Kerala Court August 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.
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Radhamony
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT27
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The issue raised in this appeal is regarding the date of eligibility for granting pension under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme.2. Writ Petitioner is an unmarried daughter of a freedom fighter, who was the grantee of the Kerala Freedom Fighters Pension as well as the Central Freedom Fighters Pension. She submitted an application on 15.4.1998 to the Union of India for family pension as a dependent of the freedom fighter after the death of her father. That application was allowed by Ext.P4 order granting family pension from 3.12.2003. The writ petitioner approached this Court and sought for a declaration that she is entitled to get arrears of pension with effect from 20.1.1998, the date of recognition of Punnapra-Vayalar Movement or atleast with effect from 15.4.1998, the date of Ext.P1 application for grant of SSS Pension. Petitioner has also sought a direction to the respondent to grant the arrears of dependent family pension for the period from 20.1...
State of Kerala Vs. Kunju
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT611
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Power of the court to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in public interest to avoid denial of substantial justice is one of the issues considered in this judgment. For deciding that issue, interpretation of the words 'sufficient cause' appearing in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, on the facts of each case assumes importance. Common order dismissing I.A.No. 1879 of 1997 to set aside the award passed in O.P. (Arb.) No. 19 of 1996 and I.A.No. 453 of 2005 to condone the delay in filing the above application are challenged in these proceedings. An award passed by the sole arbitrator was forwarded to the Court by letter dated 8-2-1996 and on getting notice, appellant-State appeared on 30-5-1996. Time was allowed for filing objection. Within the time allowed for filing the objection, State filed I.A.No. 1879 of 1997 on 29-3-1997 for setting aside the award. There was delay of 315 days in filing the petition for setting aside the award. When objections w...
Rajan Vs. Little House Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT595
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. The petitioner is the second accused in a prosecution initiated against him and the second respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 465 46H, 469 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC. The first respondent is the de facto complainant (Sic) in that case. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police against both the petitioner herein/second accused and the first accused/second respondent herein.2. The acrimony between the parties has a long history. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against three accused persons. The first accused is the Company, the first respondent herein. The second accused is the Managing Director who represents the first respondent Company and the third accused is the second respondent herein. It was alleged that a cheque for Rs. 10 lakhs issued by the first respondent company and duly signed by its Managing Director (the second respondent he...
Aravindaksha Kurup Vs. Reghunathan Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT571
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. An order passed by the Labour Court, on an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the ID Act', is under challenge,2. The petitioner is the establishment, involved in processing and exporting of sea foods, registered under the Factories and Boilers Act, 1947. The activity of the petitioner includes procurement of raw fish from different sources, processing and preserving them for the purpose of export in accordance with orders. In the course of such activity, it utilises insulated vehicles for transporting the processed articles. It owns vehicles for such purpose. Respondents 1 to 4 were employed with the petitioner as drivers of such vehicles. They have, later on, left the services and are employed elsewhere.3. According to the petitioner, the nature of its activity depends upon the international market and the insulated vehicles may not be put to use at all times and it would depend upon the...
Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeepkumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT584; (2006)ILLJ544Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee in view of Section 93A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment'), covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11-12-1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext.B2 dated 21-12-1987, Ext.B4 dated 20-5-1988 and Ext.B20 dated 2-6-1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed after notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and damages were deman...
Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Pradeep Kumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR1209]
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Whether damages imposed under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') on the transferer employer can be recovered from the transferee employer in view of Section 93-A, is the issue to be decided in this case. M/s. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the establishment') covered under the Act was purchased by M/s. K.K. Patodia and Associates with effect from 11.12.1989. Before the purchase there were delayed payment of contribution. By orders Ext B-2 dated 21.12.1987, Ext. B-4 dated' 20.5.1988 and Ext. B-20 dated 2.6.1989, the E.S.I. Corporation issued damages under Section 85-B of the Act for the period 4/87 to 11/88 as there was delay in payment of contribution. The above orders were passed alter notice and complying with all formalities. The above damages were imposed apart from statutory interest payable for delay in payment of contribution. When arrears of contribution with interest and d...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K. Ravindranathan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Ker)283
P.R. Raman, J.1. This reference is at the instance of the Revenue. The Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following questions of law :(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the valuation of closing stock of tins cannot be added to the income of the assessee on account of the assessee having debited an amount of Rs. 7,84,500 being duty drawback received on tin sheets while valuing the closing stock of tins ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, since excise drawback is received by the assessee only after the tins are exported, can such receipt be deducted to arrive at the cost of production of tins ?2. The relevant facts pertaining to the above questions are stated in the order of reference of the Tribunal. For the asst. yr. 1985-86 the AO made an addition of Rs. 2,14,425 towards the value of closing stock of tins used for packing of cashew nut for export. The assessee had pai...
Choisons Vs. E.S.i. Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR589]; 2005(3)KLT1038
J.B. Koshy, J.1. The appellant is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act which is represented by its Managing Partner. The firm, apart from other undertakings, owns a petroleum dispensing unit, situated at premises No. 4/137, Cannanore Road, Calicut. The above unit is engaged in dispensing diesel, petrol and motor lubricants. Apart from the above undertaking, the appellant has an office at Oyitty Road, Calicut and a tyre sales business at Court Road, Calicut. There are six employees in the petrol pump. Bills are issued for sale of petrol from the petitioner's pump itself. However, in the office which is situated one and a half kilometre away in another road, there is an office of the firm. In the office, three persons are employed in the final accounts of the firm, accounts of the petrol pump, tyre sales business etc. are reflected. On 7-1-1992, Inspector of the E.S.I. Corporation visited the petrol pump and thereafter notice was issued stating that seven persons were emplo...
indira Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Ker1; [2006(2)JCR276]; 2005(4)KLT119
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether children born out of inter-caste married couple could claim the status of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe for the benefit of reservation in admission to educational institutions and in public employment on the mere fact that one of their parents belongs to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe is the question that is posed for our consideration.2. We find that what has caused anxiety and even panic is the reluctance to accept the reality and the possible ramifications which such an adjudication might bring in the community texture. Identification of scheduled tribes and scheduled castes in a State or Union Territory is a presidential prerogative as gatherable from Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India. Nobody other than a person who is member of a caste/tribe can claim to be a scheduled caste or tribe. Therefore claim of a person born of intercaste marriage that he is a member of one or the other caste requires an adjudication. If he is found as a...
Common Wealth Trust (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Ker)45; [2006]280ITR70(Ker)
Kurian Joseph, J.1. The issues raised in this writ petition pertains to the request made by the petitioner for waiver of interest under Section 220(2A) of the IT Act, 1961. The asst. yr. is 1988-89. Ext. P1 is the assessment order. After adjustments the net liability towards interest is Rs. 1,27,772. Petitioner filed Ext. P7 application under Section 220(2A) for waiver of interest. The same was rejected as per Ext. P8. The said order passed by the CIT is under challenge in the writ petition.2. Sri Balachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the CIT has not properly applied the law governing Section 220(2A) to the fact situation. According to the learned senior counsel, irrelevant factors have been taken into consideration while leaving out the relevant. Sri Raveendranatha Menon, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue, submits that Ext. P8 order is passed after taking into consideration all the relevant factors and that the CIT has exercised...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »