Kerala Court January 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mary Louis Manavalan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker219
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. Can the students of a Medical College claim that they have a right to be transferred to another College on the ground that the institution being new, the facilities are not adequate? This is the short question that arises in this bunch of cases. 2. The Co-operative Medical College, Gandhi Nagar, Kochi, started functioning in the year 2000. The petitioners were admitted to the MBBS course. They have a common complaint. It is alleged that the College does not have the necessary infrastructure. The facilities are not adequate. Thus, they pray for their transfer to the other Colleges. The claim in one of the cases for transfer to another Medical College has been considered and declined by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the Appeal and the connected petitions have been posted together for hearing. Since the basic issue is identical, these cases can be disposed of by a common order. The learned counsel for the petitioners have primarily referred to the factual pos...
Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Ker)193; [2003]261ITR390(Ker); 2003(1)KLT687
G. Sivarajan, J.1. A recurring question regarding the allowability of the expenditure incurred on the foreign tour of the wife of a Director of a company in the computation of income under the head 'profit and gains of business' under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') arises in this reference.2. A Division Bench consisting of one of us (Sivarajan, J.) & C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. has referred this case to a larger Bench stating that there is a conflict between the decision in I.T.R. No. 9/98 on the one hand and in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Aspinwall and Co. Ltd. (Ker.) : [1999]235ITR106(Ker) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Appollo Tyres Ltd. : [1999]237ITR706(Ker) on the other on this question.3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, at the instance of the assessee, has referred the following question of law for the decision of this Court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that th...
Harikumar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT797
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. The conflict of judicial opinion on the true meaning and import of Rule 6B, Chapter XXIII of Kerala Education Rules, 1959, appears to have necessitated the reference of these cases to a Full Bench.2. Rule 6B(1) as amended on March 6, 1979 inter alia provides as under -'6B(1). Notwithstanding anything contained in any other rules in this Chapter no posts of specialist teacher or craft teacher shall be created in any upper primary school or upper primary sections of High Schools for a period of 6 years from the school year 1969-70: Provided that the posts sanctioned before 1969-70 against which specialist teachers and craft teachers are appointed and approved and such teachers who are qualified according to the rules then in force may however continue as such.' 3. The contention on behalf of the petitioners in these cases is that even though Clause (1) had placed an embargo on the creation of posts of specialist teachers in the upper primary schools, yet by vir...
Kallianikutty Amma Vs. the Special Tahsildar (La)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT1014
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Can the Collector grant interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the enhanced amount awarded on re-determinationof compensation under Section 28A of the Act, especially when the original award of the Collector is prior to the amendment of the Act No. 68 of 1984, is the main issue to be decided in this appeal,2. Before answering, the question, I may consider the facts of the case. An extent of 10.5923 hectares of land in Tikkodi village of Koyilandy Taluk was acquired for the construction of Buffer storage godown of Food Corporation of India (second respondent herein). The above land was owned by several persons including the appellant. Possession was taken on 29.6.1978. Award No. 8 of 1978 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 30.J2.1978 assessing land value at the rate of Rs. 960-50 per cent uniformly to all claimants for the entire extent of land. Appellant/ claimant did not apply for reference unde...
Jolly Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT192
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C .J.The conflict of judicial opinion on the true meaning and import of Rule 6B, Chap. XXIII of Kerala Education Rules, 1959, appears to have necessitated the reference of these cases to a Full Bench. 2. Rule 6B(1) as amended on March 6, 1979 inter alia provides as under: '6B(1). Notwithstanding anything contained in any other rules in this Chapter no posts of specialist teacher or craft teacher shall be created in any upper primary school or upper primary sections of high schools for a period of 6 years from the school year 1969-70: Provided that the posts sanctioned before 1969-70 against which specialist teachers and craft teachers are appointed and approved and such teachers who are qualified according to the rules then in force may however continue as such.' 3. The contention on behalf of the petitioners in these cases is that even though Clause ( 1) had placed an embargo on the creation of posts of specialist teachers in the upper primary schools, yet by virtue...
Narayanan Vs. Shalima
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT317
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Are the legal heirs of a deceased tenant entitled to the protection of Section 11(17) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act? This is the short question referred to us by the Division Bench.2. The crucial facts on the relevant aspect are all admitted. The landlord claimed eviction of the tenant under Section 11(2), 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The learned Rent Control Court rejected the claim in tola. In appeal the Rent Control Appellate Authority directed eviction under Section 11(2), 11(3)and 11(4)(iii). In the revision petition the direction for eviction under all these Sections is assailed.3. To defend the claim under Section 11(3), the tenant had claimed the protection of Section 11 (17) of the Act. Admittedly the petitioner herein was not the original tenant. The then landlord had entrusted the building in dispute to the father of the present tenant as per a regist...
Anirudhan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT(Cri)217; II(2003)DMC594; 2003(2)KLT946
J.B. Koshy, J.1. One Sudhakumari, aged 26 years, wife of third accused, died in suspicious circumstances within one and a half years of her marriage. First and second accused are the father and mother of the third accused. All the three accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 I.P.C. They were convicted under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304B I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. Apart from the above, fine of Rs. 20,000/- each with a default sentence of six months simple imprisonment was also imposed on them. This appeal is filed by the above accused.2. The prosecution case was that third accused married Sudhakumari, daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2 on 27th March, 1994 as per the customary rites. They were living as husband and wife in the house of...
Kokkala Arecanut Commission Agent Association Vs. Commissioner of Comm ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: (2009)19VST62(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. All the writ appeals are filed by dealers in arecanut, who are also assessees to sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act'). The appellant in M. F. A. No. 142 of 2002 is an association of arecanut dealers at Kokkala in Thrissur District, in which the appellants in the writ appeals are members. The main question arising for consideration in all these cases relates to the scope and content of the last part of the notification, S.R.O. No. 127 of 2000. The relevant portion reads:This notification shall be deemed to have come into force on the first day of January, 2000. Tax, if any, already collected in the higher rate shall be paid over to Government and tax, if any, already paid shall not be refunded.2. In the case of the appellants in the writ appeals, the assessing authority under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act') had originally understood the above clause as one providing for non-refund of the tax alread...
Madhavi Vs. Special Tahsildar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT813
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. 1. The interesting question that has come up for decision in this case is the scope and ambit of Clause 6 of the conditions enumerated by the Apex Court in the decision in Union of India and Anr. v. Pradeep Kumari and Ors. (AIR 1995 SC 2259) with reference to Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act introduced through Section 18 of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 w.e.f. 24.9.1984.2. For the work of re-alignment of National Highway three bits of property totalling to an extent of 10 cents in Sy. No. 88/58 of Vellor Village was acquired from the petitioner based on notification dated 9.3.1989. The petitioner did not think it proper to challenge the award passed in the case through a timely request for reference under Section 18. However, other parties, whose similar lands were acquired as part of the same notification, made request for reference and one of them resulted in L.A.R. No.20 of 1990 of Sub Court, Payyannur. The Reference Court enhanced compensation to the c...
Benny Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker208; 2003(1)KLT850
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. Is the action of the State Government in not making any reservation for the handicapped persons for admission to the Post Graduate Courses in Medicine, Surgery etc. violative of Section 39 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this set of three cases. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to the facts in W.A.No.3660 of 2001. These may be briefly noticed. 2. The appellant is physically handicapped. He was afflicted with Polio. It had left him with a handicap of 60% in the legs. Despite the handicap, the appellant hadgraduated in Medicine from the Calicut University in 1994. He had completed the requisite internship in November 1995. On December 5, 1995 he was registered as a Medical Practitioner with the Medical Council. 3. In April 2001, the State Government published a prospectus for admission to the Post Graduate Degree...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »