Kerala Court July 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.
Rajendran Vs. University of Calicut
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT32
M. Ramachandran, J.1. The three Writ Petitions could be disposed of by a common judgment, as the issue raised is common. W.P.(C) No. 36201 of 2004 is filed by two individuals, who are respectively the Principal of a self-financing College affiliated to the University of Calicut and a Lecturer, also belonging to another affiliated College to the Calicut University. Additional respondents had got themselves impleaded to the proceedings, who had opposed the claim that had been urged by the petitioners.2. W.P.(c) No. 11670 of 2005 is filed a few persons who are working as Lecturers of an unaided affiliated college. They have urged claims almost similar to those that had been raised in W.P.(C) No. 36201 of 2004. W.P.(C) NO. 11697 of 2005 is filed at the instance of two persons, who are working as Lecturers of an aided affiliated College, who are aggrieved about certain interlocutory orders passed in W.P.(C) No. 36201 of 2004 and points out that the objections raised by them nevertheless are...
Thangamani Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-2005
Reported in: II(2006)DMC222; 2006(1)KLT110
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. Does a son require any written authorisation from his mother to prosecute his father and second wife for bigamy under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short)? Is it necessary that a complaint filed by the son should reflect that the complaint is filed 'on behalf of the mother? These are the main questions which arise for consideration in this case.2. The second respondent herein filed a private complaint before the Magistrate's court against the father and his second wife. The offence alleged is under Sections 494 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short). As per allegations in the complaint, complainant's father who is arrayed as first accused married his mother in accordance with the religious rites and two children were also born in the wed-lock. But, while the marriage was subsisting, his father married the petitioner herein. The complainant came to know about the second marriage only when divorce proceedings were initiated by his father against the ...
Steel Industrials Kerala Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT81
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the constitutional validity of Section 76 of the Kerala Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (Kerala Act X of 1960), hereinafter 'the CF Act', for short, and the notification issued by the Government of Kerala as per S.R.O.No. 226/2002 published in the Kerala Gazette Extra-ordinary No. 420 dated 5-4-2002, by which, the Government authorized levy of additional court-fee in exercise of power under Sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the CF Act. After the issuance of the aforesaid Notification, the Chairman of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal issued a Circular, which is also under challenge.2. The petitioners are assessees under the Commercial Tax Laws, to wit, the Central Sales Tax Act, the Kerala General Sales Tax Act or the Value Added Tax Act. As against assessment orders and allied matters, they have statutory remedies by way of appeal to the Appellate Authorities or the Tribunals, as the case may be, as ar...
ismail Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker307; 2005(3)KLT1052; [2006]144STC476(Ker)
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the constitutional validity of Section 76 of the Kerala Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. 1959 (Kerala Act X of 1960), hereinafter 'the CF Act', for short, and the notification issued by the Government of Kerala as per S.R.O. No. 226/2002 published in the Kerala Gazette Extra-ordinary No. 420 dated 5-4-2002, by which, the Government authorized levy of additional court-fee in exercise of power under Sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the CF Act. After the issuance of the aforesaid Notification, the Chairman of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal issued a Circular, which is also under challenge.2. The petitioners are assessees under the Commercial Tax Laws, to wit, the Central Sales Tax Act, the Kerala General Sales Tax Act or the Value Added Tax Act. As against assessment orders and allied matters, they have statutory remedies by way of appeal to the Appellate Authorities or the Tribunals, as the case may be, as a...
Federation of Central Government Sc/St Employees Vs. Kochi Refineries ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT9
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Recruitment of Management Trainees through the process of campus recruitment from reputed institutions, if resorted to by the public sector undertakings, would violate Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution, is the interesting question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. Government of India issued Office Memorandum dated 29.5.2000 permitting public sector enterprises in the country to recruit personnel through campus recruitment from reputed institutions like IITs, IIMs, RECs, etc. Considering the fact that the nature of functions and operations of public sector enterprises are different, Government of India noticed that manpower requirement is also dissimilar and largely of a heterogeneous nature and it may not be necessary to restrict selection process to a particular method. Public sector enterprises, it was pointed out, should have detailed recruitment rules for recruitment of Management Trainees by open competition and Government of India...
