Kerala Court July 2003 Judgments
Lakshmi Amma Vs. Ayyappan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker174; 2004(1)CTLJ158(Ker); 2003(3)KLT577
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Defendant is the appellant. Suit was instituted by the respondent - plaintiff for specific performance of contract for sale. Plaintiff schedule property belongs to the defendant and the plaintiff is in possession of the same on the basis of mortgage deed executed by the defendant for an amount of Rs. 5,300/-. Ext.A1 agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant on 22.9.1979 agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property fixing land value at the rate of Rs. 132/- per cent. A sum of Rs. 2,200/- was received as advance on the said date. It was also agreed that out of the total sale consideration plaintiff is entitled to deduct mortgage amount as well as the advance amount paid and to get the document executed on payment of the balance amount of Rs. 3,192/- and the time stipulated was one year from the date of the agreement. Plaintiff was willing to perform his part of the contract as per the agreement. Defendant was evading request of the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Helen Thilakom Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT233
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. 1. OP.No. 36563 of 2002 is filed for implementing the order, G.O.(Rt)No. 4119/2002/G. Edn. dated 22.11.2002. O.P. No. 36789 of 2002 is filed challenging that order. Therefore, they are heard and disposed of by a common judgment.O.P. No. 36789/2002 2. The petitioner in this Original Petition is a part-time Music Teacher working in the Light to the Blind School at Varkala. She was appointed by Ext.P2 order dated 2.1.1992. The said appointment was approved by Ext.P3 order of the D.E.O. dated 2.1.1997 with retrospective effect from 2.1.1992 to 31.3.1992 and thereafter with effect from 1.6.1992 without any time limit. The petitioner's school is run by a Corporate Educational Agency. It is having a few other schools also. One of them is Samuel LMS HS Parassala. A vacancy arose in the said school in the post of Music Teacher during the academic year 1999-2000. The Manager invited applications for appointment to that vacancy. The petitioner also submitted an applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Janaki Vs. Govindan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT562
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Original tenant died. Revision petitioners are the legal heirs of the original tenant. Original landlord also died and her legal heirs are the respondents herein.2. For the disposal of this case we may refer the parties according to their status in the rent control court. Rent control petition was filed by the landlord for eviction under Sections 11(2) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Building was rented out to the original tenant in the year 1972 and monthly rent fixed was Rs. 55/-. Tenant defaulted payment of rent from 4.6.1995. Though demand was made rent was kept in arrears by the tenant. Consequently petition was preferred under Section 11(2) for arrears of rent. Eviction was also sought for under Section 11(3) of the Act. Landlord's daughter-in-law by name Kusum Menon is an ayurvedic medical practitioner. She is the wife of landlord's son Baby Sankar. She is a B.A.M.S. degree holder and has been practising along w...
Tag this Judgment!George Vs. Varkey
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT21
J.B. Koshy, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment refusing grant of Letters of Administration under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The petitioners/plaintiffs are the appellants. Varkey Varkey, father of fifth plaintiff, defendants 1 to 4 and late Mariakutty, mother of defendants 5 to 1 died on 19.3.1990. He had executed and registered Ext. A2 Will on 20.6.1987 bequeathing certain properties to plaintiffs 1 to 3 who are the sons of fifth plaintiff after cancelling Ext. A10 Will. Plaintiffs applied before the Court below for granting Letters of Administration with a copy of the said Will annexed. In the alternative they pleaded for granting Letters of Administration on the basis of Ext. A10 Will also. Defendants 1 and 10 contested the application.2. In this appeal the first defendant (first respondent herein) alone is contesting the matter. The other defendants, despite receiving notice, did not appear before this Court to oppose the appeal. According to the written statement ...
Tag this Judgment!Accountant General Vs. Kunjamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT345
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Are the teachers who had continued in service till March 31, 1997 or thereafter under Rule 60(c) of the Kerala Service Rules or Rule 62 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules entitled to the benefit of the pay scales as revised w.e.f. March 1, 1997? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this bunch of Writ Appeals. The learned Single Judge has answered this question in the affirmative and held that the benefit is admissible to the teachers. The State challenges the order.2. On November 25, 1998, the Government had revised the scales of pay of various categories of employees. A copy of the notification has been produced before us at the hearing. Admittedly, the revision was made with retrospective effect fromMarch 1, 1997. It is on account of this retrospective revision that the issue regarding the admissibility of the benefit to the persons who had retired on March 31, 1997 or thereafter has arisen for consideration.3. The matter w...
Tag this Judgment!Balachandran Vs. Mavelikkara Municipality
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT605
A.K. Basheer, J.1. How are the Standing Committees of a Municipal Council to be constituted and what should be the minimum number of members in different Standing Committees2. Two elected Councillors of Mavelikkara Municipality have raised this question in this Original Petition. They have challenged Ext.P4 resolution passed by the Muncipal Council constituting 5 Standing Committees of the Municipality. The following Standing Committees were constituted in the Municipality.Standing Committee for Finance 4 members (including Chairman)Standing Committee for Development 5 membersStanding Committee for Health 5 membersStanding Committee for Welfare 3 membersStanding Committee for Works 5 membersIt is contended by the petitioners that the decision of the Council to fix the number of members in the Standing Committee for Welfare as 3 is arbitrary, illegal and against the provisions contained in Section 21 of the Kerala Municipality Act and also the Kerala Municipality (Standing Committee) Ru...
Tag this Judgment!Accountant General Vs. Neelakantan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT525
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Are the teachers who had continued in service till March 31, 1997 or thereafter under Rule 60(c) of the Kerala Service Rules or Rule 62 of Chap.XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules entitled to the benefit of the pay scales as revised w.e.f. March 1, 1997? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this bunch of writ appeals. The learned Single Judge has answered this question in the affirmative and held that the benefit is admissible to the teachers. The State challenges the order.2. On November 25, 1998, the Government had revised the scales of pay of various categories of employees. A copy of the notification has been produced before us at the hearing. Admittedly, the revision was made with retrospective effect from March 1, 1997. It is on account of this retrospective revision that the issue regarding the admissibility of the benefit to the persons who had retired on March 31, 1997 or thereafter has arisen for consideration.3. The matter was ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Leelamma John
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Ker)575; [2004]267ITR289(Ker); 2003(3)KLT1006
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. The question agitated in this appeal at the instance of the Revenue is whether Ext. P3 declaration filed by the respondent can be one which could be considered in terms of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. It is contended by the Revenue that, to consider a declaration applying the scheme, there shall be some proceedings pending before the concerned authority, and such proceedings shall be in terms of the law providing for such proceedings.2. It is not in dispute before us that the assessing officer has passed orders against the respondent assessing him for tax and interest. It is also not in dispute that the respondent had filed Ext. P2 revision petition (in both cases) under Section 264 of the Income Tax act, 1961, before the Commissioner of Income Tax, on 28.10.1998. It is also not in dispute that the respondent has filed Ext. P3 declaration in terms of the said scheme before the designated officer to avail of the benefit under the scheme, promulgated in the F...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Mrs. Leelamma John Thoppil
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: [2004]134TAXMAN118(Ker)
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.The question agitated in this appeal at the instance of the revenue is whether Ext. P3 declaration filed by the respondent can be one which could be considered in terms of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. It is contended by the revenue that, to consider a declaration applying the scheme, there shall be some proceedings pending before the concerned authority, and such proceedings shall be in terms of the law providing for such proceedings.2. It is not in dispute before us that the Assessing Of ficer has passed orders against the respondent assessing him for tax and interest. It is also not in dispute that the respondent had filed Ext.P2 revision petition (in both cases) under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the Commissioner of Income-tax, on 28-10-1998. It is also not in dispute that the respondent has filed Ext.P3 declaration in terms of the said scheme before the designated officer to avail of the benefit under the scheme, promulgated in the Financ...
Tag this Judgment!Yakoob Vs. Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT535
A.K. Basheer, J. 1. The challenge in this Writ Appeal is against blacklisting of appellant from undertaking any contract in the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation (for short 'the Corporation').2. Appellant was awarded a contract by the Corporation for handling and transportation of foodgrains to the Sub Depot at Vellayil in Kozhikode for a period of two years commencing from 21.4.1997. Main two items of operation under the contract were cleaning of the food grains and filling the loose grains in gunnies. In the nature of the dispute that is to be resolved in this case, we are not referring to the various other details relating to the contract in question.3. As mentioned earlier, the contract awarded to the appellant was initially for a period of two years starting from 21.4.1997. It is not in dispute that the contract was being renewed by the Corporation from time to time at the same rates and on the same terms and conditions as indicated in Ext. P1. However, by Ext. P3 communicat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »