Kerala Court January 2006 Judgments
Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Vs. Kerala Lok Ayukta
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT692
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. This Original Petition is filed by the Managing Director of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, challenging Ext. P8 order of the Kerala Lok Ayukta by which the Lok Ayukta held that the action of the Corporation in not allowing the 2nd respondent to continue in service as a Helper till he attains the age of 60 years amounts to mal-administration as defined under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act and directing the petitioner to reinstate the 2nd respondent forthwith.2. Before dealing with the issue involved, we must note the fact that in this Original Petition, there was an order of stay and, therefore, the order of the Lok Ayukta was not complied with. In the meantime, the 2nd respondent completed the age of 60 years and, therefore, the order is incapable of being complied with at this point of time. However, we further note that in C.M.P.No.47814 of 2001 filed by the 2nd respondent for vacating the interim order of stay, this Court had made it clear that if...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Ancy Philip
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2180; 2006(1)KLT699
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the State of Kerala and two of its officers challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.25171 of 1999. The subject matter of the Original Petition was certain timber alleged to be forest produce, which was seized by the forest officials from the custody of the respondents. The respondents filed the Original Petition seeking release of the timber and a direction to the appellants to issue pass and permit enabling them to transport the timber. The appellants resisted the Original Petition on the ground that the timber in question belonged to the Government, which was illegally cut and tried to be removed by the respondents. Since the same involved forest offences, the respondents are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for, according to the appellants. Although the learned Single Judge accepted the contentions of the appellants, he directed that the officer who has registered the case shall, after taking necessary st...
Tag this Judgment!Mathai Vs. Ebrahim Syed Mohammed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-30-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT696
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Unit Inspector of the Kothamangalam Unit of the office of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies published notice dated 12,07.2005 convening a meeting on 29.07.2005 so as to consider the motion for no confidence against the President of the Pothanikkad Farmers Co-operative Bank. Total strength of the Managing Committee fixed by the bye-law was 12. On 29.07.2005 only six members were present. The Unit Inspector took the view that the meeting could not be convened since as per Clause 27 (3) of the bye-laws of the Bank, seven elected members shall constitute the quorum for a meeting convened for the purpose of removing the President and since there was only six members present there was no quorum. Therefore no confidence motion could not be taken up for debate.2. Petitioner, a member of the Managing Committee is aggrieved by the non conduct of the meeting on 29.07.2005 and has approached this court seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents 3 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Benny Esthappan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-30-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT921
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The election to the Standing Committees of the second respondent Grama Panchayat was held on 28-10-2005, in a meeting of its members, presided over by the third respondent, its President.2. The vote cast by the petitioner, a member, in the election to the Standing Committee for Development was treated as invalid. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the said invalidation and seeking different directions.3. At the outset, it has to be noticed that though different allegations have been made, following which a counter-affidavit is on record, there is no room at all to hold that there is sufficient plea and proof of mala fides on the part of the third respondent President in treating the vote cast by the petitioner as invalid.4. The crucial legal issue on which arguments were addressed is as to whether the rejection of the vote cast by the petitioner in the election could be treated as invalid, going by the relevant statutory provisions.5. The ballot p...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhakaran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-30-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT955
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The second accused in C.C.No. 43/03 on the file of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode is the revision petitioner in both these Criminal Revision Petitions. Crl.R.P.223/06 is filed challenging an order passed by the learned Judge rejecting the prayer of the accused in the above said case to discharge them under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Crl.R.P.226/06 is filed challenging an order passed by the Special Judge dismissing Crl.M.P.No. 71/05 filed by the Additional Legal Advisor under Section 321 of Cr.P.C., seeking consent to withdraw from the prosecution as against the petitioner.2. C.C.No. 43/03 arises from Crime No. VC 2/97/KNR registered under Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Kannur Unit.3. The petitioner is a member of Indian Administrative Service which is govern...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanan Vs. Joshwa
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-30-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT301
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The third respondent in the Writ Petition is the appellant in first of these two appeals. The other is by the State of Kerala.2. Ext. P7 order dated 26.2.2003 was passed, by the Government, stated to be pursuant to the direction contained in the judgment in W.A. No. 4031/01, exonerating the appellant from all the charges found against him and vacating the penalty imposed on him by the disciplinary authority. The writ petitioners challenged that order, in the Writ Petition. The challenge was upheld finding that the direction contained in Ext. P6 judgment in W.A. No. 4031/01 did not enable the Government to pass an order like Ext. P7 exonerating the appellant from the charges. On the other hand, the Government could, in the light of the directions contained in paragraph 3 of the said judgment, have only chosen between two of the alternatives made mention of therein. The learned single Judge found that Ext. P7 was passed beyond the powers of the Government, and not...
Tag this Judgment!John George Vettath Alias Mohan Vettath Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-30-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Ker)483
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The premises of the petitioner was raided by the IT authorities. Thereupon, a statement by Sri John Paulose Vettath, who is stated to be the uncle of the petitioner, was recorded. The return was also filed by the petitioner. The assessment was completed under Section 158BC of the IT Act for the block period 1st April, 1995 to 4th Oct., 2001, such proceedings completed on 31st Oct., 2003. By the impugned Ext. P3, the CIT, invoking Section 263 of the Act, set aside the said assessment order with direction to the AO to examine the factual position with regard to the credibility and genuineness of the source of funds through the alleged gift. The assessing authority was thereby directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.2. The petitioner contends that the assessment order, which was finalised on 31st Oct., 2003 was appealed against by him and that the said assessment order had merged in the appellate order and that there is no ground to dou...
Tag this Judgment!Msp Family JaIn Trust Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-2006
Reported in: [2007]289ITR112(Ker); 2006(2)KLT998
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner is challenging Exts. P1 and P2 notices proposing to revise AIT assessments for the years 1991-92 to 1993-94 under Section 41 of the AIT Act 1991 on the ground that the same is arbitrary and without jurisdiction. I have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader.2. Petitioner claimed to be a charitable trust and was granted registration as such under Section 16 of the AIT Act. Even though agricultural holding of the petitioner, namely, coffee plantation, was above 20 hectares, the limit provided for payment of tax at compounded rate, the petitioner was granted the benefit of payment of tax at compounding by virtue of Section 13(7) of the Act, which grants eligibility to charitable trust for payment of tax at compounded rate above 20 hectares. Assessments were originally completed for the years 1991-92 to 1993-94 under Section 13 of the Act accepting the position that petitioner as a charitable trust, was eligible for payment...
Tag this Judgment!Kunhammad Vs. Mammooty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker204; 2006(1)KLT758
ORDERK. Thankappan, J.1. Defendant in O.S.No.49/98 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Nadapuram is the revision petitioner. Respondents/plaintiffs filed the above suit for prohibitory injunction restraining the revision petitioner from constructing a building in violation of the Kerala Building Rules and the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. In the suit the respondents/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.634/98 for interim injunction under O. XXXIX Rule 1 restraining the revision petitioner from constructing the building in violation of rules till the disposal of the suit. Since the revision petitioner refused to receive the order, an Advocate Commission was appointed. Commission filed his report showing that the interim order passed by the court below had been violated by the revision petitioner. Consequently, respondents filed LA. No. 1922/2001 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC. In the above application the court below found that the revision petitioner had violated the order of injunction passed by...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandran Pillai Vs. Kerala Water Authority
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT784
K.P. Balachandran, J.1. This is appeal filed by the plaintiff in O.S.135 of 1995 on the file of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha challenging that part of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court whereby it was directed that a copy of the decree be forwarded to the District Collector for realisation of court fee.2. The suit O.S.135 of 1995 was one instituted by the appellant-plaintiff as an indigent person obtaining permission of court. The defendant entered appearance in the suit and it is submitted that the defendants filed written statement also. Thereafter the suit was dismissed as not pressed and later it was again restored on an application vide I.A.374 of 1998. Thereafter the suit was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh suit vide order on I.A.375 of 1998. It was while withdrawing the suit with such leave that the trial court directed that a copy of the decree be forwarded the District Collector for realisation of court fee.3. Rule 11 of Order XXXIII C.P.C. stipulates the pro...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »