Kerala Court August 2003 Judgments
Gopidas Vs. Shibu Mathew
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-25-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT570
P.R. Raman, J.1. The petitioner in both the Writ Petition and the Review Petition is the same. The petitioner was granted a licence for conducting toddy shop No. 13 in Changanacherry Excise Range for the period 2002-03. He availed a loan from the 4th respondent. According to him, he also gave some signed blank papers and signed blank cheque leaves towards security of the same. There is some dispute regarding the transaction between the petitioner and the 4th respondent which is not a matter to be resolved in this Writ Petition. However according to the petitioner, the employees of the petitioner's shop belonging to C.I.T.U. Union are also having some allegiance to the 4th respondent and the employees did not permit the petitioner to enter the shop at a time when the original licence granted for the year 2002-03 was in force. According to him, the licence was taken over by them and understood that it is entrusted with the 4th respondent. Ext. P2 is a petition dated 21.3.2003 filed by th...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Jayakumar Vs. K. Ravindran and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-25-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker209
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred under Order 43, Rule 1(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order in IA. 312/03 in I.P. No. 2/99 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tellicherry, Registry expressed doubt as to whether the appeal is maintainable. Consequently returned the appeal memorandum. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that since the impugned order comes under Order 43, Rule 1(c) FAO is maintainable before this Court. Registry again returned the appeal noting the following defects :'FAO filed against the order passed in petition filed for restoration of the insolvency petition dismissed for default.'On a request made by the counsel matter has been placed before us to decide the question as to whether this appeal would fall under Order 43, Rule 1(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Appellant herein preferred a petition under Section 7 of the Provincial Insolvency Act before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tellicherry to declare him as insolv...
Tag this Judgment!Peekay Re-rolling Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. the Secretary to Government
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT765; [2004]138STC208(Ker)
ORDERIn the circumstances stated above, M/s. Peekay Re-rolling Mills (P) Ltd. Koyassan Koya Road, Kozhikode is not eligible for STE for the additional investments made for the period 1.7.95 to 31.3.96 and 1.4.96 to 31.3.97 and hence the STE applications for the above period of the unit is hereby rejected.Sd/-Director of Industries & Commerce.'14. A perusal of the above order shows that the appellant's claim had been rejected on the basis of the clarification issued vide letter dated July 5, 2000. A copy of this letter is on record as Annexure 13. In this letter, it was observed as under:'On the basis of the views of the State Level Committee, Government decided to give the following clarifications to the 7th item in the negative list of industries of the G.O. (MS) No. 169/ 98/IDdated24.11.1998.(a) All the units based on Electro thermal/Electro chemical processes are not coming under the negative list.(b) Units having total connected load more than 2500 KVA but cost of power is less tha...
Tag this Judgment!Salim Vs. Dy. Director of Panchayat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT516
M. Ramachandran, J.1. In view of the nature of the issue, that is agitated, these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 16043 of 2003 had submitted an application as Ext.P1 on 17.4.2003 requesting the Kottamkara Grama Panchayat that a licence may be issued to him to conduct a meat stall in a private market at Karikode, His grievance is that this was not responded, but Ext.P1 had been sent to him, in the address so furnished in Ext.P1, intimating him that since the Panchayat had decided to auction out the right of vending meat in a temporary shed at Karikode it may be possible for him to partake in the auction by depositing a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as EMD. The petitioner had come at this stage and he has impleaded the 4th respondent, who according to him was the successful bidder. An interim order has been passed whereunder confirmation of such auction had been stayed.3. The case of the petitioner rests on a Division Bench ruling o...
Tag this Judgment!Narayani Vs. Ramani
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT615
A. Lekshmikutty, J.1. The defendants in O.S.No. 895/1987 of the Munsiff Court, Kochi are the appellants. The suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of plaint B schedule property with damages at the rate of Rs. 20/- per mensum for use and occupation of the plaint schedule property. The case of the plaintiff is that plaint A schedule property was obtained by him as per document No. 2155/65 of the Cochin Sub Registry office. Plaint B schedule property is the residential house situated in A schedule property. Eversince the sale deed, the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the property. B schedule building originally belonged to one Ammu, who died on 11.1.1974 without leaving any heirs. The husband of the first defendant deceased Balan started residence in B Schedule house with his family, a few days prior to the death of the aforesaid Ammu without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. Since Ammu died without leaving any legal heirs, neither the deceased h...
Tag this Judgment!Neelakandan Namboodiri Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1134; 2004(1)KLT335
A.K. Basheer, J.1. These three Original Petitions raise an interesting common question. Therefore they are being disposed of through this common judgment.2. Are the Police Officials justified in initiating prosecution against stage carriage operators for using air horn? This is the issue involved in these cases.3. Petitioners are stage carriage operators, their Association and some of the drivers working in stage carriages.4. Relevant facts may be briefly noticed: The transport vehicles which are being used by the stage carriage operators are fitted with 'air brake system'. The operation of the system is as follows: Whenever the engine is started, the compressed air generated by the engine gets collected in chambers called 'service reservoirs' through an air intake valve. These reservoirs are connected to the wheel drums through pipes. When the brake pedal is operated, compressed air is released through these pipes to the wheel drums. Constant air pressure has to be maintained at all t...
Tag this Judgment!Karunakara Kurup Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT215; (2004)ILLJ1069Ker
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. Does the employer have the right to employ persons of his own choice for loading and unloading the goods? This question was answered by a Division Bench of this Court in Ibrahimkutty v. Superintendent of Police, 1991(1) KLT 829 in the affirmative. Speaking for the Bench, Chief Justice Malimath had expressed the view that the right of an employer "to carry on his business by engaging labourers of his own choice cannot be denied to him." This view was reiterated by Chief Justice Jagannadha Rao (as His Lordship then was) in Kochayyan Subrahmanian v. Cochin Cadalas (P) Ltd., 1992(2) KLT 269. It was observed that "on a perusal of the provisions of the Headload Workers Act and the Rules, we do not find any provision therein conferring any preferential right for employment on the registered headload workers, in the absence of any scheme made under Section 13." When this matter was placed before the Division Bench, Justice Mohan Kumar had followed the view taken by t...
Tag this Judgment!Ajithkumar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT260
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. Sree Krishna Temple, Guruvayoor is a very ancient Temple of unique importance which owns extensive properties and endowments and in which millions of devotees from all over India and abroad are reposing their faith and belief.2. Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was enacted to make provision for the proper administration of the Guruvayoor Devaswom. The salient features of the Act are the Constitution of a Managing Committee, appointment of a Commissioner and of an Administrator. The administration, control and management of the Devaswom are vested with the Committee constituted as stated in Section 4 of the Act. There are three permanent members in the Committee, viz., the Zamorin Raja, the Karanavan for the time being of the Mallisseri Illom at Guruvayoor and the Thanthri of the Temple. A representative of the employees of the Devaswom nominated by the Hindus among the Council of Ministers is a member. So also, not more than f...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnathampi Nadar Chinnyyan Nadar and ors. Vs. Ponnamma Pillai Prasan ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker123
A. Lekshmikutty, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in A. S. No. 183 of 2002 on the file of the sub-court. Neyyattinkara which was preferred against the final Judgment and decree in I.A. No. 3643 of 2000 in O. S. No. 91 of 1968 on the file of the Munsiffs Court, Neyyattinkara. Defendants 1, 3 and 8 are the appellants, herein. The suit is one for redemption of mortgage. The suit was originally dismissed by the trial Court against which the plaintiffs filed A. S. No. 355 of 1,971 which was renumbered as A. S. No. 96 of 1974. The said appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed, against which the defendants filed appeal before this Court as S. A. No. 792 of 1975. This Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court and remanded the case before the trial Court. After remand, the trial Court dismissed the suit against which the appellants filed A. S. No. 254 of 1978 before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court confirmed the d...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Tips and Toes Cosmetics India Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT183
1. 'Kajal' a product of Paramount Kumkum Private Limited, Gujarat State - an eye ointment - is an Ayurvedic preparation, a drug or a cosmetic is the question raised in this case. A decision is required to be taken for determining the rate of tax on the sales turn over of Kajal. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, for short, 'the Act'. State of Kerala is the revision petitioner. The same assessee is the respondent in all the three cases. The assessment years concerned are 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1991-92 respectively. The respondent assessee is a dealer in kajal, a product of Paramount Kumkum Private Limited, Gujarat State. According to the assessee, kajal is an Ayurvedic preparation falling under Entry 79 of the First Schedule to the Act taxable at the rate of 8%. The assessing authority took the view that kajal is a cosmetic failing under Entry 127 of the First Schedule taxable at the rate of 20%. This was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), AIT & S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »