Kerala Court February 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.
Sabu Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT173
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellants were accused in Sessions Case No. 329 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court - Adhoc), Kottayam for having committed offences under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The allegation was that accused persons were found transporting 13.9 litres of Indian made foreign liquor in an autorickshaw bearing registration No. KL-5/3037 on 23.12.1999 in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. Defence of the accused was total denial. However, from the evidence available, the court found that the accused were guilty of the offence. The contention of the respondent is that even if the allegations are proved, the offence will come only under Section 63 of the Abkari Act. From the evidence available in this case, it cannot be disputed that the appellants carried 13.6 litres of liquor in the autorickshaw. As per Government orders issued under the Abkari Act at that time only 1.5 litres of liquor can be possessed and transported ...
Manager, Trikkur Panchayat Sarvodaya High School Vs. Suma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT62
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. What is the true ambit and scope of Rule 51A of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959?Does the Rule entitle a teacher, whose tenure has not been extended at the expiry ofthe original period of appointment, to claim that he is entitled to continue in service? Two Division Benches have taken different views. In Secretary, Payyannur Municipality, Payyannur v. Jayavani K. V. and Ors., (W.A. 1919/2000 decided on January 22, 2001), a Division Bench of this Court (K.K. Usha, C.J. and Kurian Joseph, J.) took the view that 'even if regular appointment is through Kerala Public Service Commission, the claim of candidates under Rule 51A is well protected.' Less than two months later, another Division Bench (Sankarasubban and Kum. A. Lakshmikutty, JJ.) in Sasikala v. Vrinda (2001 (2) KLT 278) held that 'Rule 51A has been enacted for the purpose of providing preference for teachers who were appointed in the vacancies which were not permanent or which stood abolished or which ce...
Supry Vs. Benedict
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT190
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. An order passed by the executing court overruling the objections in the matter of delivery in execution of a decree for recovery of possession on the strength of title is impugned before me. 2. The point that is seriously highlighted in the memorandum of revision and in the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the ex parte decree for recovery of possession was passed by the learned Munsiff solely on the basis of a claim affidavit. According to the learned counsel, going by the C.P.C. as amended by the C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002, the decree is a nullity. Learned counsel was unable to show me any provision in the C.P.C. as it stood prior to amendment or subsequent to the amendment which shows that no decree for recovery of possession cannot be passed on the basis of proof affidavits alone. I do not agree with the reasonings of the learned single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in Jagdish v. Premlata Rai (AIR 1990...
Deputy Commissioner (Law) Vs. Alappat Exports (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT731; [2004]138STC520(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. The Deputy Commissioner (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam, is the revision petitioner. The assessee is the respondent. The assessment year concerned is 1992-93. The respondent assessee is a company engaged in the export of gold jewellery. For manufacture of the gold jewellery for export, the assessee had purchased bullion from State Bank of India. The gold ornaments manufactured by using the said bullion was exported to outside India. For the assessment year 1992-93, the assessee, filed return under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (for short 'the Act'), declaring a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 2,36,25,714.65 and claimed exemption in respect of the entire turnover. There is no dispute that the assessee is entitled for exemption on the sales turnover of gold ornaments exported. We are only concerned with the levy of purchase tax under Section 5A of the Act on the purchase turnover of bullion, purchased from the State Bank of India.2. The Government, in ...
State Bank of India Vs. Kerala Electricals
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker204; 2003(1)KLT871
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Plaintiff, State Bank of India is the revision petitioner. Suit was instituted by the Bank for realisation of an amount of Rs. 8,87,877/- with future interest and costs. Written statement was filed and respondent herein disputed the averments in the plaint. Issues in the case were framed on 12,7.1999. Suit was issued in the list for trial on 18.2.2000. Two of the witnesses of the plaintiff were present on that day. However, the suit was adjourned at the instance of the defendants to 28.2.2000. Adjournment was sought for by the defendants on the said day and the suit was adjourned to 29.2.2000. Defendant also filed I.A. No. 114072000 on 29.2.2000 seeking further adjournment, On 29.2.2000 on the side of the Bank P.W.1 was examined and Exts. A1 to A22 documents were marked. Defendants did not withdraw the contention and were set ex parte. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, suit was decreed with costs. 2. Plaintiff filed the receipt and cl...
Mariamma Stephan Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT1011
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. Has the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in rejecting the petitioners' claim for relaxation of the prescribed standards for promotion to the post of Junior Telecom Officers? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this petition. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed. 2. In the year 1995-96, certain posts of Junior Telecom Officers had become available. In the year 1999, the Department took a decision to fill up these posts. A test for selection of suitable officers was held in May 1999. The petitioners who belongs to the category of Scheduled Tribes and are working as Senior Telecom Office Assistants, applied for permission to take the test. The authority granted the requisite permission. The petitioners appeared in the test. However, they failed to attain the prescribed minimum standard. Thus, they were not included in the list of qualified persons for promotion to the post of Junior Telecom Off...
Pradeep Kumar Vs. University of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT745
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioners have passed B.A. degree in the Re-structured Communicative English. The petitioners made application for admission to B.Ed. course conducted by the Kerala University at the centre at Quilon. When the rank list was published the petitioners' name did not appear and on enquiry the petitioners were given to understand that the petitioners applications cannot be considered for the academic year for which now admissions are going on and the petitioners can apply for next year. This has been challenged by the petitioners by filing the O.P. and the University maintains the same stand in the statement filed in Court. I heard counsel for the petitioners and standing counsel for the Kerala University.2. There is no dispute that the B.A. degree acquired by the petitioners qualifies them for admission to the B.Ed. course as the course is approved vide decision taken by the Academic Council of the University of Kerala published vide Ext. P9. It is eviden...
Mahendran Vs. Asokan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT737
Pius C. Kuriakose, J. 1. The revision petitioner who is the 1st respondent before the learned Munsiff is aggrieved by an order allowing an interlocutory application filed by the 1st respondent-petitioner, the unsuccessful candidate for sorting the marked voters' list and counterfoils of the ballots presently kept in safe custody of the Court for the purpose of making them available for the evidence in the case.2. Heard Shri. R. Krishnakumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Shri. N.J. Johnson, learned counsel for the contesting 1st respondent.3. Shri. Krishnakumar very seriously assailed the impugned order on the ground that the impugned order will do away with the secrecy of election. According to the learned counsel, by the impugned order the learned Munsiff has enabled the 1st respondent to fish out evidence after wading through the ballots. According to the learned counsel who supplied me with a copy of the affidavit as well as the interlocutory application on the ba...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. G. Satheesh Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Ker)172; [2003]264ITR377(Ker)
G. SIVARAJAN, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the CIT, Thiruvananthapuram, against the order of the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in ITA No. 410/Coch/1996 for the asst. yr. 1992-93.2. Notice was ordered on the following questions of law :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the Kerala High Court's decision in Nanji Topanbhai & Co. v. Asstt. CIT and Ors. : [2000]243ITR192(Ker) the Tribunal is right in law and fact in interfering with the assessment of interest income under the head 'Other sources' ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances if the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in directing the interest income to be assessed under different heads and does the distinction drawn by the Tribunal have any difference in the matter of assessment of interest income ?3. (a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case whether in working out the profit, derived in the industrial undertaking belonging to the assessee t...
Lalithambika Vs. Achuthan Nair,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: [2004]118CompCas691(Ker)
A. Lekshmikutty, J.1. All these appeals arise from the common order passed in E. A. No. 212 of 1994 in E. P. No. 74 of 1994 in O. S. No. 451 of 1989, E. A. No. 213 of 1994 in E. P. No. 249 of 1993 in O. S. No. 454 of 1989, E. A. No. 214 of 1994 in E. P. No. 273 of 1993 in O. S. No. 466 of 1989 and E. A. No. 215 of 1994 in E. P. No. 180 of 1993 in O. S. No. 518 of 1989. In all these E. As, the petitioner is the same and the respondents are respectively the decree holders in the above-said suits. The respondents herein obtained a decree in the above-said suits against one Kesava Pillai, the brother of the claim petitioner/ appellant. The case of the appellant admits that judgment debtors in the above four execution petitions is her brother. But she is riot a party to the said suit and she is not liable for the decree debts. The appellant and her brother jointly purchased one cent of property with a room as per sale deed No. 2609 of 1984. The appellant was the surety for the loan advanced...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »