Kerala Court June 2005 Judgments
E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Bagsvig
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR395]; 2005(3)KLT609; (2005)IIILLJ614Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Heard both sides.2. Respondent was issued with a demand notice demanding contributions payable to the Employees State Insurance Corporation. The respondent challenged the same before the Employees' Insurance Court by filing I.C.79 of 1990. At the time of hearing, it was submitted that the liability was admitted, but only prayed that they may be given time for payment of the amount in instalments. Therefore, the application was disposed of by granting facility to pay the arrears covered in the letter of the E.S.I. Corporation dated 22.11.1990 in 12 monthly instalments starting from first day of December, 1993. Accordingly, the amount was paid in instalments. Thereafter, the Corporation demanded interest for proportionate delays. Challenging that the respondent filed I.C. No. 59 of 1994. The E.I. Court held that no interest can be levied.3. Section 39(5)(a) of the Employees' State Insurance Act provides that if any contribution payable under this Act is not paid by the p...
Tag this Judgment!Madhava Vs. Pathumabi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT369
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The tenant is the Revision Petitioner. The Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority concurrently held that the Revision Petitioner is liable to be evicted from the petition schedule building under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The tenant has since then paid the arrears of rent and therefore, the only question arising for consideration in this Revision is whether the order under Section 11(3) of the Act suffers from any illegality requiring interference under Section 20 of the Act.2. The tenant conducts a tailoring shop in the petition schedule building, namely, Door No. 111 -1160 of Kasaragod Municipality. The building was let out to him under Ext. A1 rent bond dated 16.11.1983. The monthly rent payable was Rs. 400/-. Rent was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 450/- and Rs. 550/-. The landlady (hereinafter referred to as the 'landlord') contended that she bona fi...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Russak Vs. Cheranalloor Grama Panchayat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT686
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner has a valid registration with the Stores Purchase Department of the Government of Kerala. This is evidenced by Ext.P1.2. By Ext.P2, the first respondent invited quotations, including for supply of electrical goods. Sl. No. 9 in the said notice relates to supply of streetlighting equipments. The bidders were to quote the rate for supply of equipments required for rectifying faulty tube lights for one year.3. The petitioner submitted his quotation pursuant to the said notice and his was the lowest quotation.4. He filed this Writ Petition alleging that the work is likely to be awarded to the third respondent, who had quoted a much higher rate on the ground that the petitioner had not deposited earnest money as demanded in Ext.P2. Petitioner's contention is that he, being a person registered with the Stores Purchase Department, is entitled to have his quotation considered without depositing any earnest money.5. As of now, there is an interim ord...
Tag this Judgment!Thomas Vs. Pathrose Abraham
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker252; 2005(3)KLT572
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 364 of 1997 of the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam. The suit was filed by the plaintiff against defendants 1 to 3, who are respondents 3 to 5 in the revision for a declaration of title and possession in respect of the plaint schedule properties and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff from enclosing plaint item 1 upto northern boundary of the third defendant's property.2. According to the petitioner, on the southern side of the plaint schedule property, the property owned by the third defendant is situated. Both these properties are separated by an old stone kayyala put up on the northern boundary line of the third defendant's property. There is a mud wall on the southern side of the plaint schedule property and some space is left on its southern side as kottapadu for maintenance of the mud wall. The kottapadu also forms part of the plaint schedule property. The suit was...
Tag this Judgment!Sasidharan Vs. Sukumaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC125; 2006ACJ945; 2005(3)KLT1063
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellant in this case was injured in a motor accident. While he was sitting in the cabin of lorry bearing registration No. KLM 5455, bus No. KRP 1436 driven by the first respondent hit behind the lorry. Consequently, he suffered serious injuries. He filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. Four lakhs. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the lorry driver as well as the bus driver. Since only driver, owner and insurance company of the bus were impleaded as parties, only 50% compensation calculated was awarded. The total compensation calculated was Rs. 54,240/- against a claim of Rs. Four lakhs. Out of Rs.54,240/-, 50% was deducted and only balance Rs. 27,120/- was ordered to be paid to the claimant. It is the contention of the appellant/claimant that if the driver of the bus as well as the driver of the lorry are negligent, being joint tortfeasors, compensation can be directed to be paid by one of the tortfeasors, in this case...
Tag this Judgment!CochIn Co-operative Hospitals Society Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Co-operati ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT804
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Petitioner is a Co-operative Society. It runs a hospital in Ernakulam with different departments and specialities, including super specialities.2. Petitioner Society decided to fix the age of retirement of its staff at 55 years. The Service Rules so issued were approved by the Registrar. At the time of such approval of the Service Rules, Rule 183(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'the KCS Rules') provided as follows:'No employee shall be eligible to continue in the service of a society after he attains the age of 55 years.' 3. By S.R.O. No. 870/75 dated 27.9.1975 published in the Kerala Gazette dated 29.9.1975, the said sub-rule was amended altering the age stated in the Rule as 58 years. It was further amended as per S.R.O. No. 188/93 dated 29.10.1992. Rule 183(2) of the KCS Rules now reads as follows:'No employee shall be eligible to continue in the service of a society after the last day of the month in w...
Tag this Judgment!CochIn University of Science and Technology Vs. Joseph James
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT555
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The point raised in this appeal by the Cochin University of Science and Technology is in a narrow compass - as to whether the first respondent/writ petitioner, who was the Deputy Director of Physical Education and Head of Department in the appellant University, now redesignated as the Director and Head of Department, is occupying a 'teaching post' so as to enable him to continue in service until the age of 60 years, which is prescribed as the superannuation age, for the members of teaching staff. The learned single Judge, relying on the decision reported in P.S. Ramamohana Rao v. A.P. Agricultural University : AIR1997SC3433 and considering the duties enjoined on the first respondent/petitioner came to the conclusion that he is occupying a teaching post and therefore, entitled to the benefit of continuance until 60 years of age and accordingly Ext.P10 issued to the contrary was quashed.2. Assailing this finding, it is contended by the University that the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Answara Traders Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: (2008)11VST875(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Common question arises for consideration in all these cases, hence we are disposing of these cases by a common judgment. For disposal of these cases we may refer the facts in O.P. No. 5328 of 1997 against which W. A. 944 of 1998 was Hied.Petitioner in O.P. No. 5328 of 1997 was served with exhibit PI notice dated December 5,1996 stating that petitioner is liable to pay tax at 20 per cent of the kist amount less tax paid on the purchase of arrack at purchase point at the appropriate rate, i.e., 50 per cent and proposed to demand further amount from the petitioner. Petitioner filed exhibit P2 objection stating that under Sub-section (14) of Section 7 of the act, petitioner is entitled to deduct the tax paid at the purchase point and that there is no stipulation that the amount to be deducted cannot exceed 50 per cent as stated in the notice. Petitioner had also stated that since he was not registered dealer under the Act for certain period during the assessment ye...
Tag this Judgment!Karunakaran Pillai Vs. Venugopala Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT348
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that is posed for consideration in these cases is whether the Committee or Administrator appointed under Sub-sections (1) and (1A) of Section 33 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 could enrol members in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 33(2) of the Act.2. A Full Bench of this Court in Hassan v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 1998 (2) KLT 746 interpreting the unamended provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Act held that the power given to the Administrator to exercise all or any of the functions of the committee under Sub-section (2) of Section 33 would not take in the power to enrol new members. Judgment was delivered by the Full Bench on 28.8.1998. Full Bench was interpreting the unamended provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 33, which reads as follows:(2) The Committee or Administrator or Administrators appointed under Sub-section (l) and (1 A) shall, subject to the control of the Registrar and to su...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Vs. Labbah Kunju Ameer Hamsa
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT627
ORDERR. Bhaskaran, J.1. The landlord is the petitioner in this revision. He filed R.C.P. No. 5 of 1996 under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(10) of Act 2 of 1965. Both the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority dismissed the application on all the grounds. Though there was no specific claim made under Section (4)(iv) of the Act, both the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority have proceeded on the basis that the claim for eviction was also made under that provision. Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) are intended for different purposes. Whereas under Section 11(3) eviction is required for bonafide need of own occupation or for occupation by any member of the family depending on the landlord, Section 11(4)(iv) is intended in a case where the building requires reconstruction and the tenant gets a right to get an equivalent area in the reconstructed building. In this case, not only the landlord did not quote Section 11 (4)(iv) in the Rent Control Petition bu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »