fro violation of the provisions of the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act and the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. The explanation given by the petitioner to the said officer did not satisfy him. The matter was pursued with Ext. P6 letter reminding the petitioner of the need to take immediate steps to get registration of its office under the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act and ...
Tag this Judgment!Sahadevan Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-27-2001
Reported in: [2002]128STC391(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner was a dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Act'). He was assessed by Ext. P1 and as per the above petitioner had to pay Rs.34, 783/- as balance tax and Rs. 3,360-80 as surcharge. petitioner filed an appeal. The appellant authority reduced the same by Ext. P2 order dated 12.2.1985. That was implemented by Ext. P3 and demand was issued reducing balance tax amount due as Rs. 3,972/- and surcharge as Rs.1,120/-. It is stated that that amount was paid. The Board took up the matter in appeal. The Tribunal, by Ext. P4 order, set aside the appellate order and restored Ext. P1 assessment order of original authority. Consequentially, Ext. P5 demand was issued. While issuing the demand, penal interest under S.23(3) of the Act was also demanded. S.23(3) of the Act is as follows:'(3) If the tax or any other amount assessed or due under this Act is not paid by any dealer or other person within the time prescribed therefo...
Tag this Judgment!Sadanandan Vs. University of Calicut
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-27-2001
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR251]
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner was a pump operator under the first respondent University. He failed in the SSLC examination. He passed National Trade Certificate in Fitter trade. He claims promotion to the post of Overseer (Pumping). Qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of Overseer (Pumping) is defined in Ext. P4. It is as follows:'As prescribed for Overseer/Draftsman First Grade (Electrical or Mechanical ) in Government service provided experience as Second Grade Draftsman where in occurs would mean service as Pump Operator.'The qualification fixed for Overseer is as follows:'a) General qualification of SSLC standard. b) Diploma in Electrical Engineering after three years course of study awarded by D.T.E. or equivalent Diploma in Electrical Engineering after undergoing two years from institution recognised by Government and a service of not less than two years as Pump Operator; OR M.G.T.E. or K.G.T.E. certificate in Electrical Engineering four subjects, viz. Electrical Ligh...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Plywood and Timber Products (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Registrar of ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-26-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3888
ORDERG. Sasidharan, J.1. A person cannot be tried again for the offence for which he had already been tried or on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under Section 221(1), Cri.P.C. or for which he might have been convicted under Sub-section (2) of that section is the principle embodied in Section 300, Cri. P.C. The question whether prosecution under Sections 58-A(5) (a) and (b) and 58-A(6) (a) and (b) of the Companies Act will be hit by Section 300, Cri. P.C. for the reason that the same persons had already been tried for the offence punishable under Rule 11 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 for violation of Rule 3-A and Rule 4-A of the said Rules arises for consideration in this revision.2. The first petitioner in this revision is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of plywood and timber products and the other petitioners are the Directors of the Company. The first res...
Tag this Judgment!Kesavan Nair Vs. Director of Health Services
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR299]
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The petitioner is a retired Government servant. He retired from services on 30.11.1993. His retiral benefits have not been finalised and paid, though sanctioned. He has approached this court seeking a direction to disburse the DCRG along with interest. The only ground urged in the statement filed by the respondents contesting the claim of the petitioner for DCRG is that a vigilance case VC 8/99 had been registered against the petitioner by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram alleging offence under S. 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and S. 120B IPC so far as he had committed certain alleged irregularities in the purchase of medicine while working in the District Medical Store, Thiruvananthapuram. Investigation has not been finalised and no final reports has been made to the criminal court concerned.2. It is contended by the petitioner that unless a final reports is made before the Magistrate concerned enabling...
Tag this Judgment!Mathew Vs. Nadukkara Agro Processing Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-2001
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas130(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The petitioner is a shareholder of the first respondent company and he was also a candidate for election to the Director Board of the company. The Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the first respondent was fixed to 31.5.2001. Here it must be noted that 31.5.2001 is the last date for convening the Annual General Meeting of the first respondent company under the provisions of the Companies Act. The first respondent published a notice in Mathrubhoomi daily dated 30.5.2001 stating that 'Due to unavoidable reasons, it has been decided to postpone the Annual General Meeting of the Company, to be held on 31.5.2001. The new date of holding the Annual General Meeting will be intimated to all the shareholders shortly'. The petitioner challenges the said notice in this Original Petition. He also seeks for a direction to the respondents 1 to 30 to hold the Annual General Meeting of the first respondent on 31.5.2001 itself. Since the meeting was not convened on 31.5.2001, the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Ranganathan Vs. Union of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR548]
K.S. Radhakirshnan, J.1. We are distressed to note that the Central administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench is labouring under a misapprehension that they are bound by the Full Bench decision of the Tribunal rather then a decision rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court. We may extract the operative portion of the order of the Tribunal which is as follows:'Learned counsel of the appellant argued that the Kerala High Court has in Gopinath v. State 1998(2)KLT 181 (OP 19644/96)held that notional service can be taken into account for computing the qualifying service for consideration for promotion to the Indian Police Service. However, the ruling of the Full Bench later in point of time and rendered after a survey of the case law on the point including the decision of the Kerala High Court in Gopinath v. State, we are bound to follow that ruling.'(underling supplied)We are sorry to note that the members of the Tribunal have not correctly appreciated the power of a Constitutional Co...
Tag this Judgment!Narayani Ammal Vs. Sanjeev
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Ker305
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. Alleging that the sale deed in respect of the plaint A schedule property and two hypothecation deeds in respect of plaint B schedule property executed by the plaintiff were the result of fraud, O.S. 1683/97 was filed before the II Additional Munsiff's Court, Thirvananthapuram by the present revision petitioner. The decree sought the following declaration.'To pass a decree declaring that the sale deed No. 135/97, with respect to plaint A schedule any hypothecation deeds Nos. 196/97 and 197/97 with respect to plaint B schedule of the Thirvananthapuram Sub Register's Office are void documents vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation and further that those documents are neither binding on the plaint A and B schedules not the plaintiff in any manner and to pass a decree of consequential prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly dispossessing her from the plaint A schedule and the building thereon otherwise than by due process of law'.2. Th...
Tag this Judgment!All Kerala Scientific and Surgical Dealers Association and ors. Vs. St ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Ker369
ORDERG. Sivarajan, J. 1. The matter arises under the Poisons Act, 1919 (herein after referred to as the Act') and the Kerala Poisons Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules'). The petitioners are licensed wholesale dealers holding license for sale and distribution of poisons. They have challenged the provisions of the Kerala Poisons Rules, 1996 as violative of their fundamental rights. They have sought for quashing the said rules as also for a direction to the 1st respondent to modify the said rules in the light of the Kerala Poisons Rules, 1960 The petitioners are mainly aggrieved by the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules requiring professionals and educational and scientific establishments to take permit from the Licensing Authority to obtain poisons from wholesale dealers for their own bona fide professional use or for the use in the institution or other establishment, According to them, the said rule is arbitrary and discriminatory and infringes their fundamental rights under Article 19(1...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalakrishnan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-20-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2490; II(2001)DMC492
ORDERN. Krishnan Nair, J.1. This petition is filed under S. 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure by accused Nos. 2 and 3 in C.C. No. 132/2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Chengannur for setting aside the order of the Magistrate in C.M.P.No. 479/2001 in C.C.No. 132/2000. The case arose on a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein against the petitioners and another alleging the commission of the offence punishable under S. 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under S. 498A and the complainant and two witnesses are examined as PWs. 1 to 3. But they were not cross-examined by the counsel for the accused. Therefore, the 1st accused moved an application under S. 311 of the Crl.P.C. to recall PWs. 1 to 3 for cross-examination. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order dismissed the petition mainly on the ground that the accused are entitled to cross examine the witnesses under S. 246(5) of the Crl.P.C. after f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »