Kerala Court July 2005 Judgments
Gopalakrishnan Vs. Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-29-2005
Reported in: [2006]129CompCas698(Ker); 2005(3)KLT957; [2006]68SCL484(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellant filed a petition Under Sub-section 433 and 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for winding up of the respondent-company alleging that the respondent company is unable to pay its debts which is one of the grounds for winding up of a company under Section 433(e) of the Act. The learned Company Judge dismissed the application on the ground that (1) there was no statutory notice and (2) respondent-company bona fide disputed the claim.2. It is the case of the appellant that he is a financial management consultant and sole proprietor of G.K.Financial and Management Consultancy Services. As per Annexure A extracts of the minutes/Board resolution of the Vth meeting of the Board of Directors, the company decided to avail the specialised services of the appellant for obtaining share capital, bank loan, NRI deposits etc. Rate of remuneration was also mentioned in Annexure A. By Annexure B letter dated 5-1-1994, appellant requested...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh B. Shah Vs. Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-29-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker290; 2005(3)ARBLR483(Kerala); 2005(3)KLT787
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the Additional Munsiff's Court Cherthala in E.P. No. 209 of 2000 in Ref: SE/AB/055/98. Decree holder has come in revision. There was a dispute between the decree holder and judgment debtor. That dispute was placed before the Arbitration Committee and the Arbitration Committee passed an award for Rs. 38,544/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of payment, i.e., 31.12.1995 to the revision petitioner within 21 days from the date of receipt of the award. Since the amount was not paid, the decree holder filed the E.P. before the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam for the enforcement of the award. That E.P. was transferred to Cherthala, since the judgment debtor was staying within the jurisdiction of that Court.2. Before the Munsiff's Court, Cherthala, the respondent contended that the Munsiff's Court has no jurisdiction. The lower Court held that the Court is defined as Princ...
Tag this Judgment!Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd. Vs. P. Rajan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-29-2005
Reported in: (2006)ILLJ521Ker
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') is the appellant before us. They are aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge holding that last part of Section 5(1)(a)(i) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (for short 'Working Journalists Act') be read down and disciplinary action mentioned in the sub-section be considered to mean only disciplinary action for riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on the part of the employee or any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude during the course of his employment.2. The first respondent, an Assistant Editor of the Company, was charge sheeted for misconduct of raising false allegations against the Managing Director of the company and of using discourteous language and on various other misconducts. Enquiry was conducted and accepting the en...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Electricity Officers Federation and ors. Vs. Central Board of D ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(Ker)625; [2005]279ITR482(Ker)
P.R. Raman, J.1. Petitioners 1 and 2, respectively, are the Kerala Electricity Officers Federation and the Kerala Electricity Workers Federation, Thiruvananthapuram, represented by their secretaries. Petitioners 3 and 4 are individuals who are officers of the Kerala State Electricity Board. They seek to quash Ext. P2 communication issued by the 4th respondent-CIT, Cochin, to the extent it relates to the computation of income-tax under Section 89 and for a declaration that they are entitled to claim relief under Section 89 of the IT Act apportioning the arrears of salary compulsorily credited to GPF account to various previous years to which it relates and to avail rebate thereon in the computation of tax payable.2. The relevant assessment year is 1997-98. The pay and allowances of the officers and workers under the Kerala State Electricity Board--the third respondent herein were revised w.e.f. 1st Aug., 1993 on a long-term bilateral agreement entered into in 1995. It is stated that as ...
Tag this Judgment!K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Abdul Latheef
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC298; [2005(107)FLR958]; 2005(3)KLT955
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. K.S.R.T.C. is in appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge wherein first respondent is directed to be reinstated, quashing Ext.P12 order of dismissal from service. After an application for voluntary retirement has been forwarded, a charge sheet was issued on him on 27.8.1998. A detailed enquiry was conducted. Based on the enquiry report a show cause notice was issued, Ext.P7. It was responded to in Ext.P8. Considering the report of enquiry wherein he has been found guilty, Ext.P9 order of dismissal was passed. The show cause notice Ext. reveals that the enquiry report had never been furnished to the delinquent. It is a requirement in terms of Rule 15(12) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 as made applicable to the service of the appellant. Even otherwise it is an essential requirement of natural justice. On that reason itself the dismissal order is liable to be quashed. Therefore the judgment of the learne...
Tag this Judgment!Balakrishnan Vs. A.E.O.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT64
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. A post of Headmaster arose in L.P. School Chorode, Kozhikode, of which the 4th respondent is the Manager. On 1.5.1991, the 4th respondent preferred the 3rd respondent, who according to him was the senior most teacher in the school. There upon the appellant/writ petitioner staked his claim for the post. The educational officer as per Ext.P4 resolved the dispute in favour of the 3rd respondent. Challenge of Ext. P4 in O.P.5173/1993 did not succeed. Therefore this Writ Appeal.2. Two contentions are mainly urged by the appellant/writ petitioner to substantiate his claim for the post of Headmaster, in preference to the 3rd respondent. One is that he is senior to the 3rd respondent and the other is that he had acquired the necessary obligatory test qualification for promotion as Headmaster, earlier than the 3rd respondent.3. Admitted facts revealed that both of them commenced continuous qualified service on 2.6.1981. There is no dispute. Both of them did have earlier ...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Vs. K.S.E.B.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Ker194; [2006(3)JCR324]; 2005(3)KLT865
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that is posed for consideration in this case is whether the Electricity Board can demand arrears of electricity dues including penalty incurred by a previous consumer from a new owner/occupier/allottee of the same premises as a pre-condition for electricity connection under Regulation 15(e) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy.2. Three Division Benches of this Court in Ramachandran v. K.S.E. Board, 2000 (2) KLT 694, K.J. Dennis v. Liquidator, 2001 (2) KLT 75 and Seena B. Kumar v. Asst. Executive Engineer, 2003 (3) KLT 987 have upheld the right of the Board, correctness of which was doubted by another Division Bench and referred the matter to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement and hence the matter was placed before us.3. Writ petitioner has purchased about 3 acres and 191/4 cents of land in Porathusseri Village in Mukundapuram Taluk in public auction conducted under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for an ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. B. Indira Devi Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Ker)6; [2006]280ITR440(Ker)
P.R. Raman, J.1. The Tribunal, Kochi Bench, has referred for the opinion of this Court, the following questions under Section 256(1) of the IT Act :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of Rule 1BB(2)(a)(ii) read with the Explanation to the said rule, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the maintainable rent should be arrived at on the basis of rent of Rs. 7,000 per month, when the actual rent received in the relevant previous year was Rs. 2,414 per month ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in valuing the property on the basis of gross maintainable rent taken at Rs. 7,000 per month in accordance with Sub-clause (i) of Rule 1BB(2)(a) ?'2. The assessment year is 1983-84. During the previous year ending on 31st March, 1983 the assessee transferred certain properties in favour of her children as per a sale deed dt. 28th March, 1983. One of the properties so transf...
Tag this Judgment!J. Daniel Vs. the State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)43; I(2006)BC273; [2006]132CompCas510(Ker); 2005CriLJ4095
ORDERK. Thankappan, J.1. This is a petition to grant leave to file an appeal against the judgment in C.C. No. 259/2004 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Nedumangad. The above case was on a complaint filed by the petitioner alleging that the 2nd respondent committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. It is stated in the complaint that the 2nd respondent issued Ext.Pl cheque in favour of the petitioner in discharge of an amount of Rs. 60.000/- alleged to have been owed by him and on presentation of the same, it was dishonoured stating 'funds insufficient'. The petitioner caused a statutory notice to the 2nd respondent demanding the amount covered by the cheque. Though the 2nd respondent received the notice, the amount was not paid. Hence the complaint was filed. The trial Court took cognizance of the offence and tried the case. Before the trial Court PWs. 1 to 4 were exami...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Ahamad Kunhi and ors. Vs. M.A. Fathima and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ781
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. Defendants 1,4 and 5 in a suit for partition, filed by the first respondent herein, are the appellants. The trial court decreed the suit granting 1/39 share to the plaintiff, which was confirmed by the appellate court. The parties are Muslims.2. The plaint schedule property along with other properties belonged to the father of the plaintiff and defendants. After the death of the father, as per Ext.A1 partition deed dated 2-12-1985, the properties which belonged to him were partitioned among the plaintiff, the defendants and their mother. The plaint schedule property was allotted to the shares of the mother and defendants 4 and 5. Thereafter, the mother died. The plaintiff claims her share in the fractional interest of the mother in the plaint schedule property.3. The first defendant contended that the mother had executed Ext.B1 Will on 25-9-1989 bequeathing her fractional right in favour of defendants 4 and 5 and after the death of the mother, the plaintiff and the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »