Kerala Court September 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Branch Manager, Erattupetta Branch, Kerala State Financial Enterprises ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-15-2004
Reported in: [2006]132CompCas347(Ker)
M. Ramachandran, J.1. By an order dated December 28, 1998 (exhibit 1 P8), the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kottayam (third respondent herein) had overruled the objections of the petitioner in the matter of confirmation of sale of a landed property, admeasuring two acres and 98 cents of land with a building in Survey No. 341/4 of Thalapalam village. This was purported to be in exercise of powers under Section 21(3) of the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Act, 1984 (Act 20 of 1984) (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 20 of 1984'). The application was at the instance of the first respondent-the Meenachil Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. The objector was the petitioner- Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., represented by its branch manager, who had a claim that the property had been already mortgaged to them prior to the encumbrance created in favour of the first respondent-bank. The fourth respondent was the owner of the prope...
Antony Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT583
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. This Original Petition has been referred to the Division Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court (Justice Mr. Pius C. Kuriakose), for a second look at the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Kamalakshy v. District Collector (1998 (2) KLT 898) holding that the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Venkatasami Naidu v. State of Madras (1964 MLJ 262 = AIR 1964 Mad. 434) has been impliedly overruled in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer v. Shiva Bhai ((1997) 9 SCC 710).2. Before answering the question referred to us, we will consider the facts of this case. Petitioner received notice on 4.5.1989, issued under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') regarding the passing of Ext.P2 award in respect of the property acquired from him, fixing the market value of the land at Rs. 519.40 per Are. He accepted the amount under protest, as to the sufficiency of the amount. Within t...
Kanjoor Ksheera Ulpadaka Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. P.K. Pappachan ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ker40
Cyriac Joseph, J.1. This writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 21-7- 2004 in W. P. (C) No. 20924/2004. The appellant is the second respondent in the writ petition which was filed by the first respondent herein. Second respondent herein is the first respondent in the writ petition.2. The first respondent (petitioner in the writ petition) is a member of the appellant Kanjoor Ksheera Ulpadaka Co-operative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Society). The first respondent and 63 other members of the Society submitted Ext. P3 representation dated 26-6-2004 to the President/Secretary of the Society requiring them to convene a special general body meeting of the Society. Copy of Ext. P3 representation was sent to the second respondent (Deputy Director of Dairy Development) also. Alleging that no action was being taken on Ext. P3, the first respondent filed the writ petition praying for a direction to the Deputy Director of Dairy Development to consider the dispose of Ext. P...
Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Meenachil Co-operative Agr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ker76; 2004(3)KLT369
M. Ramachandran, J.1. By order dated 28.12.1998 (Ext.P8), the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kottayam (third respondent herein) had overruled the objections of the petitioner in the matter of confirmation of sale of a landed property, admeasuring 2 acres and 98 cents of land with a building in Sy.No. 341/4 of Thalapalam Village. This was purported to be in exercise of powers under Section 21(3) of the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural Development Banks Act, 1984 (Act 20 of 1984) (hereinafter referred to as Act 20 of 1984). The application was at the instance of the first respondent -- The Meenachil Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. The objector was the petitioner -- Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., represented by its Branch Manager, who had a claim that the property had been already mortgaged to them prior to the encumbrance created in favour of the first respondent-- Bank. 4th Respondent was the owner of the properties, at the time when...
Krishna Iyer Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT391
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Whether Secretary of the Vigilance Department can grant sanction under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for taking cognizance of offences against officers who are working under other departments is the question of law referred by the learned Single Judge in these appeals. In all these cases charge-sheets were issued before the introduction of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and charges were framed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Section 6 of the Act reads as follows:'6. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.-- (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 161 or Section 164 or Section 165 of the Indian Penal Code or under Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3A) of Section 5 of this Act, alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction,-(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and...
Toja Tyres and Treads Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-10-2004
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(Ker)208; [2005]272ITR522(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner which is a private limited company, is challenging exhibit P6 revisional order of the Commissioner of Income-tax issued under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, refusing to interfere with exhibit P3 issued by the Assessing Officer overruling the petitioner's objections against reopening of assessments under section 147 of the Act.2. The income-tax assessments of the petitioner for the assessment years 1996-97 to 2001-02 completed under section 143(1) of the Act based on returns filed were reopened by the Assessing Officer by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act based on information collected from the Central Excise and Sales Tax Departments pursuant to search conducted by those Departments in a group of companies controlled by the petitioner. Even though brief details justifying the proposal for assessments under section 147 were furnished by the Assessing Officer, the petitioner challenged the reopening by filing W. P. No. 31984...
Flemingo (Dfs) Private Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-10-2004
Reported in: [2005]142STC435(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. Whether the sale of goods effected in duty-free shops (for short, 'DFS') in the international airports is exempt from payment of sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act') by virtue of Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution of India and the provisions of Sections 2(ab) and 5 (1) and (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'the CST Act') is the main question involved in this writ petition.2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Surya Samudra, Beach Garden, Pulinkudi, Mullar P.O., Thiruvananthapuram. The object of the company, it is stated, is to set up Duty-free Shops (DFS) at various international air ports in India and to import, export buy and sell, various goods which could be sold at the DFS (underlining mine). It carries on business of selling goods at the DFS allotted to it and located at the departure and arrival halls at Thiruvananthapuram Internationa...
Rajendran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT533
Kurian Joseph, J.1. The issue for consideration in this case is whether the provisional service rendered by Government employees and aided school teachers prior to 27.11.1979 is liable to be counted for the purpose of grade promotions. There is no dispute that the provisional service rendered by aided school teachers, between 27.11.1979 and 1.10.1994 can be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of grade promotions. Petitioner has to his credit provisional service from 3.9.1970 to 31.3.1971. As a matter of fact the petitioner was initially granted the Higher grades reckoning the said service. However, there was an audit objection in the year 1994. According to the objection, since the benefit was conferred only by Government Order G.O, (P) No. l041/79/Fin. dated 27.11.1979, the provisional service rendered thereafter alone is liable to be counted for grade promotion.2. Detailed instructions on the implementation of the benefit of time bound Higher grade were issued as per Govern...
Sivaraman Nair Vs. the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT1
M. Ramachandran, J.1. Petitioners in all these Original Petitions were employees of the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Limited, a Government of Kerala undertaking. On their retirement, according to the guidelines which were being followed as per the scheme prescribed by the Government, gratuity had been paid by the employer. Petitioners believed that they were entitled to a better deal, and had approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The complaint was that the full and eligible gratuity payable to them had been kept back and there should be a direction therefore to pay the full gratuity as legally admissible to them. They claimed that the rate should be maintained as one month wages for every completed year, but the ceiling should be as prescribed by the Act. Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the rate is 15 days wages per year of service, with a maximum limit of Rs. 3.5 lakhs.2. It is evident that, earlier, taking notice of the demand of the workmen o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›