Krishnadas Vs. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT908
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. These Writ Petitions relate to the selection and appointment to the post of Section Officers in the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit (hereinafter referred to as 'the University'). In O.P.No. 8571/2000, filed immediately after publication of the Notification inviting applications for the post, the petitioner challenges the notification itself as ultra vires the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Act and the Statutes made thereunder. In O.P.No. 18462/2000, the petitioners challenge the notification inviting applications as well as the selection and appointment made pursuant to the same after participating in the selection process. In W.P.(C) Nos. 25777, 26486, 28932 and 28933 of 2003, the petitioners challenge the select list and in O.P.No. 12352/2002, two of the selected candidates challenge the inter se seniority allotted to the selected candidates.2. By a notification dated 4.12.1999 (Ext.P1 in O.P.No. 8571/2000), the University invited applications...
Joseph George Vs. Joint Registrar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker305; II(2006)BC127; [2005]128CompCas118(Ker); 2005(3)KLT692; [2006]65SCL239(Ker)
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The petitioner seeks review of an interim order passed by me during vacation sitting. The Writ Petition seeks to quash the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent-Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Securitisation Act') for taking over the residential property of the petitioner. The interim relief sought for was stay of all proceedings under the Securitisation Act in so far as they pertain to the petitioner's property. Under the order sought to be reviewed, the interim relief was granted imposing a condition that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- which was obviously less than 25% of the total debt should be deposited.2. I have heard the submissions of Sri. Georgekutty Mathew, learned counsel for the petitioner and those of Sri. V.K. Mohanan, learned counsel for the contesting 2nd respondent, the Bank.3. Sri. Georgekutty Mathew raised tw...
P.T. Antony and Sons Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-2005
Reported in: [2005]279ITR363(Ker); 2005(4)KLT831
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The business premises of the petitioner, a firm, a dealer in gold ornaments and an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, hereinafter, the 'KGST Act', for short, and the residence of its managing partner, were searched on November 20, 1990, by the competent authorities under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for short, the 'IT Act', resulting in the seizure of certain documents, including two slips showing unaccounted sales. On the basis of the said slips, the Assessing Officer under the Income-tax Act inferred an average daily unaccounted sale at Rs. 1,50,000 and worked out the unaccounted sales for the year ending March 31, 1991, at Rs. 4.50 crores, since the showroom worked for 300 days. The profit on the turnover was worked out and the assessment under the Income-tax Act for the year 1991-92 was made under Section 143(3) of the said Act by making an addition of Rs. 38,74,500, on account of unaccounted sales.2. The petition...
Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. Vs. Saritha Furniture Mart and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-2005
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR116(NULL)]
ORDERJ.M. James, J.1. The short question that is raised for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is, whether the execution Court, which originally fixed an upset price or reserve price, for the property proposed to be sold, could reduce the same on the ground that, there are no bidders to purchase the property for the price so fixed.2. Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited, Mundur Branch, is the revision petitioner, and the decree holder in E.P. No. 226/2003 on the file of the Sub-Court, Thrissur. It brought to sale, I acre 23 cents of property at Vellattanjur village. Thalappilly Taluk of Thrissur District. The reserve price fixed was Rs. 5 lakhs. When the property was put on sale, there were no bidders. Therefore, the sale was adjourned. The revision petitioner, decree holder, filed an execution application, praying to reduce the upset price fixed, from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 3.5 lakhs. But through the impugned order, the Court below, dismissed the prayer. Hence, this revision petition.3. I...
Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. Vs. Saritha Furniture Mart
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Ker75; III(2006)BC330; 2006(1)KLT86
ORDERJ.M. James, J.1. The short question that is raised for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is, whether the execution court, which originally fixed an upset price or reserve price, for the property proposed to be sold, could reduce the same on the ground that, there are no bidders to purchase the property for the price so fixed.2. Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited, Mundur Branch, is the revision petitioner, and the decree holder in E.P.No. 226/2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur. It brought to sale, 1 acre 23 cents of property at Vellattanjur village, Thalappilly Taluk of Thrissur District. The reserve price fixed was Rs. 5 lakhs. When the property was put on sale, there were no bidders. Therefore, the sale was adjourned. The revision petitioner, decree holder, filed an execution application, praying to reduce the upset price fixed, from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 3.5 lakhs. But through the impugned Order, the court below, dismissed the prayer. Hence, this revision petition.3. I ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »