Kerala Court December 2003 Judgments
Varghese Philip Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT581
Cyriac Joseph, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 30.10.20003 in Writ Petition (C) No. 29639/2003 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant is the petitioner in the Writ Petition and the respondents are the respondents in the Writ Petition.2. The dispute in this case relates to selection of candidates for admission to Post Graduate Medical Courses. As per Clause X of the Prospectus for Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Courses 2003 issued by the Directorate of Medical Education, Kerala, seats are reserved for Service candidates in four quotas, viz., (1) Lecturers (2) Assistant Surgeons, (3) Medical Officers in Municipal service (4) Medical Officers in Insurance Medical Service. There are 3 categories under the quota for Assistant Surgeons. They are (a) Health Services Quota (b) Leprosy Service Quota, and (c) Tuberculosis Service quota. As per Clause X(j)(v) of the Prospectus a seat each in M.D., TBRD and DTCD will be reserved for doctors working in Dis...
Tag this Judgment!Sanu Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT591
K. Thankappan, J.1. The question to be decided in this Original Petition is whether the provisos and notes attached to statute and rules could be interpreted or construed beyond or in derogation of the intent or purport of the main provision.2. The brief facts necessary for deciding the question are as follows: The petitioners are presently working as Confidential Assistants under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Department. On passing the eligibility test conducted by the Public Service Commission, they were entitled for promotion/ appointment by transfer as Sales Tax Inspector/Assistant Sales Tax Officer/Agricultural Income Tax Inspector/Intelligence Inspector/Check Post Inspector/Junior Superintendent in the Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Department. It is, submitted by the petitioners that appointment to the above mentioned posts is governed by the Special Rules for the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Subordinate Service issued under G.O.(MS) 525...
Tag this Judgment!Mammadhan Kutty Vs. Pallivasal Grama Panchayat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT751
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court, feeling aggrieved by the steps taken by respondents 1 to 3 to encroach into his property, which is covered by Ext.P1 decree, for erecting a fish and meat stall. Because of the provisions contained in Section 249 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the Civil Courts do not entertain suits of any nature against the Panchayat, unless one month's notice is given and the period of notice is over. If the allegations of the petitioner are correct, the said bar will not affect the power of the Civil Court to entertain a suit, if any, filed by the petitioner against the encroachment by the respondents into his property. None of the provisions of the Act enables the Panchayat or its Officers to encroach into the property of third parties. So, the alleged actions of the respondents in this regard are plainly ultra vires. Ultra vires actions are not protected by any exclusionary clause. See the decision of the Apex Court in Dhulabhai...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Vs. Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT756
K.K. Denesan, J. 1. Respondents 1 to 5 filed O.S. No. 1304 of 2003 before the 1st Additional Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam praying for a declaration that the election of defendants 7 to 17 held, on 11.7.2003 to the Ernakulam District Committee of the 1st defendant is null and void. The 1st petitioner-Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi, State Committee, represented by its present General Secretary Alex M. Chacko is the 1st defendant in the suit. The 2nd petitioner herein is the aforesaid Alex M. Chacko himself in his capacity as the General Secretary of the 1st petitioner.2. The reliefs prayed for in the suit are extracted below:'(A) declare that the alleged election of defendants 7 to 17 on 11.7.2003 to the Ernakulam District Committee of the 1 st defendant is null and void;(B) declare that the actions of defendants 7 to 17 as the office bearers of the Ernakulam District Committee of the 1 st defendant are null and void;(C) restrain defendants 7 to 17 by a permanent prohibitory inju...
Tag this Judgment!Asher Vs. Hassankutty Hajee
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT446
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that is posed for consideration in this case inter alia is whether the right of co-ownership over a building would disentitle a landlord under the first proviso to Section 11(3) for claiming eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act.2. Eviction from a residential building was sought for under Section 11(3) of the Act by the father for the dependent son to be used as son's residence-cum-office. Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority have concurrently found that the need is bona fide and ordered eviction. Tenant before the Rent Control Court however, claimed benefit of the first proviso to Section 11(3) contending that while the rent control proceeding was pending the landlord has acquired another building in the same locality called Beach Hotel at Kozhikode, therefore disentitled from claiming eviction. Reference was made to Exts.B2 and B3 documents. B2 is the certified copy of the petition in RCP. 14/93 filed by the landlord and 10 others fo...
Tag this Judgment!Bannari Amman Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT197
G. Sivarajan, J.1. Petitioners are manufacturers of M.S. Ingots and non alleged steel. They are assessees under the Central Excise Act and the Rules and are clearing goods after payment of duty. Petitioners are presently aggrieved by the rejection of their appeal Nos. 305/2003 CE and 306/2003 CE by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Kochi by order dated 5.11.2003 (Ext.P13). The said appeals were rejected by the 1st respondent on the ground that appeals are belated. The 1st respondent has noted that the appeals were filed on 27.10.2003 while the petitioners have received the impugned orders on 9.4.2002. The petitioners had stated that these appeals were sent by post under certificate of posting on 22.6.2002 and therefore the appeals should be treated as having been filed within time. The petitioners had also enclosed a copy of the certificate of posting issued by the post office. The 1st respondent observed that there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners had sent...
Tag this Judgment!Rani George Vs. Deputy Director of Education
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-18-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT460
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. Are the posts of specialist teachers in the Upper Primary and High School Sections run by the same educational agency in the same district interchangeable? Is it open to a senior Physical Education Teacher working in a U.P. Section to contend that he/she shall be posted in the High School after transferring his/her junior working in the High School to the U.P. Section? These are the questions referred to this Bench for decision. The facts of all these cases are almost similar.O.P. 24342 of 2002:2. The petitioner is working as a Physical Education Teacher ('P.E. Teacher' for short) in the High School Section of the third respondent. She worked as a Physical Education Teacher from 13.1.1986 to 31.3.1986 and thereafter from 2.6.1986 onwards in the High School Section regularly. Her services were approved by the department. The 4th respondent was appointed as a P.E. Teacher in the U.P. School run by the third respondent in the same district on 1.1.1970. On 15.3.20...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanan Vs. Land Revenue Commissioner
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT561
Cyriac Joseph, J.1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 24.11.2003 in W.P. (C) No. 36879 of 2003 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant is the petitioner in the Writ Petition.2. The appellant claims to be a businessman conducting a hotel business in shop room No. 376 of Parappanangadi Panchayat. The said shop room is owned by the 4th respondent and the appellant is the tenant of the building. The appellant filed the Writ Petition challenging Ext. P4 notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 proposing to acquire certain lands for the construction of a railway over bridge at Parappanangadi. It is stated that the land and the building occupied by the appellant as tenant are proposed to be acquired. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the writ petitioner being a tenant occupying the building has no right to object to the acquisition proceedings. According to the learned Single Judge, the a...
Tag this Judgment!Paul Vs. Saleena
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT924
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Would the bar under Section 11(9) of Act 2 of 1965 affect an application filed under Section 11 of the Act if the parties are governed by an unregistered lease deed is the interesting question that has come up for consideration in these cases.2. Tenants are the revision petitioners in these cases. Petitions for eviction preferred under Section 11(2)(b), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(v) were resisted by the tenants under Section 11(9) of the Act on the ground that where the tenancy is for a specific period agreed to between the landlord and the tenant, landlord is not entitled to apply before the Rent Control Court for an order of eviction before the expiry of that period.3. C.R.P. No. 1628 of 1997 arises out of R.C.P. No. 2 of 1990, a petition filed by the landlord under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act. Parties are governed by Ext. A2 rent agreement dated 5.9.1988. Room was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 750/-. Rent Control Petition was filed on 3.2.199...
Tag this Judgment!Asstt. Cit Vs. C.N. Ananthram
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-2003
Reported in: [2004]135TAXMAN477(Ker)
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.This appeal is by the revenue. In this appeal, filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the appellant has called in question the correctness of the order dated 29-3-2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in Misc. Petition No. 88/Bang./1999 in ITA No. 774/Bang./1998.2. The facts of the case in brief which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal may be stated as follows :The assessee was the owner of a residential site No. 4 (old No. 71), 4th main, Sripuram Extension, Seshadripuram, Bangalore having acquired the same as a result of family settlement. The assessee started putting up construction of ground floor, first floor and second floor on the site in question. The construction was completed in the year 1994-95 at a total cost of Rs. 17.40 lakhs, the break up as under:Rs.Ground floor 8.40 lakhs;First floor 4,25 lakhs;Second floor 4.75 la...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »