Kerala Court July 2005 Judgments
Ravindran Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT707
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. In this original petition, the petitioner is challenging Exts. P4 and P11 orders of the respondents by which the petitioner's claim for disability pension was rejected on the ground that the injury sustained by him consequent to which he was invalided out of military service was not attributable to military service. The issue to be decided in this original petition is as to whether the accident in which the petitioner sustained injury is attributable to military service. The brief facts necessary for deciding this issue are as under.2. The petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 10-1-1980. While he was serving in one of the units of the Army in a forward area, on 13-3-1986, while travelling on out pass with permission from his superior authority for attending to some personal affairs in the University nearby, he was hit by a truck in which accident, he sustained serious injuries. He sustained permanent disability which was assessed at 40% by the Medical Board. Later,...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Sherin
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4696
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The State/complainant In Sessions Case 80/ 1996 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kollam is the appellant in this appeal. The respondent was charge sheeted in Crime No. 313/1995 of Kottiyam Police Station alleging that he committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case was that at about 8.20 a.m. on 21-11-1995 the respondent committed the murder of one Remanan with the intention and knowledge that his act was likely to cause the death of Remanan. It was alleged that the respondent stabbed Remanan with a knife on the left side of his back and when Remanan turned round, the respondent again stabbed him on the right side of his chest. The victim succumbed to the injuries.3. PW-2 (H. Rajan) gave Ext. PI F. I. statement before PW-8, (S. S. Firoz) the Sub-Inspector of Police who recorded the same and registered Ex.Pl(a) First Information Report. The subsequent investigation was conducted by PW-9, (K. A. John) the Circl...
Tag this Judgment!Transporting and General Worker Union and ors. Vs. La Yard Food Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR686]; (2006)ILLJ1152Ker
ORDERThottatathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By the Award impugned in this writ petition by the management, the Industrial Tribunal found that the retrenchment of the affected workers was in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the 'Act' for short) and therefore, they would be deemed to be in service till they are validly retrenched.2. The issue that has been urged in opposition to this application under Section 17-B of the Act is as to whether the said award is one for reinstatement.3. The term 'reinstatement' is not defined in the Act. Reinstatement is the resultant situation arising out of the intervention, by the statutory authorities or Courts, with the removal or denial of employment to a workman. This is how the concept of reinstatement is understood in labour jurisprudence. So much so, while it found that the mandatory provision, Section 25-F, was not complied with, but circumvented by the management, the Tribunal had directed that the workmen will be dee...
Tag this Judgment!Sajeesh Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR707]; 2005(3)KLT812
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the orders of the respondents by which his claim for disability pension was rejected. Petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 1.3.1994. After undergoing training for a few months, he developed pain in joints and had fever. He reported to the medical wing and was referred to the Command Hospital Air Force (CHAF Bangalore). His disease was diagnosed as 'Seropositive Rheumatoid Polyarthritis old V-67.' Thereafter, he was invalided out of service on account of his disability caused by the said disease. Later, he applied for disability pension, which was rejected by Ext.P1 order. His appeal against Ext.P1 order was also rejected by Ext.P2. His further appeal Ext.P3 was also rejected by Ext.P4. All these orders proceed on the basis that the disease of the petitioner was a constitutional disease, which cannot be said to be attributable to military service or aggravated by military service. These orders are under challe...
Tag this Judgment!Safiya Vs. Mammu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-2005
Reported in: I(2006)DMC336; 2005(4)KLT223
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. A hypertechnical approach made by the trial court has resulted in the delay in disposal of the suit of 2001 till 2005. The suit was filed by the respondent, who is the husband of the appellant, for a mandatory injunction directing the appellant/defendant to vacate the plaint schedule house. The respondent contended that the appellant was married by him, but he pronounced 'talak'. Therefore, according to him, the appellant has no right to continue her residence in the plaint schedule house and that she is liable to vacate the house. The appellant/defendant disputed the 'talak' and contended that she is the wife of the respondent/plaintiff and, therefore, she has every right to reside in the plaint schedule house. The appellant also raised other contentions, which are not relevant at present.2. Before the trial court, the case was posted for the evidence of the appellant/ defendant on 20.1.2003. It would appear that the practice being followed by that court is that th...
Tag this Judgment!Ooppottil Kurian and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-2005
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Ker)42
P.R. Raman, J.1. Petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act and is an assessee for the purpose of income-tax.2. The dispute relates to the asst. yr. 1985-86. Petitioner owns a building which was let out to a firm as partnership since 1981 which in turn has sublet the building to various other parties. Admittedly, there is a variation in the rent received by the firm from its tenants (sub-lessees) and the rent received by the petitioner from the firm, in that petitioner (sic-firm) was receiving a higher rent than what was paid by them to the landlord. The return filed by the petitioner includes the rental income received from the firm. The AO took the view that the partners of the firm are none other than the shareholders of the private limited company and the transaction between the petitioner and the firm was found to be a sham one. Thus, the entire amount received by the firm as rent was assessed in the hands of the petitioner-assessee and hence there ...
Tag this Judgment!Ooppottil Kurian and Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Ito, A- Ward, Kottayam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-2005
Reported in: [2006]152TAXMAN445(Ker)
1. Petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act and is an assessee for the purpose of income-tax.2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1985-86. Petitioner owns a building which was let out to a firm as partnership since 1981 which in turn has sublet the building to various other parties. Admittedly, there is a variation in the rent received by the firm from its tenants (sub-lessees) and the rent received by the petitioner from the firm, in that petitioner was receiving a higher rent than what was paid by them to the landlord. The return filed by the petitioner includes the rental income received from the firm. The assessing officer took the view that the partners of the firm are none other than the shareholders of the private limited company and the transaction between the petitioner and the firm was found to be a sham one. Thus, the entire amount received by the firm as rent was assessed in the hands of the petitioner-assessee and, hence, there wa...
Tag this Judgment!St. Ignatius High School Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT1000
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. An aided school manager is the appellant in both these writ appeals. He is the Manager of St. Ignatius High School, Kanjiramattom. The 6th respondent filed Ext.R6(a) application before the appellant for appointment as a teacher in the school managed by him on compassionate ground invoking Rule 51B Chapter XIV-A KER, which reads as follows:'The Manager shall give employment to a dependent of an aided school teacher dying in harness. Government orders relating to employment assistance to the dependents of Government servants dying in harness shall mutatis mutandis, apply in the matter of such appointments'.This application was made on 25.7.1990 consequent on death of her mother, A.L. Rosy on 21.4.1990 who was a teacher in the school managed by the appellant. The appellant manager did not consider this request. Finally, the 6th respondent took up the matter before the District Educational Officer who considered her claim with due advertence to the objections of the...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammed Ismayil Vs. Malabar Engineering Company
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker295; II(2006)BC16; 2005(3)KLT695
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 75 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Manjeri, against the preliminary finding that that Court has no jurisdiction to try and dispose of the suit.2. The suit is for damages. It is not in dispute that but for the special clause in the agreement (the scope of which is under consideration in this appeal) between the parties both the Manjeri and Calicut Sub Courts have jurisdiction to try the suit. The dispute arose out of the alleged violation of an agreement for the supply of machinery, erection and commissioning of an ice plant. Clause 17 of the agreement also provided as follows.'17. It is hereby agreed that all matters relating to this contract shall be subject to Calicut jurisdiction.'3. The question to be considered is whether by this clause the jurisdiction of the Manjeri Subordinate Judge's Court which otherwise has got jurisdiction can be excluded.4. The judicial precedents are uniform that wh...
Tag this Judgment!Punnayurkulam Grama Panchayat Vs. C.i. of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT727
M. Ramachandran, J.1. A Grama Panchayat is the petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 14928 of 2005. According to them, the third respondent--Musthafa Kamal, acting in defiance, was going on with construction activities in the land appurtenant to G.M.L.P. School, Punnayurkulam, which was in the management of the Grama Panchayat. Under Section 235 X of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the police had a duty to come and help them for enforcing their orders. It is submitted that on 10-05-2005 the Headmistress of the school had addressed the Secretary of the Panchayat about the issue, as could be seen from Ext.P1. Immediately thereon, by Ext.P2, the third respondent had been issued with a stop memo by the Panchayat and they had simultaneously addressed the Sub Inspector of Police, Vadakkekad. Reference is also made to the letter received from the Assistant Educational Officer, Chavakkad requiring the Panchayat to take immediate steps for stoppage of the unauthorised building activities in the school compou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »