Kerala Court August 2005 Judgments
State of Kerala Vs. Noojum
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-23-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR782]; 2005(4)KLT542
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. State is aggrieved by the direction contained in the impugned judgment to regularise the service of the respondent-writ petitioner, a physically handicapped person, rendering the benefit in terms of Rule 9(e) of the General Rules in Part-II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules ('K.S. & S.S.R' for short). It is contended by the appellant-State that the respondent was appointed intermittently on different occasions during the period from 2.1.1989 to 25.2.1995 to meet the emergent requirement of Clerks in the examination wing of the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Thiruvananthapuram. This was not an appointment in terms of Rule 9(a)(i) of the said Rules. The benefit available to the physically handicapped persons in terms of Rule 9(e) will be available only to those appointed under Rule 9(a)(i) of the KS & SSR. The writ petitioner was appointed only on daily wages and not on monthly salary. In support of this contention, the decisions of this...
Tag this Judgment!Mymoonath Beevi Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-23-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)30; I(2006)BC489; [2006]131CompCas474(Ker); 2005(4)KLT174
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The common petitioner in all these criminal miscellaneous cases is the common 3rd accused in 8 private complaints filed before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-1, Ernakulam. The common 2nd respondent in all these Crl.M.Cs. is the common complainant in all the private complaints referred to above. The said complainant is a proprietary concern by name 'International Trade Links', Ernakulam. As per the said private complaints produced as Annexure A1 in each of these cases, the 2nd respondent herein has sought to prosecute a partnership firm by name 'M/s. Star Trading', Kochi, which is the 1st accused. One Ali and his wife, who is the petitioner herein, are the Managing Partner and Partner respectively of the said firm and they are arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. The offence alleged is one punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short).2. In each of the said private complaints, the complainant has inter ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Jayakumaran Nair Vs. Vertex Securities Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker294; 2005(3)ARBLR481(Kerala)
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the 1st Additional Sub-Court, Ernakulam in I.A, No. 47 of 2004 in O.S. No. 283 of 2003. Revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit and the respondent is the plaintiff. The suit was filed for recovery of money. The plaintiff in the plaint contended that it is a member of National Stock Exchange, Cochin Stock Exchange and the Bombay Stock Exchange and the defendant was a client of the plaintiff and in the transaction, the plaint claim is due from the defendant.2. The defendant filed a written statement. Subsequently, the Court framed Issues on 15-12-2003 and the plaintiff paid the balance Court-fee on 3-1 -2004. The suit was listed for trial on 28-10-2004. It was at this stage that I.A. No. 47 of 2004 was filed. In that application, it was stated by the petitioner to refer the dispute for arbitration to the authorities mentioned in the contract note.3. The respondent filed objections to th...
Tag this Judgment!Mary Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT39
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. This revision has come up before us upon a reference by a learned Single Judge (Sri. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.) who was of the opinion that there is an apparent conflict of views in the decisions reported in 1995 (2) KLT 873 -- State of Kerala v. Thomas & 1998 (2) KLJ 613 -- State of Kerala v. Manoharan and Ors. on the one hand and the decision reported in 2003 (3) KLT 100 = ILR 2003 (2) Ker. 480 Sivadasan v. State, on the other.2. We heard Mr. Sojan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Sujith Mathew Jose, the learned Public Prosecutor.Consideration of the Judicial Conflict3. Before going into the facts of this case we would endeavour to see whether there is any conflict in the decisions referred to above and, if so, which of the decisions lays down the correct law.4. According to the prosecution the revision petitioner, who is a lady, was found in possession of 1200 grams of ganja on 2.11.1987 and she had, therefore, committed an offence punishable unde...
Tag this Judgment!E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Sainaba
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC463; 2006ACJ1520; [2006(108)FLR184]; 2005(4)KLT334; (2006)ILLJ320Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. A conductor of the bus at the end of his day's work on 31-10-1993 fell down unconscious due to dizziness. When the driver was about to take the vehicle back to the depot after the passengers were alighted, he saw the conductor in an unconscious stage and he was immediately taken to the PVS Hospital Private Limited, Kozhikode. In the discharge summary issued from the PVS Hospital dated 2-11-1993, it is recorded as follows:'Patient was admitted with C/o. severe dizziness, weakness, abdominal discomfort, syncopal attacks - 2 episodes. On the second day of admission, patient had melaena and haematemesis. No past H/o. similar complaints.Known diabetic - 4 years on oral anti-diabetics.Not an alcoholic.'After two days, he was referred to the Medical College Hospital. From 3-11-1993 to 17-11-1993 he was under treatment in the Medical College Hospital and, finally, he succumbed to the injuries. Dependents of the above conductor filed an application for disablement benefit from ...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parameswaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-19-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC94; 2006ACJ1176; 2005(4)KLT343
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Driver of jeep bearing registration No. KL/7M-7079 died in a motor accident that occurred on 15-6-1997 when the above vehicle hit on a tree on the road side. There were eleven passengers in the jeep and the passengers were also injured. The injured passengers as well as the legal representatives of the driver filed application for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the accident arose due to the negligence of the driver. O.P.(M.V.) No. 1208 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha is the application filed by the legal representatives of the driver under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Tribunal found that since the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the vehicle, his legal representatives are not entitled to any compensation. However, the Tribunal awarded Rs. Fifty thousand towards no-fault liability under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Evi Industries
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT539; (2006)ILLJ814Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. The question involved in this case is whether incentive payments voluntarily paid by the employer at three months' interval is wages as defined under Section 2(22) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The period for which the demand was raised is 1-10-1989 to 31-3-1992. The Employees' Insurance Court held that the above payments are not wages under Section 2(22) of the Act and the demands were set aside. E.S.I. Corporation questions the same in this appeal. Wages are defined under Section 2(22) of the Act as follows:'(22)'wages' means all remuneration paid or payable in cash to an employee, if the terms of the contract of employment express or implied, were fulfilled and includes any payment to an employee in respect of any period of authorised leave, lock-out, strike which is not illegal or layoff and other additional remuneration, if any, paid at intervals not exceeding two months, but does not include--(a) any contribut...
Tag this Judgment!Saj Flight Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Supdt. of Central Excise
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Ker)591; 2006(1)KLT128; 2006[4]STR429
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The common petitioner in these three cases is engaged in supply of food and beverage to Air Companies for in flight service to passengers. Exhibit P4 under challenge in W.P.(C) No. 8238/2005 is issued by the Central Excise Department holding that petitioner is liable to get registered and pay service tax under Sections 65 & 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 with effect from 10-9-2004, which among other things provides for service tax for the service rendered by outdoor caterers.2. I heard Sri. P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri. John Varghese, Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondents.3. 'Service Tax' was introduced on outdoor caterers by Finance (No. 2) Act of 2004 with effect from 10-9-2004. Since petitioner is engaged in supply of food and beverages to Air Companies for service to passengers on board flights the Central Excise Department demanded service ta...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatraman Vs. Sub Inspector of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR179]; 2005(4)KLT365; (2006)ILLJ471Ker
M. Ramachandran, J.1. According to the petitioner, in view of the prevailing arrangements that workers on permanent basis are employed in their establishment at Puthencruz, attending to all the works available, any claims by outsiders for a right to the unloading work that may be there, is not legally tenable. The company imports and distributes various chemicals from other States of hazardous nature, and these require expert handling. The chemicals and compounds come in trucks or Tanker Lorries and the commodities are got unloaded by the regular workers in the establishment. On an average, 5 to 6 lorry loads of materials come in a month. The commodities are stored in their godown and they are in due course packed into smaller containers/units, according to the requirement of the customers. There are 9 permanent workmen on regular rolls, and this had been the pattern of work for the last about 6 to 7 years.2. However, demand had come from respondents 4 to 6, trade unions, whereby the p...
Tag this Judgment!N. Gopalakrishnan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-2005
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Ker)41; [2006]280ITR592(Ker)
Kurian Joseph, J.1. The challenge is to exhibit P6 order passed by the Commissioner. It is an order passed in an application for waiver of interest under Section 220(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is now settled law that for considering an application for waiver, the Commissioner gets jurisdiction only if all the three conditions are satisfied (see judgment in G.T.N. Textiles Ltd. v. Deputy CIT : [1996]217ITR653(Ker) ). It is seen from exhibit P6 as well as the detailed statement filed on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was not co-operating with the Department in the matter of recovery. Untenable contentions had been taken when steps for recovery were taken. The Department has also a stand that the recovery officers were even misled. Though there is yet another contention in the statement that the payment of the amount did not cause undue hardship to the petitioner, that is not reflected in exhibit P6. Therefore, it is not necessary to refer to that contention. Since...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »