Kerala Court July 2003 Judgments
Manager, Koney Estates Vs. Gnana Muthu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT319; (2004)IILLJ171Ker
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. All these cases, except O.P. No. 5547 of 1993, are at the instance of the employer. Few are appeals and few are Original Petitions. All these cases, except O.P. Nos. 13176/1996 and 13177/1996 relate to the question of calculation of wages for the purpose of payment of gratuity to Supervisors, whereas, the said two Original Petitions relate to the same issue with regard to the payment of gratuity to tappers, employed inthe rubber estate.2. Eligibility for gratuity to the employees concerned is not disputed. Both supervisors and the tappers are entitled to gratuity, it is concerned.3. Based on certain settlements, both the categories of employees are being paid 'Over-kilo wages' as incentive for the output of work in excess of the required minimum standard. In the settlement, it has been agreed that it will be reckoned for the purpose of payment of gratuity, in the case of tappers. But there is no/such corresponding clause in the settlement relating to supervisors...
Tag this Judgment!Harrisons Malayalam Ltd., Owner of Arapetta Estate Vs. C. Mohammed Kut ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR115]; (2004)ILLJ550Ker
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. All these cases, except O.P. No. 5547 of 1993, are at the instance of the employer. Few are appeals and few are Original Petitions. All these cases, except O.P.Nos. 13176/1996 and 13177/1996, relate to the question of calculation of wages for the purpose of payment of gratuity to Supervisors, whereas, the said two Original petitions relate to the same issue with regard to the payment of gratuity to tappers, employed in the rubber estate.2. Eligibility for gratuity to the employees concerned is not disputed. Both Supervisors and the tappers are entitled to gratuity, it is conceded.3. Based on certain settlements, both the categories of employees are being paid 'Over-kilo wages' as incentive for the output of work in excess of the required minimum standard. In the settlement, it has been agreed that it will be reckoned for the purpose of payment of gratuity, in the case of tappers. But there is no such corresponding clause in the settlement relating to Supervisor...
Tag this Judgment!University of Calicut Vs. National Council for Teacher Education and o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker295
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Power and authority of the National Council for Teacher Education (in short NCTE) constituted under The National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') in issuing various directions to institutions which offers B.Ed. Degree Course and Training in Teacher Education especially with regard to recognition of Teachers Training Colleges and fixation of teacher-pupil ratio at 1 : 10 are to be considered in these original petitions. The aided training colleges challenged the directions issued by the National Council for Teacher Education with regard to teacher-pupil ratio at 1 : 10 on the ground that they were existing and conducting the course for more than 25 years and their staff strength is governed by the University Regulations as approved by the Government and the University Grants Commission (U.G.C.) Government is paying the salary of teachers and, therefore, without sanction from the University to which they are affiliated and co...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammedali Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT221
ORDERR. Basant, J. 1. The petitioners have approached this Court with a request that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the proceedings in MC. 5/03 initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perinthalmanna against them under Section 107 Cr.P.C. Annexure-A order under Section 107 read with Section 111 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioners and two others, calling upon them to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute bond for Rs. 10,000/- with two solvent sureties with like sum for keeping peace for a period of one year under Section 107 Cr.P.C. The petitioners (first among them is an Advocate) did not appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and have instead, moved this Court by filing this petition.2. The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to take instructions. The file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate has been produced before this Court. It shows that F.I.R. under Section 107 Cr.P.C. was registered on 19.2.2003. It was registered ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Koolikan, Senior Accountant, Palakkad Dist. Co-operative Bank Ltd. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ497Ker
Jawahar Lal Gupta C. J.1. The appellant joined service as a Clerk on May 15, 1986. The first respondent was appointed as a Telex Operator on November 7, 1984. Despite having joined after the first respondent the appellant claims to be senior to the first respondent Is his claim tenable? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal. The relevant facts may be noticed.2. On September 27, 1980, the Government issued an order declaring that persons working as Cashier/Clerk/ Typist/ Steno-Typist shall be eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Accountant. Some time later the Bank proposed the inclusion of the post of Telex Operator. The Bank's proposal was approved by the Registrar vide order dated March 30, 1995. A copy of this order is on record as Ext.P2. On October 10, 1995, the Registrar issued instructions directing the preparation of a combined seniority list of persons working on different posts who were eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Acc...
Tag this Judgment!Kunhali Haji Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT713
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. The accused is the petitioner. He prays that the criminal prosecution initiated against him by the 2nd respondent/complainant under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code may be quashed.2. The complainant had initiated proceedings by filing a private complaint. The gist of the allegations raised by him in the complaint is that the accused had indulged in the offence of cheating. It was a transaction in landed property. The accused had obtained property under Ext.P3 document in the year 1973. He claims to be in possession of the remaining extent of property. He induced the petitioner to believe that the remaining extent- an extent of 9 1/2 cents is available with him. Making the accused/his mother believe that he has 9 1/2 cents of 12 cents acquired by him under Ext. P3 after excluding the 2 1/2 cents sold by him, he induced him to pay the price thereof and take Ext.P1 assignment in the name of the mother of the complainant. The mother of the complainant died and the ...
Tag this Judgment!income Tax Officer Vs. Thodupuzha Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Ker)272; 2003(3)KLT575
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. W.A. No. 1788 of 19981. The Income Tax Department has come up with this appeal against the judgment in O.P. No. 17082/1997. That petition was filed by five Co-operative Societies, when they were faced with a notice from the appellant to deduct the income tax out of the interest paid by them on time deposits, in respect of every payment exceeding Rs. 10,000/-, at the relevant point of time. The learned Single Judge as per the impugned judgment, quashed the notices holding that going by the provisions contained in Section 194A(3)(viia)(a) of the Income tax Act, for short 'the Act', the writ petitioners were not liable to deduct income tax at source in respect of the interest so paid, as Sub-section (3) exempts them from the coverage of Sub-section (1) of Section 194A of the Act.2. Aggrieved by the judgment, this appeal is filed only against the 4th petitioner in O.P. No. 17082/1997, namely, the Thodupuzha Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. 394, Thodupuzha, Idukki Dist...
Tag this Judgment!Nalini Vs. Saraf V. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-2003
Reported in: [2004]135TAXMAN298(Ker)
S. Shankarasubban, J.Questions of law referred are as follows :1. Whether on the demise of the deceased did any property in the form of a share of the deceased in the accumulated profits and goodwill in the firm of Saraf Trading Corporation pass in terms of section 5 of the Estate Duty Act 2 If any property passed was the Tribunal justified in determining the same at 10% of the value or should the Tribunal have restricted it to Rs. 9,000 ?3. Whether the profits arising to the firm upto the date of the demise should be considered in determining the quantum of accumulated profits 4. Whether in determining the super profits for the purpose of valuing the goodwill a deduction has to be allowed for interest on capital at 20% as against 12% allowed by the Assessing Authority ?5. Whether in determining the value of goodwill a multiplier of one year or three years has to be adopted ?6. Whether any refund determined after the demise of the deceased could be regarded as property passing on the d...
Tag this Judgment!Nalini V. Saraf Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-2003
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Ker)169; [2004]268ITR223(Ker)
S. Shankarasubban, J.1. Questions of law referred are as follows ;'1. Whether, on the demise of the deceased did any property in the form of a share of the deceased in the accumulated profits and goodwill in the firm of Saraf Trading Corpn. pass in terms of Section 5 of the Estate Duty Act ?2. If any property passed, was the Tribunal justified in determining the same at 10 per cent of the value or should the Tribunal have restricted it to Rs. 9,000?3. Whether the profits arising to the firm upto the date of the demise should be considered in determining the quantum of accumulated profits ?4. Whether, in determining the super-profits for the purpose of valuing the goodwill a deduction has to be allowed for interest on capital at 20 per cent as against 12 per cent allowed by the assessing authority ?5. Whether, in determining the value of goodwill a multiplier of one year or three years has to be adopted ?6. Whether any refund determined after the demise of the deceased could be regarded...
Tag this Judgment!ito Vs. Thodupuzha Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN284(Ker)
Abdul Gafoor, J.W.A. No. 1788 of 1998The Income Tax Department has come up with this appeal against the judgment in G.P. No. 17082/1997. That petition was filed by five co-operative Societies, when they were faced with a notice from the appellant to deduct the income-tax out of the interest paid by them on time deposits, in respect of every payment exceeding Rs. 10,000, at the relevant point of time. The learned single judge as per the impugned judgment, quashed the notices holding that going by the provisions contained in section 194A(3)(viia)(a) of the Income Tax Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the writ petitioners were not liable to deduct income-tax at source in respect of the interest so paid, as sub-section (3) exempts them from the coverage of sub-section (1) of section 194A of the Act.2. Aggrieved by the judgment, this appeal is filed only against the 4th petitioner in O.P. No. 17082/1997, namely, the Thodupuzha Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. 394, Thodupuzha, Idu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »