Kerala Court December 2005 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.
Dy. Director General, Ncc Vs. Gopinathan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT247
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. W.A. No. 1627/04 is filed by the State. The other Writ Appeal is by the Writ Petitioner.2. The writ petitioner faced disciplinary action. It ended in Ext. P-10 order dated 30-12-1999 imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement from service. This order was passed after due enquiry. Ext.P-11 is the enquiry report. The allegation was that, he assaulted his superior officer, while in office, on 22-5-1996 with a table lamp causing injury on the head of the superior officer. The writ petitioner had his own version that it was the superior officer who made assault on him. But on the basis of the materials placed in record, the enquiry officer found the writ petitioner guilty and this resulted in , Ext. P-10 order. Several contentions were raised in the Writ Petition including the delay in finalisation of the enquiry proceedings. It was also contended that though he had been supplied with a copy of the enquiry report along with the show cause notice proposing a penalt...
Tata Tea Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Asst. Commissioner
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Ker)353; [2006]283ITR275(Ker); 2006(1)KLT752
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Tata Tea Limited, a public limited Company, along with another are the petitioners in O.P.No 6075 of 1995 which was filed seeking a declaration that Section 4(2) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 in so far as it assess tax on deemed agricultural income is arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable and violative of Article 365 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners submit by Sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of Section 4(2) of the Agricultural income-tax Act the rule making authority seeks to enlarge the meaning of 'agricultural income' by deeming certain receipts which are otherwise not agricultural income within the meaning of Section 2(1A) of the income-tax Act. Petitioners point out that in view of Article 366 of the Constitution of India rule making authority has no legislative competence, to tax as agricultural income receipts which are incapable of being construed as agricultural income within the meaning of Section 2(1A) of the Income-tax Act/Accordingly Sub...
Sea Pearl Enterprises Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Ker)81
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. These original petitions are filed by various petitioners challenging levy of interest under Section 234A and Section 234B of the IT Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The interest charged under Section 234A for non-filing or belated filing of returns and under Section 234B for non-payment or short payment of advance tax are with reference to income assessed under Section 143(1) or on regular assessment under the Act. According to the petitioners, the levy and demand of interest is against the decision of the Patna High Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. v. CIT : [1996]217ITR72(Patna) which is confirmed by the Supreme Court in the decision in CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. : [2001]247ITR209(SC) . The above two decisions are rendered in the context of interest levied under Section 234A of the Act and based on Expln. 4 to the said section which now stands omitted by Finance Act, 2001 with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1989. Even though the interest levied on petition...
Parthan Vs. Nayarambalam Grama Panchayath
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT734
A.K. Basheer, J.1. The petitioners in this bunch of Writ Petitions are stated to be residents of some 'small islands' as the petitioners would call them like Vypeen, Mulavukadu, etc. in Ernakulam District. According to the petitioners, these 'small islands' are by and large surrounded by Arabian Sea as well as backwaters. Since they are included under CRZ III category, the area upto 200 meters from the High Tide Line has been ear-marked as 'no development zone.' Resultantly, no construction/reconstruction/renovation of dwelling units or other structures is permitted. However, in Lakshadweep and small islands which are included in CRZ IV, discretion is vested with the appropriate authority to decide the distance from the High Tide Line, depending on the size of the islands, to grant permission for construction of buildings. But in the case of coastal areas included in CRZ III category, the authorities are prohibited from permitting any construction except for repairs of existing authori...
Seapearl Enterprises Vs. Dy. Cit, Cirecle-i, Alleppey
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: [2006]155TAXMAN483(Ker)
1. These Original Petitions are filed by various petitioners challenging levy of interest under section 234A and section 234B of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The interest charged under section 234A for non-filing or belated filing of returns and under section 234B for non-payment or short payment of advance-tax are with reference to income assessed under section 143(1) or on regular assessment under the Act. According to the petitioners, the levy and demand of interest is against the decision of the Patna High Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. v. CIT : [1996]217ITR72(Patna) which is confirmed by the Supreme Court in the decision in CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd : [2001]247ITR209(SC) . The above two decisions are rendered in the context of interest levied under section 234A of the Act and based on Explanation 4 to the said section which now stands omitted by Finance Act, 2001 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1989. Even though the interest levied on petitioners is not consistent...
Koyamu Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-15-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT543; (2007)8VST65(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Writ Petition was preferred by the appellant challenging the constitutional validity of Section 26A of the Kerala General Salestax Act, 1963 and also for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P6 order dated 13.07.2004 informing that the sale effected in favour of the petitioner is hit by Section 26A of the Act.2. Revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against one Kuruniyan Kunhalankutty, assessee bearing R.C.No 3211 and 3086 for realisation of sales tax arrears amounting to Rs. 44,46,093.00 pertaining to the years 1990-91. Revenue recovery steps have been initiated against him from the year 1992 onwards and hence his properties are liable to be proceeded with for recovery of sales tax dues. Assessee. in order to defeat the claim under the Kerala General Salestax Act, had sold his property to the writ petitioner on 28.10.1993.3. Assessee was engaged in the manufacture and sale of sandalwood oil, rosewood oil, ginger oil, pepper oil, cardamom oil etc. Assesses ...
Geo Sea Foods Vs. Addl. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-15-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT72; [2006]144STC553(Ker)
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Attempts made by the legislature to initially prescribe a time limit for completing assessment under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, thereafter to limit the outer time limit in respect of assessments prior to 1.4.1993 and then to take away the outer time limit as far as assessments upto 1.4.1993, have given rise to quite a few litigations. Originally there was no prescribed time limit for completing an assessment. The assessments were to be completed within a reasonable time. For the first time, the Kerala Finance Act, 1993 introduced an amendment to Section 17 prescribing a period of 4 years. In the case of assessments pending as on 1.4.1993, the second proviso to Sub-section (6) thereof stipulated that such assessments should be completed within a period of four years from the date of publication of the Kerala Finance Act, 1993.The scope and ambit of the expression 'assessment pending' occurring in the aforesaid proviso came up for consid...
Peirce Leslie India Ltd. Vs. Secretary, C.i.T.U.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-15-2005
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR929]; 2006(1)KLT869
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Primarily two questions of law have arisen for consideration in these cases, one is whether the liability of the management to provide re-employment under Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act even in the event of a valid retrenchment, would cease on expiry of the time limit of 1 year prescribed under Rule 78 of the Kerala Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 and another is whether in the case of a closure of an undertaking under Section 25FFF of the I.D.Act the workmen could claim re-employment under Section 25H of the Act. We will deal with the first question first.Rule 78 of the Kerala Industrial Disputes Rules, 19572. Conflicting views have been expressed by two learned Judges of this Court in O.P. 10251 of 1985 and O.P. 6579 of 1986 on this question and hence these matters have been placed before us for an authoritative pronouncement. The view expressed in O.P.10251/85 was that liability of the management to provide re-employment to retrenched workmen unde...
Prasannakumary Vs. Director, Higher Secondary Education
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-15-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT356
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The following two questions arise for decision in this case:-1. Whether the manager is bound, on the terms of G.O.(MS)No.162/93/G.Edn. dated 13.5.1998 governing the appointment of Higher Secondary School Teachers in schools where Higher Secondary course is newly sanctioned, to make appointments to the quota of 25% reserved for existing teachers in the school before he makes appointment to the remaining 75% posts by direct recruitment?2. Whether the minimum teaching experience of 12 years which is one of the qualifications required for appointment of Principals in Higher Secondary Schools by promotion of Higher Secondary School Teachers, can include teaching experience at the U.P.S.A. level also?2. The petitioner was appointed as U.P.S.A.in M.S.MHigh School, Chathinamkulam on 29.7.1955 and the school became a Higher Secondary School with effect from 27.8.1998. For appointment to the various posts in the Higher Secondary School, the Selection Committee constituted...
Bhaskaran Nair Vs. Chandramathiyamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-15-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT533
V. Ramkumar, J. 1. The question for consideration in this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is as to whether an order allowing or refusing to allow amendment of pleadings, if not appealable or revisable, is amenable to correction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. It is now well-settled that an order granting or refusing to grant amendment of pleadings is not revisable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly after its amendment in the year 2002. Instances are numerous of such orders being challenged before this Court by means of Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It has, indeed, been judicially noticed by the Supreme Court of India that after the amendment of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, all the High Courts in India are flooded with petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging all sorts of interlocutory orders. Vide ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »