Kerala Court August 2005 Judgments
Moosakoya Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-31-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ121; 2005(4)KLT331
ORDERA.K. Basheer, J.1. The petitioners are stated to be owners of goods vehicles which were admittedly seized by the Police for the alleged violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act 2001 and the Rules thereunder. The allegation against the petitioners appears to be that they had transported sand in violation of the provisions contained under the Act. However, the petitioners have raised a definite contention that the transportation was on the strength of passes issued by the local statutory authority.2. It is not in dispute that the vehicles are now lying in the custody of the Police, though report under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The petitioners had filed application before the learned Magistrate for interim custody of their vehicles under Section 457 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate rejected the plea through a common order which is imp...
Tag this Judgment!Malappuram District Parallel College Association and ors. Vs. Union of ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-31-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Ker)453; 2006[2]STR321
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioners in this batch of writ petitions which are either associations of parallel colleges or persons owning and running individual parallel colleges in Kerala, are questioning the constitutional validity of levy of service tax treating parallel college as 'commercial training or coaching centre 'within the meaning of Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994, hereinafter called the 'Act'. Individual notices issued to parallel colleges by the Central Excise Department demanding registration under Section 69 of the Act and payment of service-tax under Section 66 read with Section 65(105)(zzc) of the Act are also under challenge on the ground that the same are unauthorised, discriminatory, and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. I have heard Sri M.K. Damodaran, senior counsel and other counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Sri John Varghese, Addl. Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondents. There is no need to go ...
Tag this Judgment!St. Antony's Educational and Charitable Society Vs. Union of India (UO ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-31-2005
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Ker)229; 2006[1]STR137
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Petitioner, a charitable society is running parallel college for coaching private students for writing various University examinations as well as computer courses for training students for 'A' level and 'O' level examinations conducted by the DOEACC society an organisation under the control of the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Government of India. The challenge is against the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 authorising levy of service tax on the services rendered by 'commercial training and coaching centres.' Ext. P3 notice issued by the third respondent demanding registration and service tax is also under challenge. In the first place, being a parallel college petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the judgment in W.P.C. No. 728 of 2004 and connected cases disposed of today holding that no service tax can be demanded from parallel colleges as the demand is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Yemkay Ice Plant Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-31-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT690
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioners who are ice plant owners are questioning the constitutional validity of Section 4(5B) of the Keraia Fishermen's Welfare Fund Act 1985, hereinafter called 'the Act' which requires owners of ice plants supplying ice mainly for processing of fish to remit contribution to the Kerala Fishermen's Welfare Fund, at such rates as could be fixed by the Government from time to time on the recommendation of the Welfare Fund Board. The rate of contribution is prescribed by the Government vide G.O.(P) NO. 20/99/F&PD; dated 2-7-1999.2. I heard counsel appearing for petitioners counsel appearing for KeralaFishermen's Welfare Fund Board, and the Government Pleader.3. The provision of the Statute under Challenge ie. Section 4(5B) is extracted herein-below for easy reference:4(5B). The owners offish markets or lessees or licensees of any person claiming, any right or interest, through such owners or the owners of the ice plants supplying ice, mainly for the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Amlappuram District Parallel College Association and ors. Vs. Union of ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-31-2005
Reported in: (2006)199CTR(Ker)453
C.N. Ramachandrannair, J. : Petitioners in this batch of writ petitions which are either associations of parallel colleges or persons owning and running individual parallel colleges in Kerala, are questioning the constitutional validity of levy of service-tax treating parallel college as 'commercial training or coaching centre' within the meaning of section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994, hereinafter called the 'Act'. Individual notices issued to parallel colleges by the Central Excise department demanding registration under section 69 of the Act and payment of service-tax under section 66 read with section 66(105)(zzc) of the Act are also under challenge on the ground that the same are unauthorised, discriminatory, and hence, violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. I have heard Sri M.K. Damodaran, senior counsel and other counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Sri John Varghese, Addl. Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondents. There is no need to go int...
Tag this Judgment!Jose Vs. District Collector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT520
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. This case has come up before us, because, the Registry noted a defect that sufficient court fee has not been paid on this appeal and the counsel appearing for the appellant replied that no ad velorem court fee need be paid on this appeal. It is on that point, the matter is posted before us.2. It is submitted that a claim statement has been filed before the Collector, which, in terms of Rule 378(3) of the Civil Rules of Practice, shall have to be taken as a plaint. In terms of Section 72(xviii) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, an application for compensation is not chargeable to any court fee. When the reference application which is treated as plaint is thus not chargeable to court fee, necessarily, an appeal from the judgment answering the reference shall also not be chargeable to court fee, it is contended. Hence, it is submitted that a reading of Sections 51 and 52 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act also makes it clear that no court fee i...
Tag this Judgment!Lalitha Sasi Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT957
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioners in this batch cases were running toddy shops as licensees and were liable to pay toddy workers welfare fund contribution payable under the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969, hereinafter called the 'Act'. The challenge in the WPs. is against the validity of Section 9 of the Act, introduced by Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund (Amendment) Act, 1996 with effect from 26.3.1996, wherein the rate of interest for belated payment of toddy workers welfare fund is made at par with interest payable under the Abkari Act. The rate of interest payable until the amendment in 1996 was nine per cent per annum. The effect of the amendment is increase of interest for belated payment from nine per cent to 18 per cent per annum which is the rate provided under Rule 7(30) of the Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002. I heard all counsel appearing for the petitioners, and various standing counsel appearing for the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board representing different...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnankutty Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT448
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Common questions arise for consideration in all these cases. Learned single Judge vide order dated 8th August 2005 referred these cases to the Division Bench to examine the question whether appointment to the post of Mazdoor would fall within the purview of the Kerala Public Service Commission in view of the Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional Functions as Respects Certain Corporations and Companies) Act, 1970 (Act 9 of 1970) read with the Kerala Public Service Commission (Consultation by Corporations and Companies) Rules, 1971.2. Learned Judge on the same day also disposed of OP. 5311 of 2003 quashing the award dated 4-10-2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad and directed the Industrial Tribunal to consider the claim of regularisation of the service of CLPW (Casual Labour Pool Workers) who had worked for not less than 200 days prior to 1.11.2000 afresh. Industrial Tribunal was directed to dispose of the matter within a period of three month...
Tag this Judgment!CochIn Shipyard Ltd. Vs. Iqbal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-24-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR720]; 2005(4)KLT1020; (2006)IILLJ1095Ker
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Employer of the respondent-workman is the appellant. Respondent workman contended that going by Ext. P-2 certified Standing Orders as applicable to the employees of the appellant, he was entitled to continue in service until he attained the age of 60 years. On the other hand, he was sent out on attaining the age of 58 years, relying on Ext. P-1 settlement. It was in the above circumstances, the respondent approached this Court with the writ petition seeking a declaration that, going by Clause 34 of Ext. P-2 certified Standing Order, which prevails over Ext. P-l settlement, he is entitled to continue in service, until he attains the age of 60 years. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment, found that while 1978 settlement was in force, Ext. P-2 Standing Order was certified on 19-1-1980 and it did provide for the age of retirement as 60 years. When the settlement was followed by Ext. P-2 Standing Orders, he was entitled for a declaration for continuance...
Tag this Judgment!Corporate Manager, Catholic Diocese of Muvattupuzha Vs. Geno George
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT511
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Impugning the transfer of a teacher, the first respondent in W.A.No. 1646/05, the Parent Teachers' Association as well as the teacher filed Writ Petitions before this court. Those Writ Petitions were disposed of by a common judgment. That common judgment is impugned in these two Writ Appeals by the manager, who effected the transfer. The manager is aggrieved because of the directions contained in the judgment to continue the interim order already passed, at the time of admission of W.P.(C) No. 16761/2005, until the directions in the judgment are complied with.2. It is contended by the appellant manager that the teacher, who had been continued in a particular school for more than a decade was transferred to another school in the nearby district under the same management. In such circumstances, it could not have been stayed and such stay could not have been directed to be continued. It is further submitted that the parties agreed before the learned single Judge fo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »