Kerala Court March 2003 Judgments
Surendran Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC749; 2003ACJ1615; 2003(2)KLT525
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. This appeal is by the claimant under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The workman concerned was governed by the provisions of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') as he was an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board. Rule 97(1) of the said rule enables the workman concerned to avail of special disability leave on being injured. Sub-rule (8) thereof provides thus:'In the case of a person to whom the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, applies, the amount of leave salary payable under this rule shall be reduced by the amount of compensation payable under Section 4(1)(d) of the said Act.'3. The payment envisaged under Section 4(1)(d) of the Act is the half monthly payment. In this case, there was permanent total disablement entitling compensation under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act. Inspire of that, leave salary was deducted from the lump sum compensation computed b...
Tag this Judgment!Samuel J. Thampi, Clerk-cum-cashier, State Bank of Travancore Vs. Stat ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR1152]; (2003)IILLJ827Ker
M. Ramachandran, J. 1. Petitioner was a Clerk cum Cashier attached to the State Bank of Travancore. Disciplinary action had been initiated against him on the basis of allegations which are urged in Ext. P1. It is not disputed that an enquiry had been held in the matter and the enquiry Officer found majority of charges proved. But, they were of minor nature and punishments in the form of censure and increment bar with cumulative effect had been suggested. Show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner and he had made his submissions in writing. Punishment was imposed and against that, an appeal bad been filed to the appellate authority. However, the appellate authority had concurred with the findings of the disciplinary authority. This is under challenge. 2. Petitioner's submission appears to be that there is a violation of the Bi-partite settlement, and he had not been given effective opportunity to participate in the proceedings. Reference is made to Clause 12 of the First, Bi-pa...
Tag this Judgment!Sasi Vs. Pyapsy Victor
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT665
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment in R.C.A. No.37 of 1999 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam, which in turn arose from the order of the Rent Control Court, Kollam in R.C. (OP) No. 76 of 1997. The Rent Control Petition was filed by the landlady for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent and for bona fide need for own occupation. The ground under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. Even though in this revision, the attack is made against the order under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, we don't find anything to interfere in the order of the court below. 2. The main argument made is against the order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The case of the landlady is that she and her family are residing in brother's house 'Roopakala' and there is no sufficient space there. The petit...
Tag this Judgment!Unni Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT306
A.K. Basheer, J. 1. Bacchus, if he were alive today, might have relished and enjoyed a goblet of toddy from the God's own country. But the short question that has come up for consideration in this Original Petition would have definitely rattled and bamboozled Bacchus.2. The question : Is the licensee of a toddy shop liable to be prosecuted under Section 57(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act (for short 'the Act') if the toddy kept for sale in the shop is found to have contained alcohol in excess of the permissible limit of 8.1 % v/v?3. It is admitted that the sample of toddy taken from the toddy shop of the licensee (petitioner No. 2) is found to have contained 9.5% by volume of ethyl alcohol in Ext. P1 Report of Chemical Examiner. On the basis of the above Report of Analysis Petitioner No. 2, the licencee of the toddy shop and petitioner No. 1, his employee were proceeded against and a crime was registered against them under Sections 56(b) and 57(b) of the Act. The gravamen of the charge leve...
Tag this Judgment!Shanavas Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT193
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioners in these Original Petitions are employees of the K.S.E.B. and one of their trade unions. They challenge the circular issued by the K.S.E.B. on 21.03.2003 treating that the absence of all employees on 11.03.2003 and 18.03.2003 will be treated as 'Dies-Non'. The said circular reads as follows:- 'Certain political parties had observed hartal on 11.03.2003 and 18.03.2003. It was earlier ordered in the circular cited that the absence of employees for participating in strikes, bandhs and hartals etc. will be treated as 'Dies-Non'. It has come to the notice that a few employees of the Board had absented themselves from duty on 11.3.2003 and 18.3.2003. The Board hereby orders that the absence of employees on 11.3.2003 and 18.03.2003 will be treated as 'Dies-Non'.' The above circular has been issued relying on another circular issued on 25.11.2002. The said circular reads as follows:- 'Certain Trade Unions have served notice of one day strike on 26.11....
Tag this Judgment!Robinson Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT1052
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. The petitioner, an advocate, has approached this Court with the prayer that the Order, dated August 24, 2002 by which the 2nd respondent was appointed to enquire into the boat accident at Kumarakom be quashed. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.2. On July 27, 2002, a boat accident had occurred. A number of precious human lives were lost. Various kinds of allegations were made. It was inter alia alleged that the personnel posted at the site were not careful. The boat was not being properly maintained. The legal heirs of the deceased were entitled to compensation. Taking into consideration the people's demand the Government had decided to order a judicial inquiry. It had, thus, issued the impugned order to appoint the second respondent as a Commission of Inquiry into the matter. Specific terms of reference was also notified vide notification, dated August 29, 2002. A copy is at Ext. P3.3. The petitioner alleges that the...
Tag this Judgment!Lonappan Nambadan Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT213
N. Krishnan Nair, J. 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the 1st respondent to conduct further investigation in Ext.P3 case and to cure the defects and omissions occurred in filing Ext.P4 charge sheet The petitioner herein had lodged a complaint before the Governor of Kerala regarding the construction work of Chimney Dam project in Thrissur District. It was alleged that respondents 3 to 10 are guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also under Sections 408, 465, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Since no action was taken on the said complaint, the petitioner filed O.P. No. 18763/95 before this Court praying for a high level enquiry in the matter and on the submission of the Government that the Government have directed an enquiry through Vigilance Department, the Original Petition was closed. The 1st respondent registered Crime No. 11/97 against r...
Tag this Judgment!Balachandran, Son of Pazhanappan Vs. Sundara Gounder S/O Vella Kavunda ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker210
Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Plaintiff is the appellant. This appear arises out of the judgment in AS.120 of 1981 of this Court. Learned single Judge reversed the judgment and decree in OS.155/78 whereby plaintiff-appellant's suit was dismissed. Suit was for recovery of an amount of Rs. 22080/- from the defendant with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 1-3-1977 till realization. Plaintiff and defendant were abkari contractors. Plaintiff was the licencee of toddy shops in Chittur Range in the abkari auctions conducted from 1973 onwards. Plaintiff during the abkari year 1977-78 wanted to bid various shops including shop Nos. 17, 19 and 20. Plaintiff could not participate in the auction since certain amounts were due from him to the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund. Defendant is a close friend of the plaintiff and the plaintiff wanted to continue the functioning of the three toddy shops. Consequently he requested the defendant to bid in auction on behalf of the plaintiff as well. Plaintiff agre...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Palghat Food Corporation of India Labou ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Ker)380; [2004]266ITR315(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question of law at the instance of the Revenue pursuant to the directions issued in the judgment, dt. 5th Oct., 1999, in O.P. 21571 of 1999, for decision of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. The brief facts necessary for the purpose of this case are as follows. The respondent-assessee is a co-operative society, the members of which are engaged in labour work on contract with the Food Corporation of India, Palakkad. For the asst. yr. 1992-93, the assessee filed nil return, contending that its entire income is exempted under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The AO completed the assessment on a total income of Rs. 6,25,893. The exemption claimed was denied on the ground that the voting right was not restricted by the bye-laws of the society to the members d...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T.A.V. Trust
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Ker)466; [2003]264ITR52(Ker)
G. Sivajajan, J.1. The matter arises under the Income-tax Act, 1961, for short 'the Act'. The scope and ambit of Section 161(1A) of the Act arises for consideration.2. These two references are at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Thiruvananthapuram. Though the orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') are separate, the question of law referred in both these cases is the same. The respondent-assessee in both these cases is also the same. The only difference is that they relate to two different assessment years, viz., 1988-89 and 1989-90. The following question of law is referred in both these cases for decision by this court.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the provision contained in Section 161(1A) of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the income from the trust properties has to be assessed in the hands of the beneficiaries ?'3. The brief facts necessary for...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »