Kerala Court August 2002 Judgments
Gopala Pillai Vs. Vasukutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC563; III(2003)ACC355; 2003ACJ1864; [2003(96)FLR864]; 2003(2)KLT121
P.R. Raman, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of the order in W.C.C. 60/1995 (old No. 6/85) on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kollam.2. The appellant is the employer, the opposite party in the Workmen's Compensation case. The respondent herein sustained injury during and while in the course of employment under the appellant. Though there was a dispute that the respondent was not a workman and the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner earlier dismissed the petition holding that the respondent is not a workman, there was an appeal before this Court as M.F.A. 177 of 1989 and in that appeal, this Court reversed the said finding and held that the respondent herein is a workman and the matter was remanded for determination of the compensation due and payable to the respondent. Pursuant to the remand order, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs. 34,445/- with interest at 6% per annumfrom 6.10.1984 t...
Tag this Judgment!P. Gopala Pillai Vs. N. Vasukutty and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC171
P.R. Raman, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of the order in W.C.C. No. 60/1995 (Old No. 6/1985) on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kollam.2. The appellant is the employer, the opposite party in the Workmen's Compensation Case. The respondent herein sustained injury during and while in the course of employment under the appellant. Though there was a dispute that the respondent was not a workman and the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner earlier dismissed the petition holding that the respondent is not a workman, there was an appeal before this Court as M.F.A. 177 of 1989 and in that appeal, this Court reversed the said finding and held that the respondent herein is a workman and the matter was remanded for determination of the compensation due and payable to the respondent. Pursuant to the remand order, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs. 34,445/- with interest at 6% per annum from 6.10...
Tag this Judgment!Vinodan Vs. S.i. of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT160
ORDERG. Sasidharan, J. 1. Petitioners in these petitions are accused in two different cases and they seek direction to the Magistrate to release them on bail when they are arrested and produced in court on the strength of warrant issued under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Such direction has to be given to the Magistrate, according to the petitioners, since when an accused is arrested on the strength of warrant issued under Section 204 and brought in court he cannot be remanded to judicial custody. The question arises for consideration is whether Magistrate has the power to remand an accused brought before him under arrest on executing a warrant issued under Section 204 Cr.P.C.2. Crl. M.C. 5875 of 2002 is filed by the ninth accused in C.P. 9 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nadapuram. The allegation against the petitioner and the other accused in the above crime is that they committed the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 307 ...
Tag this Judgment!Siemens Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: [2002]125STC544(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed questioning the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the validity of Sub-section (7B) of Section 7 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and Rule 22A(2) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963. Before going into the merits of the legal contentions, we may look into the facts.2. The appellant is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Mumbai. It is a dealer registered under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short 'KGST Act' and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short 'CST Act'). Appellant is a manufacturer-cum-dealer of electrical and electronic goods. A customer from Ernakulam placed an order with the appellant for supply of one Somotom Ar. Whole Body CT Scanner at a total cost of Rs.55 lakhs. As per the above order, appellant had to supply the CT Scanner from its factory at ex-Goa and carry out the installation of the equipment at free o...
Tag this Judgment!E.S.i. Corporation Vs. F.A.C.T. Engineering Works
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ27Ker
P.R. Raman, J. 1. This appeal by the Regional Director of the Employees State Insurance Corporation is directed against the judgment in I.C. 106 of 1991 on the file of the E.I. Court, Alappuzha dated 30.11.1995. 2. The appellant herein sought to recover certain amounts of contribution in respect of employees engaged for the work of erection of a new plant, namely, caprolactam plant, in the Petrochemical Division of the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (FACT) Udyogamandal, sometime in the year 1983. 3. The FACT Udyogamandal is a company under the Companies Act. The Company is engaged in varied activities and they have got many Divisions which are independent of its own from the other having no functional integrality. Each of such Division is admitedly, covered separately, allotting a separate code number by the Employees State Insurance Corporation. Fact Engineering Works is one such division. There is yet another division by name Fact Engineering and Design Organisation shortl...
Tag this Judgment!Thomas MartIn Vs. Teresa Martin
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Ker29
J.B. Koshy, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the respondent in LA. No, 351/2000 in Succession O.P. No. 21/2000 on the file of the District Court, Wynad. The above O.P. was filed for grant of probate of a Will. The District Judge allowed the petition granting Letters of Administration with copy of the Will on condition that he will execute bond in accordance with law. The order was passed on 7th April 2000. Thereafter, respondent in the appeal filed I.A. No. 351/2000 under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for revocation of the grant of probate. The petition for revocation of the probate was numbered as LA. No. 351/2000 and court fee of Rs. 10 was paid as no other rate of court fee was fixed and court fee for an interim application was paid. The District Court allowed the above I.A. revoking the probate granted in O.P. No. 21/2000 on 7th April 2000. The appellant had a case that what was granted is Letters of Administration but, not probate. That is a matter to be dec...
Tag this Judgment!The Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Fact Engineering Works P ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR308]
P.R. Raman, J.1. This appeal by the Regional Director of the Employees State Insurance Corporation is directed against the judgment in I.C. 106 of 1991 on the file of the E.I. Court, Alappuzha dated 30.11.1995.2. The appellant herein sought to recover certain amounts of contribution in respect of employees engaged for the work of erection of a new plant, namely, caprolactam plant, in the Petrochemical Division of the Fertilisers And Chemicals Travancore Limited (FACT) Udyogamandal, sometimes in the year 1983.3. The F.A.C.T. Udyogamandal is a company under the Companies Act. The Company is engaged in varied activities and they have got many divisions which are independent of its own from the other having no functional integrality. Each of such Division is admittedly covered separately, allotting a separate code number by the Employees State Insurance Corporation. Fact Engineering Works is one such division. There is yet another division by name Fact Engineering and Design Organisation s...
Tag this Judgment!Chem Teak Company Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: [2003]131STC427(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in these cases is as to whether any manufacturing process is involved in the conversion of 'raw rubber wood' into 'treated rubber wood' so as to be entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax under S.R.O. No. 1729 of 1993 dated November 3, 1993 issued by the Government under Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Since the petitioner in both these cases is one and the same and since the issue involved is also substantially the same, for convenience the parties and the exhibits are referred to in the judgment as stated in O.P. No. 15979 of 1998.2. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of chemically treated kiln seasoned sawn to size rubber wood. It is a small-scale industrial unit registered with the Industries Department, It started commercial production of treated rubber wood on May 29, 1995. It is an assessce to sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act on the files of th...
Tag this Judgment!Regl. Director, E.S.i. Corpn. Vs. the Aluminium Industries Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR512]; (2003)ILLJ84Ker
P.R. Raman, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation challenging the order passed by the E.I. Court, Kollam, in I.C. No. 52 of 1992 dated 17.1.1995.2. The respondent is a covered establishment under the ESI Act. In this appeal, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether overtime allowance paid to the workers, omitted wages and the amount paid towards canteen allowances are wages within the meaning of the ESI ActOmitted Wages3. The Court below found that as per Ext. B1 inspection report no details of the amount regarding 'omitted wages' is given. DW1 was examined in this case to prove Ext. B1 report. Though he has verified the register he has not recorded any details of this item and he has not taken any extract of the record verified by him. In such circumstances, the court below found that it is not known as to how this amount was arrived at and what are the items for which the amount was spent. According to the respondent, they have pai...
Tag this Judgment!Magna Tek Enterprises Vs. State Tax Inspector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT176
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The common petitioner in both the cases is engaged in the manufacture of medical equipments at Hyderabad. The petitioner challenges Ext. P2 notices produced in both O.Ps. demanding entry tax in respect of surgical table treating the same as furniture, an item in respect of which entry tax is payable under the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act. The item involved in O.P. No. 3880/2002 is Olympus 2000 Mobile C-Arm Multi Procedure Table with accessories costing Rs, 3,10,000/-and the item involved in O.P. No. 3687/2002 is described as Table for the Department of Orthopaedics and Urology costing Rs. 2,50,000/-. The items were detained at Sales Tax Check Post, Walayar while on transport to hospitals in Kerala. The petitioner contends that the items in both the cases do not constitute furniture in the ordinary sense of the term, but are medical equipments or hospital equipments used only for the purpose of surgery. The leaflet describing the item a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›