Kerala Court April 2002 Judgments
Canara Bank Employees Union Vs. Canara Bank
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-02-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR985]
M.C. Sen, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment in O.P. No. 693 of 2002 which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellants are the petitioners in the Original Petition.2. The appellants are (i) the Canara Bank Employees Union and (ii) I.C. Mathai, a Deposit Collector engaged in the collection of New Nityanidhi Deposit for the Canara Bank. They filed the Original Petition challenging Ext. P5 order issued by the Bank. As per Ext. P5, the branch officers of the Bank were directed to put on notice all deposit collectors that on and from 28th March, 1997 the commission payable to them on the monthly collections would be as per Ext. P2 award. A specimen copy of the notice was also enclosed to Ext. P5 for ready reference. The grievance of the petitioners was that as per Ext. P5 order of the Bank, the rate of commission stood reduced to 2% from 3.5% which had been prescribed in Ext. P1 instructions issued by the Bank. The petitioners contended that they had already given n...
Tag this Judgment!Kochayippa Vs. Suprasidhan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-02-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALT(Cri)251; 2002CriLJ4803
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. 1. The novel question posed in this case is whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be maintained if the cheque amount in a post dated cheque is larger than the actual debt due on the date of transaction. 2. The appeal is by the complainant in C.C. No. 554/1997 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor. He is aggrieved that the complaint filed by him alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arising from dishonour of Ext. P1 cheque for Rs. 1 lakh ended in acquittal of the accused (present respondent). 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate the scope and ambit of the presumption arising from Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that the acquittal of the accused has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Reliance was also placed on the fact that Ext. D1 which was produced by the accused to contend that the cheque was issued...
Tag this Judgment!Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-02-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Ker357
ORDERG. Sivarajan, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether EC 350 (Vitamin E and Vitamin C capsules) and Cecure (Multi-Vitamin Capsules) manufactured by the petitioner and sold in the market through medical shops as 'Dietary Supplements' falls within the definition of 'drug' requiring licence under the Drugs arid Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioner is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacture, distribution and sale of branded formulations, generic and oncocare products, animal health and natural products, dietary supplements, biotech products, chemicals, etc. Their registered office is at Navrangpura, Ahmedabad in Gujarat State, They are having licence for the manufacture, storage, distribution and sale of 'dietary supplements' to be manufactured at its factory at Navi Kadi, District Mehsana, Gujarat under Licence No. 3071/1977 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Food and Medicine Administra...
Tag this Judgment!Suo Motu Reference in the Matter of Divorce Act
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-01-2002
Reported in: II(2002)DMC753
B.N. Srikrishna, C.J.1. This reference has been made for judicial determination of the following questions which vitally concern the jurisdiction of this Court in matrimonial matters where the parties are Christians. The questions which arise for consideration and determination of this Court are as under:'1. Whether there is exclusion of the original jurisdiction of the High Court in matrimonial matters under the Divorce Act by virtue of the provisions of Sections 7, 8 and 20 of the Family Courts Act?2. ' How far the amendments effected to the erstwhile Indian Divorce Act have interfered with or curtailed the original jurisdiction of the High Court in matrimonial matters under the Divorce Act?3. If there is exclusion, how the petitions under the Indian Divorce Act in which decree nisis have been passed by the High Court should be dealt with?4. Whether the Original Petitions under the Divorce Act, pending in the High Court, which are at the stage of prior to decree, should be transferre...
Tag this Judgment!Thomas and anr. Vs. Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Officer and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-01-2002
Reported in: [2002]128STC224(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioners challenge recovery proceedings initiated vide exhibits P2 to P7 for recovery of arrears of sales tax due from one Mrs. Jessy Chacko who is the defaulter to sales tax. The petitioners' contention is that recovery against the petitioners is on account of execution of exhibit P1 surety bond in form No. 6 undertaking to discharge liability to the extent of Rs. 1,10,000 in the event of the assessee (Jessy Chacko) failing to remit the same. I have gone through exhibit P1 surety bond in form No. 6 executed by the petitioners along with the assessee/defaulter Mrs. Jessy Chacko. I heard the Government Pleader also. Obviously the surety bond is authorising the department to recover only the amount covered by the bond from the sureties. The petitioners' contention that the defaulter only should be made liable to pay the liability and the petitioners as sureties cannot be proceeded against, cannot be accepted. But the alternate contention that the recov...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›