Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(2)KLT601; (2004)IIILLJ714Ker
M. Ramachandran, J.1. A Trade Union representing Headload workmen has filed this Writ Petition. The Kerala Headload Wokers Welfare Board; Chairman of the Local Committee, Kannur and the Assistant Labour Officer, Kannur are respondents 1 and 3 in the Writ Petition. Respondents 4 to 8 are registered Headload workers, in whose advantage proceedings have been issued, referred to in Ext. P6, whereunder they became entitled to wages equally with members of the petitioner-Union, who were attached to the Valapattanam Railway Goods Shed. There, under the Scheme, loading and unloading activities were being held in the auspicious of the Headload Workers Welfare Board. The complaint of the petitioner was that respondents 4 to 8 were not working along with them in the pool on any day and therefore there was no justification for treating them as having worked in the pool or for disbursing them remuneration from the total earnings of the workmen attached to the pool. The petitioner has also referred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(3)KLT984
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. The defacto complainant in a prosecution under Sections 143, 147, 447 and 506(1) read with 149 I.P.C. is the revision petitioner herein. He claims to be aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal rendered in favour of 6 out of 8 accused persons who faced trial.2. Proceedings were initiated on the basis of a complaint filed by the defacto complainant about two months after the incident took place. The alleged incident took place on 29.6.1990. Ext. P1 complaint was filed on 23.8.1990. The accused were allegedly members of an unlawful assembly who in prosecution of their common object allegedly trespassed into one cent of land allegedly in the possession of PW. 1 and put up a fence. By putting up of such fence six coconut trees in a line which allegedly stood within the property of PW. 1 were annexed to the property of the accused. The accused and PW.l admittedly own adjacent properties.3. Cognisance was taken on the basis of a final report filed by the investigating offi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(2)KLT703
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. These appeals are filed against the judgment in A.S.No. 95 of 2001 and A.S.No. 37 of 2001 of this Court. Appeals were filed on 14.8.2002 and they were filed against the judgment dated 12.4.2002. Office raised objection that appeals were not maintainable in view of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The matter was placed before the Bench.2. Learned counsel for the respondent brought to our notice a Full Bench decision of this Court in Kesava Pillai v. State of Kerala, 2004 (1) KLT 55, wherein it has been held that no further appeal under Section 5(ii) of the Act is maintainable from the judgment, decree or order passed by a Single Judge under Section 3(13)(b) after 1.7.2002 in view of the amended Section 100A of the C.P.C. inserted by Act 22 of 2002.3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Full Bench decision has not considered the question whether the amendment is retrospective or not. According to the learned counsel, the amendment is pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004CriLJ4729
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. The respondent was the accused in C. C. No. 535/96 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kochi. He was tried for offences punishable under Sections 304A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code. He was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- respectively under those counts. The State has come up with this appeal for enhancement of the sentence.2. It is submitted by the Public Prosecutor that if the Court had reason to sentence him for a term of less than three months, in cases of offences punishable for imprisonment for more than one year, specific reason thereof shall be stated by the Court in the judgment. It was without stating any reason that only one day's imprisonment has been ordered in this case charged under Sections 304A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code. It would, in the normal course, invite imprisonment, if found guilty for a term of more...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(2)KLT833
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The respondent was the accused in C.C.No. 638/96 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kochi. He was tried for offences punishable under Sections 304A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code. He was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- respectively under those counts. The State has come up with this appeal for enhancement of the sentence.2. It is submitted by the Public Prosecutor that if the Court had reason to sentence him for a term of less than three months, in cases of offences punishable for imprisonment for more than one year, specific reason thereof shall be stated by the Court in the judgment. It was without stating any reason that only, one day's imprisonment has been ordered in this case charged under Sections 304A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code. It would, in the normal course, invite imprisonment, if found guilty, for a term of more ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004CriLJ3739; 2004(2)KLT1102
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. These two appeals are by the same accused who faced conviction under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1945 and under Section 161 IPC as it stood at the material time and under Section 420 IPC. He had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with a default sentence under Section 5(2) and with a further direction to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with a default sentence under Section 420 IPC. No separate sentence was awarded under Section 161 IPC. He was found guilty in two separate cases which were filed against him, C.C. 18/1991 and C.C. 19/1991 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur. These cases were charged by the Vigilance Police Station in Crime No.4/84. The crime was registered as per Ext.P34 FIR dated 10.2.1984. At that time the appellant figured as accused No.2 along with accused No. 1 the As...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : IV(2004)BC35; 2004(2)KLT634
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. These revision petitions are filed by the complainant in two identical prosecutions between same parties against the dropping of proceedings against three accused persons invoking the dictum in K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, 1992 (1) KLT 1.2. The prosecutions are under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Admittedly, the respondents/accused 3 to 5 are not signatories in the cheque. There is no contention that they are the managing partners of the firm on behalf of which the co-accused/managing partner had issued the cheque. There was of course a vague and sweeping assertion in the complaint filed that the petitioners are also in charge of and responsible for the conduct of transactions of the firm. After cognizance was taken, respondents/accused 3 to 5 came before this Court and complained about the cognizance being taken against them without sufficient materials. Those Crl.M.Cs. were disposed with the observations that it shall be open to the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2004(102)FLR958]; 2004(2)KLT616; (2004)IIILLJ956Ker
M. Ramachandran, J.1. Ext.P1 notice issued to a Co-operative Society who is the petitioner herein is under challenge. Consequential steps for realisation by Ext.P3 proceedings have prompted them to file this Original Petition. The short fact which might be necessary for disposing of the Original Petition could be stated herein below:-2. The show cause notice (Ext.P1) issued by the Labour Welfare Fund Inspector, the authority functioning under the Kerala Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1975 required the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 3813/- and interest thereon, to the statutory fund. It represented the contribution of employer and employees as prescribed by the Act. The show cause notice was answered by Ext.P2 and the petitioner-Society contended that in view of G.O.(MS) No. 348/75/AD dated 20.11.1975, as the Government had constituted a Welfare Fund called Co-operative Employees Welfare Fund Board for the employees of Co-operative Societies, and since the establishment represented by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2005Ker35; 2004(3)KLT838
Cyriac Joseph, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 15.3.2004 in W.P.(C) No. 634 of 2004. The appellant is the petitioner in the Writ Petition and the respondents herein are the respondents in the Writ Petition.2. The appellant is a member of Vithura Grama Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as 'the Panchayat'). He was elected as President of the said Panchayat on 5.10.2000. As per Ext.P1 notification dated 6.9.2002 the Chancellor of the Kerala Agricultural University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') in exercise of his power under Section 10 of the Kerala Agricultural University Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') nominated the appellant as a member of the General Council of the University. The said nomination of the appellant as a member of the General Council of the University was in his capacity as the President of the Panchayat. Under Section10 of the Act,, the Chancellor is competent to nominate two Presidents of Grama Panchayats to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2005)196CTR(Ker)399; [2005]277ITR511(Ker); 2004(3)KLT998
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The petitioner is an Advocate practicing at Thiruvananthapuram. He is an assessee to Income Tax. He submitted a return under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'V.D.I.S.') on 31st December, 1997 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,83,000/- and the tax payable thereon was Rs. 1,44,900/-. The petitioner did not remit the tax due along with the declaration. However, he had paid the tax together with interest due thereon for the period from the date of declaration till the date of payment on 30th March, 1998. It so happened that the interest paid was deficit by Rs. 360/-. This, according to the petitioner, happened on account of the fact that though the petitioner had calculated the interest on the tax due for the period of three months at Rs. 6,519/-, by mistake the petitioner had paid only Rs. 6,159/-. The respondent by notice dated 15th April, 1998 (Ext.Pl) informed the petitioner that the interest remitted is less by Rs. 360/-. ...
Tag this Judgment!