Kerala Court February 2003 Judgments
Faizal Vs. Ussainar Kunhi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT268
Pius C. Kuriakose, J. 1. The revision petitioner is the returned candidate in an election to the Padna Grama Panchayat of Kasaragod district. The election petition was filed as O.P. 30 of 2000 before the Munsiffs Court, Hosdurg by the first respondent arraying the returned candidate/revision petitioner and three others as respondents. Since it was found by the Returning Officer that the number of valid votes polled in favour of the revision petitioner and the first respondent were equal, a declaration regarding election was made by draw of the lot.2. The election was sought to be set aside on various grounds including irregularities in the procedure adopted by the Returning Officer for the draw; that there has been no proper verification of valid and invalid votes; that the counting and recounting process has been irregular; that the valid votes polled in favour of the first respondent have been rejected; that the revision petitioner is guilty of corrupt practices etc.3. Upon entering ...
Tag this Judgment!Janardhanan Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR508]; 2003(1)KLT867
R. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. Petitioner, who was working as the Inspector of Branches with the 3rd respondent Bank viz. The Thiruvananthapuram Co-operative Urban Bank Limited No. 1959, filed this Original Petition for quashing Ext.P2 order passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies permitting the 3rd respondent to make appointment to the post of General Manager on deputation for a period of one year and also Ext. P6 order passed by the first respondent upholding the order passed by the Registrar. 2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the 3rd respondent and also the learned Government Pleader on behalf Of respondents 1 and 2. 3. Petitioner joined in the service of the 3rd respondent on 17.11.1975 as Appraiser. He was promoted to the post of U.D. Appraiser (Senior Clerk) on 1.9.1978 and as Accountant on 1.5.1982. Later he was promoted as Inspector of Branches with effect from 1.5.1994 and continued to be so. The 3rd respondent Bank had framed Ext. P1 Feeder Category Rules for th...
Tag this Judgment!Sanal Kumar Vs. Rajeev Kumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD(Cri)865; III(2004)BC162; 2004(1)KLT689
R. Basant, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Magistrate in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The Complainant/appellant alleged that the accused had agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant for constructing a house as directed by him. The work was completed. Only an amount of Rs. 61,000/- was paid. For discharge of the liability to pay the balance amount of Rs. 39,000, Ext. P1 cheque was issued. The said cheque when presented for encashment was dishonoured by the bank on the ground that sufficient amount is not available in the account. Ext. P2 and P3 are the memoranda of dishonour and intimation. Notice of demand Ext. P4 was issued as required by law. It succeeded in evoking only Ext. P5 response. Payment was not made. It was in these circumstances that the complainant came to court with this complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. The accused denied the offenc...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. K. Karunakaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2225; 2003(1)KLT711
ORDERN. Krishnan Nair, J.1. This revision is directed against the Order dated 31.3.2001 of the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thiruvananthapurm on the final report in Crime No. 1/97/SCT of the Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau, Special Cell, Thiruvananthapuram.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition may be stated as follows:Sri. K. Karunakaran, a member of the Parliament and a former Chief Minister of the Kerala State is the first accused in V.C. 1/1997 on the file of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Special Cell, Thiruvananthapuram. The said crime was registered alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that Sri. K. Karunakaran, the then Chief Minister of Kerala, Sri. T.H. Mustaffa, former Minister for Civil Supplies, Sri. S. Padmakumar, the then Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala, Sri. Za...
Tag this Judgment!Maheswari Vs. Alappuzha Municipality
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR352]; 2003(1)KLT833
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. O.P. No. 2021/03 N 1. An interesting but short question which arises for decision in this case, is whether the Secretary of a Municipality is competent to suspend a Municipal employee working under him, notwithstanding the objection raised by the Chairperson of the Municipality against the suspension. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this case are the following: 2. The petitioner is a Public Works Overseer Grade I/ Draftsman Grade I working under the first respondent Municipality. She was placed under suspension by theSecretary of the Municipality by Ext. P13 order dated 8.11.2002. The allegation against her was that while she was in charge of the store of the Municipality, 18 sodium vapour lamps were stolen from the store. Though they were subsequently recovered from the premises of the Municipal office, she was negligent in the performance of her duty as the custodian of the property, it was alleged in the suspension order. The petitioner challen...
Tag this Judgment!Mar Gregorious M.M.M. Centre Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: [2003]261ITR443(Ker); 2003(1)KLT890
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The following questions of law stand referred to this Court under S. 256(1) of the Income Tax Act for our opinion. (1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in denying the investment allowance on E.C.G. Machine, X-ray Unit and other laboratory equipments? (2) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that since the above referred equipments are not independent industrial undertaking but only part of the composite undertaking and therefore the benefit of investment allowance is not available? Before answering the above questions, we may refer to the basic facts. The assessee is a partnership firm running a hospital at Kozhencherry. In the income tax assessment for the year 1989-90 assessee claimed investment allowance of Rs. 3,38,375/- on the cost of assets like fire extinguishers, lifts, surgical instruments, laboratory equipments, water heaters, X-ray machines, generator etc. The assessing officer d...
Tag this Judgment!South India Wire Ropes Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT668
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order in R.A. No. 44 of 2001in O.S. No. 514 of 2000 of the II Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. Plaintiff is the revision petitioner. The plaintiff filed the application to return 1/10th court fee. The petitioner did not pay the balance court fee. The Court below rejected the plaint for nonpayment of balance court-fee, under Order 7 Rule 11of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Mable v. Dolores, 2001(2) KLT 612. According to me, that case cannot be of any help to the petitioner. Second Proviso to Section 4A of the Court Fees Act states that if the parties settle the dispute within the period, specified or extended by the Court for the payment of the balance amount, the plaintiff shall not be called upon to pay such balance. Section 69 deals with refund in cases of compromise or when suit is decided on the a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vrindavan Hotels P. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Ker)638; [2003]262ITR402(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, against the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I. T. A. No 124/Coch. of 1993. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of running a hotel. For the assessment year 1988-89, the assessee-company claimed 100 per cent. depreciation on furniture items costing less than Rs. 5,000. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed this claim on the ground that these items cannot be considered as plant and machinery. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held against the assessee. In further appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal relying on the decision in CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel : [1971]82ITR44(SC) , held that the assessee is entitled to 100 per cent. depreciation on the furniture in hotel as such furniture items constitute plant.2. According to the appellant, the above decision is not correct. Learned counsel for the appellant brought to our ...
Tag this Judgment!Citizens Interest Agency Vs. Lakeshore Hospital and Research Centre Pv ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT424
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Should the buildings - A 350 bed hospital and the show room, be ordered to be demolished? Have respondent No. 7 and 8 raised construction in violation of the notification, dated February 19, 1991 issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection ) Act, 1986? This is the primary issue that arises for consideration in the three petitions, viz., O.P. 34936 and 38089 of 2001 and 22314 of 2002. The other three petitions have been filed by respondent Nos. 7 to 9 apparently as a counter-blast. They challenge the validity of National Coastal Zone Management Plan issued by the State of Kerala. Counsel for the parties have referred to the facts as averred in O.P. No. 38089 of 2001. These may be briefly noticed. 2. The petitioner claims to be a resident of Village Nettoor in District Ernakulam. He claims to be interested in the environment and its protection. He asserts that the ecological balance in the coastal area has to be maintained. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Mar Gregorious Memorial Muthoot Medical Centre Vs. Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN53(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.The following questions of law stand referred to this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in denying the investment allowance on E.C.G. Machine, X-ray Unit and other laboratory equipments ?2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that since the above referred equipments are not independent industrial undertaking but only part of the composite undertaking and therefore the benefit of investment allowance is not available ?'Before answering the above questions, we may refer to the basic facts. The assessee is a partnership firm running a hospital at Kozhencherry. In the income-tax assessment for the year 1989-90 assessee claimed investment allowance of Rs. 3,38,375 on the cost of assets like fire extinguishers, lifts, surgical instruments, laboratory equipments, water heaters, x-ray machines, generator etc. The assessing officer did not allow the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »