Kerala Court November 2002 Judgments
Manoharan Vs. Narayana Menon
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT538
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether the Rent Control Court after having granted time more than what was statutorily fixed under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 could still grant further period in exercise of its discretion under Section 11(2)(c).2. A Bench of this court Rabi Umma v. Mukundan (1992 (1) KLT 700) held that the wording of the sub-clause especially the words 'such further period' would permit extension of the period fixed in the original order by a subsequent order passed not only before the expiry of the original period but also after its expiry. In Jeboy v. Subramonian (1990 (2) KLT 167) another Bench of this court held that if extension of time is granted once, the court becomes functus officio and thereafter it is not open to the Rent Control Court to grant further extension of time.3. Short facts which are necessary for disposal of this case are as follows: La...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammed Usman Vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Ker299; [2003]116CompCas505(Ker); 2003(1)KLT69
Kurian Joseph, J. 1. Co-operative Societies is a State subject and Banking a Central subject. What about banking by Co-operative Societies? Does it require licence under the Banking Regulation Act? 2. AH these Original Petitions relate to the registration and functioning of unlicensed urban banks. The very expressions 'unlicensed' and 'Bank' would call for a detailed examination as to what is banking and whether it requires licence for conducting banking business. Such examination is all the more necessary since the unlicensed banking is attempted to be conducted by co-operative societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The scope of the expression 'Co-operative Society' and various types of such societies and 'banking' as appear in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (Act 21, 1969), Banking Regulation Act, 1949, (Act 10 of 1949), Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (Act 2 of 1934), National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development Act, 1981 generall...
Tag this Judgment!Mariamma Vs. Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT245
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The defendant in O.S. 2343 of 2001, a suit forpermanent prohibitory injunction, is the revision petitioner. The Civil Revision Petition is filed against an order passed by the trial Court allowing an application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure by which an interim injunction was passed restraining the defendant from proceeding with the construction of a shopping complex situated in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff, who claims to be a person very much interested in the affairs of the Kaiparambu Panchayat has filed the suit for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the revision petitioner from constructing any further or any new construction in the property unauthorisedly or illegally. Along with the plaint, the respondent filed I. A. 5994 of 2001 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for an order of temporary injunction restraining the revision petitioner from proceedi...
Tag this Judgment!Jayanthi Vs. Raji
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT514
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J. 1. The petitioner in O.P. (Election) 3 of 2000, who is the respondent in Appeal (Election) 8 of 2001 before the District Court is the revision petitioner.2. The revision petitioner filed O.P. (Election) 3 of 2000 to declare the election of the respondent, who is the appellant in Appeal (Election) 8 of 2001, null and void. A further prayer was also sought to declare the revision petitioner as duly elected. The Original Petition was allowed. The respondent, whose election was set aside, filed an appeal before the District Court as provided under Section 113 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The same was presented by the Advocate appearing for the respondent in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 1 of under Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned District Judge after hearing the counsel for the appellant as provided under Order XLIRule 11 of the Code, admitted the appeal and issued notice to the revision petitioner who is the responde...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Bhaskaran Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-28-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT60
R. Basant, J. 1. What is the normal rule to be followed when a Government employee is granted the legitimate promotion due to him - not promptly but later with retrospective effect? Is he entitled for all monetary benefits from the date with effect from which he is given such retrospective promotion or is he entitled for such monetary benefits only with effect from the date on which he starts work in the promoted post? What is the rule and which are the exceptions? These are the interesting questions which arise for consideration in these appeals.2. The petitioner (we shall refer to the parties in the manner in which they are ranked in the Original Petition) joined service on 25.2.1957. While working as First Grade Draftsman his juniors were promoted but the petitioner was not promoted. He filed an application dt. 15.6.1972 calling upon the Government to make available tohim the benefits of the promotion to which he is entitled. As there was no prompt and favourable consideration of th...
Tag this Judgment!Elamma Vs. Fr. Joseph Aranhani Olikkan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-28-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT536
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the defendants 2, 3 and 5 to 11 in a suit for realisation of Rs. 11,057.27. Originally the suit was filed against the sole defendant, Rossa after whose death the other defendants were impleaded as her heirs.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the third defendant, son of Rossa owed the above said amount to plaintiffs 2 and 3, that there was a mediation talk and Rossa agreed to pay the amount to the first plaintiff before 30th May 1981. An agreement dated 16th November, 1980 was also executed by her to the above effect.3. The contention of the original defendant was that no amount was due from her son George and she signed certain blank papers when she was told that her son would be taken to police station as an accused. There was no agreement signed by her knowing it to be an agreement to pay the amount to the first plaintiff or other plaintiffs. The supplemental defendants also contended in the same lines as contended by the original ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Quilon Co-op. Spinning Mills Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-28-2002
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Ker)114; [2003]263ITR259(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. Revenue is the appellant. Question that arises for consideration in this case is whether after the notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), proceedings under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act can continue. The facts leading to the case are as follows : 2. Assesses is a co-operative society running spinning mills. For the asst. yr. 1991-92, the assessee filed the return on 3rd Oct., 1991, showing total loss of Rs. 3,27,12,950, which was after setting off of the unabsorbed business loss of earlier years amounting to Rs. 4,03,72,310. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act by intimation dt. 26th Nov., 1992. Even after this adjustment, the net result was loss. The assessee filed an appeal, before the first appellate authority challenging the said prima facie adjustments and consequential levy of additional tax. The CIT(A) vide his order dt, 21st Aug., 1995, remitted back two items of prima facie adjus...
Tag this Judgment!Popular Automobiles Vs. Eddy Current Controls India Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT331
P.R. Raman, J.1. Appeal A.S. 751 of 1992 arises out of the judgment and decree in O.S. 58 of 1989 and A.S. 328 of 1993 arises out of O.S. 287 of 1987 on the file of the 1st Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam.2. Plaintiffs in O.S. 287 of 1987 are the partners of M/s. Popular Automobiles, a registered partnership firm. The second plaintiff is representing the other plaintiffs as Power of Attorney holder. M/s. Popular Mill Stores is a proprietorship concern owned by the firm M/s. Popular Automobiles. The first defendant is a public limited company and the other defendants are its officials. The plaintiff in O.S. 58 of 1989 is the firm Popular Automobiles, represented by its partner and the defendant is a public limited company by name M/s. Eddy Current Controls (India) Ltd. with registered Office at Eddypuram, Chalakudy.3. Both the suits were jointly tried and disposed of by a common judgment. The appellants in A.S. 328 of 1993 are the plaintiffs in O.S. 287 of 1987 and the appellant in A.S....
Tag this Judgment!Hemambika Chities and Loans (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Ker)239; [2004]266ITR427(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. An assessee under the IT Act is the appellant. It is a company incorporated with the main object of conducting chitties and kurries and lending money on interest. In the assessment of the appellant for the year 1994-95, the AO disallowed two sums of Rs. 4,42,972 and Rs. 1,21,875 claimed by them towards director's travelling allowance and kuri canvassing commission respectively. The first appellate authority allowed the appeal and directed the assessing authority to allow the claim of travelling allowance and sustained the disallowance of kuri commission only to the extent of Rs. 21,875. In appeal by the Department, the Tribunal took the view that the AO was not justified in disallowing the entire claim of travelling allowance. It also took the view that the first appellate authority was also not justified in allowing the entire claim. The Tribunal thereafter considered the evidence in the case and came to the conclusion that justice demands grant of a portion of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank Vs. Narayana Iyer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: 2004(1)CTLJ373(Ker); 2003(3)KLT726
G. Sasidharan, J.1. A.S.22/1922 is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. 528/1982 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Kottayam. A.S.608/1996 is an appeal filed by the first defendant in the above suit. These two appeals are disposed of by this common judgment and the parties will be referred to in this judgment as they are referred to in the suit.2. The first defendant was the Managing Director of M/s. Kottayam Textiles Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. At the time of institution of the suit there was only one defendant in the suit and the Company was subsequently impleaded as additional second defendant. The bank filed the suit against the defendants for realisation of an amount of Rs. 11,26,026.51, the amount outstanding as due to the bank in a loan transaction. The suit was decreed by the trial Court allowing realisation of the amount with interest at the rate of 21.65% per annum from the date of suit till realisation and costs of the suit. There is a direction i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »