Kerala Court February 2002 Judgments
Sainudheen Vs. Food Inspector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT(Cri)368
ORDERN. Krishnan Nair, J.1. These revisions are directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Attingal in S.T. 50/90 confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Trivandrum in Crl. Appeal No. 177/92. The first accused in C.C. 50/90 is the petitioner in Crl. R.P. 554/1994 while the second accused is the petitioner in Crl. R.P. 187/94. The petitioners and another were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 2(ia) (a), (m), 7(1)(iii) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. After the trial, the learned Magistrate found the petitioners (first and second accused) guilty of the offences under Section 2(ia) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month each. The third accused in...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR996]; (2002)IIILLJ984Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner Bank is questioning Ext. P-3 award of the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha. The second respondent was employed casually/temporarily in the Bank from January 4, 1993 onward till May 30, 1998. When his employment was stopped he raised an industrial dispute and the following issue was referred for adjudication:'Whether the action of the management of Indian Overseas Bank in relation to their Changannur Branch in terminating theservices of Shri P.S. Rajeev, a Messenger with effect from July 13, 1998 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?'2. It is not disputed that second respondent was employed intermittently from January 4, 1993 onward till May 30, 1998. This fact was admitted by the Bank also. But according to the Bank, he was working as messenger on various days on leave vacancy as can be seen from paragraph 2 of the original petition. The records also proved that he had worked for more than 240 days in a year. Therefore,Tribunal found th...
Tag this Judgment!Trivandrum Club Vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax (Exemption) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: [2002]256ITR61(Ker)
J.B. Koshy J.The petitioner is questioning exhibits P1 to P3 notices issued by the Income Tax Department for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner is an assessee to income-tax since 1972-73. The petitioner claimed exemption from payment of tax on the basis of the doctrine of mutuality. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was giving the facilities to members and their families only. The petitioner's contention was upheld by this court in CIT v. Trivandrum Club : [1989]177ITR550(Ker) in respect of the year 1974-75. During the course of reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 1992-93, the Income Tax Department found that there is a hall which is used for marriage purposes and the hall is booked by non-members also. The department came to the conclusion that it is hired out to non-members also and there are separate forms for booking the hall for members and non-members with separate rates of fees. That is cal...
Tag this Judgment!George Vs. State Bank of Travancore
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Ker214; [2002]111CompCas385(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. Fourth defendant in O.S. No. 89 of the 1988 of the Sub Court, Ernakulam is theappellant. Respondent is the plaintiff in the suit, viz. The State Bank of Travancore,Cochin Branch. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of a sum ofRs. 90,182.05 alleged to be due from the defendants to the plaintiff with interest andcosts. The first defendant in the suit is the Queens Engineering Works, which is aPartnership Firm with defendants 2 to 5 as partners.2. The Firm was granted an over draft facility for Rs. 40,000/- on 10.6.1982 anda medium term loan of Rs. 50,000/- on 9.2.1983. The necessary security documentswere furnished to the respondent/Bank. The defendants executed revival letters inrespect of the overdraft facility and medium term loan account facility. Since theamount was not paid, the suit was filed.3. In Paragraph 13 of the plaint, the plaintiff stated that the defendants executedthe revival letter for the over draft facility on 24.5.1985 and on ...
Tag this Judgment!Aisha Potti Vs. the Returning Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Ker268
P.R. Raman, J.1. Petitioner in this Original Petition is the third respondent in Election O.P. 1 of 2000 now pending before the 3rd Additional District Court, Kollam.2. The petitioner is the successful candidate from the Kottarakara Division in Kollam District whose election was challenged by the second respondent herein in the said Election Petition. The election petition was originally filed before the Prl. District Court, Kollam which has since been transferred to the 3rd Additional District Court, Kollam based on an application filed by the second respondent herein. At the relevant time, the Principal District Court was seized of other matters and in view of paucity of time and for a speedy disposal of the case, the matter was transferred to the 3rd Additional District Court. Two more witnesses were also examined by the 3rd Additional District Court to which the case stood transferred. Petitioner challenges the said transfer of the election petition by the District Court, Kollam to...
Tag this Judgment!Rasiya Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC87
ORDERT.M. Hassan Pillai, J.1. Divorced wife, who seeks to get revised the order impugned by filing this revision, filed an application under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') claiming Rs. 4 lakhs under various heads and the learned Magistrate in M.C. 1/99 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate,N. Paravur, on an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties in support of their rival cases, awarded Rs. 1,92,000/- (Rs. 1,25,000/- towards reasonable and fair provision for future livelihood, Rs. 6,000/- 'as maintenance for the period of Iddat', Rs. 24,000/- 'as value of mehr' and Rs. 12,000/- 'as maintenance for her child for two years'). Aggrieved by that order, the former husband preferred revision before the Additional Sessions Court, N. Paravur as Crl. R.P. No. 6872000 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, taking into consideration the fact that subsequent to the disposal of the M.C. the wife got remarr...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Rama Roller Flour Mills Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: [2002]128STC236(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner is questioning exhibit P6 order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue in a suo motu revision setting aside the first revisional authority's order and confirming the order imposing penalty by the assessing authority. Facts are not disputed in this case as can be seen from the averments in the original petition and counter-affidavit. Petitioner is engaged in the business of roller flour mills at Kanjikode, Palakkad and it is a registered small-scale industrial unit. Petitioner is manufacturing wheat products, such as atta, maida and sooji from wheat in its factory at Kanjikode. During the year 1992-93 petitioner filed tax returns claiming exemption for the entire turnover being sales turnover of wheat products. Petitioner, being the first seller of wheat product in the State, according to the sales tax authorities he has to pay tax at the rate of 4 per cent. The Karnataka High Court in New Swastik Flour Mill v. State of Karnataka [1992] 84 STC 49 as well as t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›