Kerala Court July 2003 Judgments
Vineetha Vs. Regional Transport Authority
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC245; AIR2004Ker24; 2003(3)KLT714
Cyriac Joseph, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 30th May, 2003 in O.P. No.9676 of 2003. Appellant is the petitioner in the Original Petition.2. The learned Government Pleader accepted notice for the respondents. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties the Writ Appeal has been finally heard and is being disposed of.3. The appellant had filed an application for grant of regular Stage Carriage permit to operate service on the route Kannur Railway Station - Koottupuzha via. Kannur NBS, Mattannur, Iritty as Limited Stop Ordinary Service. The said application was considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Kannur at its meeting held on 17.2.2003 and the following decision was taken:'Granted as ordinary service subject to settlement of timings vehicle No.KL-13/G 5373.'A copy of the above decision was communicated to the appellant for information andhe was directed to produce the current records of the vehicle within 30 days.Aggrieved by the refusal of the Reg...
Tag this Judgment!Ahammed Koya Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Developmen ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT340
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Is the amendment of the Rules by which a Post-graduate Degree was prescribed as an essential qualification for promotion to the post of Headmaster, Senior Basic School arbitrary and illegal? This question has been answered in the negative by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners have approached this Court through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The relevant facts may be briefly noticed.2. The 41 petitioners are trained graduates. They are working in different schools under the Lakshadweep Administration.3. On January 25, 1996, the Administration made an amendment in the statutory rules governing promotion to the post of Headmaster etc. It was inter alia provided that a trained graduate with a Post-graduate qualification and five years regular service shall be eligible for promotion to the post of Headmaster. The petitioners represented. The claim having not been accepted, they approached the Central A...
Tag this Judgment!Mavoor Peruvayal Perumanna Grama Vikasana Forum Vs. Union of India (Uo ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT353
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. Is the prescription of different rates of rental for rural and urban areas violative of Article 14 of the Constitution? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this bunch of cases. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to the facts in O.P.No. 21738 of 2002. These may be briefly noticed.2. The first petitioner is a registered association of telephone subscribers. The second petitioner is one of the members. The petitioners had filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, viz., O.P.No. 1858 of 2002 to challenge 'the unscientific classification of rural and urban, based on the 1991 Census Report and the consequent increase in the rent for urban subscribers.....'. The Department was directed to consider the entire matter. Thereafter, the General Manager of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. passed an order dated May 31, 2002. A copy of this order has been produced as Ext. P1. The petitioners allege that bills charging rent at dif...
Tag this Judgment!Unnikrishna Pillai Vs. Director of Collegiate Education
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT954
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Writ Petitioner did not succeed at the Original Stage. Therefore this Writ Appeal.2. Two points are raised in this appeal.i. Whether Section 64 of the Kerala University Act can be applied to non-teaching staff of private colleges. ii. Even if it can be applied, whether the option to continue in a particular university will affect the promotion, based on the common seniority list originally prepared by the respective management. 3. Section 63 and 64 appear in Chapter VIII. Section 63 provides as follows:'The provisions of this Chapter shall, so far as may be, apply to the non-teaching staff of the private colleges. Subject to this, their method of appointment, pay and other conditions of service shall be such as may be prescribed by the Statutes'.Thus the provision in Chapter VIII are made applicable to non teaching staff and to the extent possible. Section 64 also appears in the same chapter. Necessarily, so far as it can be applied to the non-teaching staff, th...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Shipping Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Ker)364; 2003(158)ELT682(Ker); [2004]265ITR13(Ker); 2003(3)KLT451
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This I.T.R. under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is at the instance of the assessee. The assessment year in question is 1980-81. The question of law referred to us is as follows:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law and facts in holding that the ship which has disappeared could be considered as destructed and consequently the provisions of Section 41(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could be attracted?'The facts of the case are as follows:-2. The assessee is a public limited Company engaged in the business of operating ships. The assessee - Company owned a ship by name 'Kairali' which was reported to be missing from 3.7.1979 when on highseas. Neither the ship nor the crew were traced till date. A committee of Lloyd's London on its meeting held on 20.8.1979 passed a resolution posting the ship as missing. Presuming total loss as provided in Section 58 of the Mar...
Tag this Judgment!Geetha Panicker Vs. Lagi Easo Mathew
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: I(2005)BC155; [2004]118CompCas89(Ker); 2003CriLJ4270; 2003(3)KLT454
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Can a notice given to an Advocate appearing for the respondent in a criminal proceedings pending before a subordinate court be reckoned as a sufficient notice on such respondent of the proceedings initiated before this Court to quash such proceedings? This is the crucial question which arises for consideration in this Crl. M.C. now.2. First of all, a reference to the relevant facts. The petitioner in this case faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. That prosecution is initiated by the respondent herein by filing a private complaint. She has filed this application requesting this Court to invoke its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal prosecution initiated against her. The criminal complaint was filed as early as in 1999 and is registered as C.C. No. 649/99 before the lower court. This Crl. M.C. was filed on 29.11.2000. When this case came up for hearing on 30.11.2000, urgent notice before admission was ordered...
Tag this Judgment!Pathrose Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ609; AIR2004Ker31; 2003(3)KLT650
K. Thankappan, J.The petitioner is an injured in a motor accident which occurred on 15.2.1999. On account of the serious injuries sustained by the petitioner, he was treated in the hospital for more than 75 days as an inpatient. The petitioner spent Rs. 65,000/- for his treatment. On the basis of the settlement arrived at by the petitioner and the Insurance Company on 19.3.2002, the Tribunal passed an award for an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/-. The Insurance Company issued a cheque for Rs. 1,40,000/- on 8.5.2002 in favour of the Tribunal. The Tribunal deposited the amount in the name of the petitioner on 9.10.2002 for a period of two years, but the petitioner was allowed to withdraw only an amount of Rs. 25,000/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he filed an application to withdraw the balance amount for continuing his treatment and for the purpose of his daughter's marriage, the Tribunal neither numbered the application nor allowed him to withdraw any amount. Hence, the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Shipping Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN763(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J. This ITR under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is at the instance of the assessee. The assessment year in question is 1980-81. The question of law referred to us is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law and facts in holding that the ship which has disappeared could be considered as destructed and consequently the provisions of section 41(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could be attracted?'The facts of the case are as follows :2. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of operating ships. The assessee-company owned a ship by name 'Kairali' which was reported to be missing from 3-7-1979 when on highseas. Neither the ship nor the crew were traced till date. A committee of Lloyd's London on its meeting held on 20-8-1979 passed a resolution posting the ships as missing. Presuming total loss as provided in section 58 of the Marine ...
Tag this Judgment!Beerankutty Vs. Sulthan Bathery Grama Panchayat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT256
M. Ramachandran, J. 1. Petitioner, according to him, had been engaged in sale of meat in two rooms in the Sulthan Bathery Grama Panchayath for about ten years. When he had made an application for renewal of licence after remitting the fee for the year 2003-2004, the Panchayath has not taken notice of it nor has granted licence for the year. He had thereupon filed Ext.P2 representation requesting the Panchayath to consider the application. As no orders were forthcoming, he has filed this Original Petition.2. In view of the interim orders that had been passed, it had been directed that petitioner was not to be dispossessed from the premises, which he has been occupying. It is submitted by the petitioner that he is carrying on the business on the strength of the interim orders.3. Sri. Sathyanatha Menon, learned counsel for the Panchayath submits that the petitioner has not presented the full facts. In view of certain public interest litigations and consequent directions of this Court, the...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatakrishnan Vs. the State Transport Authority
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT252
Cyriac Joseph, J. 1. These appeals are filed against a common judgment in O.P. Nos. 17489 of 1999 and 5070 of 2000. W.A.No.623 of 2000 arises out of O.P. No. 17489 of 1999 and W.A. No. 625 of 2000 arises out of O.P. No. 5070 of 2000. Both the Original Petitions were filed by the same person, A. Venkatakrishnan, and the appeals also are filed by him.2. The appellant was the registered owner of a stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No. PY.01/H.7227 operating an inter-State service between Mahe and Guruvayoor (via) Kozhikode and Kuttippuram. The said inter-State permit granted in respect of the said vehicle is valid upto 5.1.2004. The said vehicle was registered in Pondicherry. The appellant submitted an application for replacement of the vehicle with a new vehicle bearing registration No. PY.03/2655 registered in Mahe. The State Transport Authority, Pondicherry allowed replacement as per Exts.P3 and P4 dated 29.6.1999. Thereafter as per Ext.P5 order dated 30.6.1999 the Secretary,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »