Kerala Court February 2006 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.
Joseph Vs. Marium Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT894
R. Bhaskaran, J. 1. This appeal is filed by a third party claimant in E.P.2/2003 in O.S.226/1993 on the file of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. The first respondent in the appeal obtained a decree for maintenance against the second respondent and the decree made it clear that the claim for maintenance will be a charge on the plaint schedule property. The suit was filed as early as on 8-12-1993 before the Munsiff Court, Ettumanoor claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month. The suit was decreed on 20-12-1995 at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from 1-1-1994 charging the plaint schedule property for the claim for maintenance. On the date of filing of the suit itself there was a petition for attachment before judgment and a conditional attachment was ordered. In the decree passed on 20-12-1995 the Munsiff Court granted a charge for the plaint claim over the plaint schedule property. On 29-2-1996 the second respondent sold the property in favour of the appellant showi...
Binu Chacho Vs. R.T.A.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker177; [2006(3)JCR313]; 2006(2)KLT172
K.K. Denesan, J.1. Two Writ Petitions raising a common question have been referred to the Full Bench for decision. A learned Judge of this Court (Thottathil Radhakrishnan, J.) while consideringW.P. (C) 4828/05 felt the need for the resolution of the apparent conflict between two Bench decisions on the point. Accordingly, the matter came up before the Division Bench. Learned Judges of the Division Bench ordered the cases to be referred for determination by the Full Bench. Reference order passed by the learned single Judge brings to focus the point for consideration succinctly and the same may be usefully extracted below:The petitioner challenges Ext. PI by which regular permit has been granted to the 2nd respondent subject to settlement of timings. An order granting permit is a revisable order under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, even for that, the petitioner has to succeed a test as to his standing, thereby his entitlement to challenge the grant of permit in favou...
Binu Chacko Vs. Regional Transport Authority and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC279
K.K. Denesan, J.1. Two writ petitions raising a common question have been referred to the Full Bench for decision. A learned Judge of this Court (Thottathil Radhakrishnan, J.) while considering W.P. (C) 4828/05 felt the need for the resolution of the apparent conflict between two Bench decisions on the point. Accordingly, the matter came up before the Division Bench. Learned Judges of the Division Bench ordered the cases to be referred for determination by the Full Bench. Reference order passed by the learned Single Judge brings to focus the point for consideration succinctly and the same may be usefully extracted below:The petitioner challenges Ext. P1 by which regular permit has been granted to the 2nd respondent subject to settlement of timings. An order granting permit is a revisable order under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, However, even for that, the petitioner has to succeed a test as to his standing, thereby his entitlement to challenge the grant of permit in favo...
Geo Tech Construction Corporation Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Ker)493
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Assessee is a firm engaged in the business of executing civil contracts. For the asst. yr. 1988-89 assessee had filed a return disclosing net loss of Rs. 39,75,374. P&L; a/c disclosed contract receipts of Rs. 1,52,66,122 and other income of Rs. 1,23,759. The expenditure incurred and debited to the P&L; a/c was Rs. 1,94,92,229 and the book loss apportioned between the partners was Rs. 41,02,347. While the expenditure was accounted for on an accrual basis, receipts were disclosed only on cash basis and no work-in-progress as at the beginning of the year or at the end of the year was disclosed.2. The AO therefore estimated the closing work-in-progress at Rs. 18,73,468 and the opening work-in-progress at Rs. 16,60,034 and added the difference between these two figures of Rs. 2,13,434 to the total income on account of work-in-progress. Assessee aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority took up the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), Kochi and had pointed out...
R.T.O. Vs. Sajith
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT936
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Regional Transport Officer, Palakkad and others aggrieved by some of the directions issued by the learned single Judge.2. Original Petition was preferred by the respondent herein seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P6 notice directing to pay motor vehicle tax for the period when the vehicle was in police custody for non payment of tax and also the order of the Deputy Transport Commissioner dated 22.03.2005 rejecting the appeal holding that the petitioner is liable to pay tax for the period from 1.1.2004 to 30.06.2004. Revision filed by the assessee before the Transport Commissioner was also rejected.3. Petitioner is the registered owner of stage carriage KL.5/A 3131 operating on the route Palakkad Thacharpady. Tax in respect of the vehicle was paid upto 31.12.2003, Vehicle was intercepted by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Alathur on 19.02.2004 since no proof for payment of tax for the quarter ending on 31.3.2...
George C. Kappan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT801
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P10 order in this Original Petition. The issue involved is regarding a building constructed by the petitioner. Admittedly, the construction was not in compliance with the building rules applicable. Originally, the petitioner obtained exemption from certain provision of the building rules as per Ext.P2 Government Order, subject to certain conditions. It appears that pursuant thereto, the petitioner did not submit a revised plan before the Municipality, but constructed the building and completed the same in 1990. The Commissioner of the Municipality took objection to the said construction and directed the petitioner to demolish the building since it has been constructed in violation of the Building Rules. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Municipal Council, which took Ext.P5 decision thereon setting aside the order of the Commissioner and directing assessment of the building to property tax Ext.P5 states that two Members of th...
Dr. Padiyar Memorial Homeopathic Medical College Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-2006
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR619]; 2006(2)KLT83
S. Siri Jagan, J. 1. The issue involved in these writ appeals is common and these writ appeals arise out of a common judgment in two original petitions disposed of by a learned Single Judge. The original petitions were filed by the management challenging the common award of the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha in two industrial disputes viz. I.D. Nos. 85/2000 and 59/2000. The two awards dealt with identical issues regarding termination of two workmen. These two workmen were appointed by identical appointment orders. Such appointment was on probation for a period of one year. However, even before the completion of the one year period of probation, their services were terminated on the ground that their performance during the period of service was not satisfactory. The Industrial Tribunal held that termination of service of the workmen before the completion of the period of probation was illegal and unsustainable, directing their reinstatement as probationers with continuity of service, ba...
Sarada Vs. Deputy Director
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT745
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that is posed for consideration in this case whether the Co-operative Societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 are free to fix different age for retirement of the employees.2. A learned single Judge of this Court in Cochin Co-op. Hospitals Society Ltd. v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies : 2005(3)KLT804 interpreting Rule 183(2) of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 held that a Co-operative Society governed by the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 has no right to prescribe the retirement age lesser or higher than what is prescribed therein. Another learned single Judge of this Court in WP(C). 20619 of 2003 against which this writ appeal has been preferred has taken the view that Rule 183(2) does not provide that in every case, the retirement age should be 58, which according to the learned single Judge is only the maximum age of retirement and consequently it is open to the Co-operative Societies to fix age for re...
Kodungallur Merchants Association Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT636
V. Ramkumar, J.1. In this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:--(i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,0007- or such other sum deemed fit for the loss suffered by the second petitioner due to 'Hartal;(ii) declare that respondents 1 and 2 have failed to fulfill the constitutional obligation cast on them to protect the property of the second petitioner who is liable to be compensated for the loss;(iii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to pursue the criminal case registered with enthusiasm as held in George Kurian 's case and arrest the accused immediately;(iv) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to afford adequate police protection to the petitioners in the wake of the constant threat and intimidation of respondents 3 and 4; and(v) issue such other writ, order or directio...
Kurian Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT851
Kurian Joseph, J.1. The crucial question to be decided in this case is as to (1) the power of the Manager of an aided school to declare the probation of a teacher with retrospective effect, taking into account the broken periods of duty (2) whether the probation once declared can be revised by the Manager. It is seen from S.R.O.No. 400/78 issued in exercise of the power under Section 36 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 that an explanation permitting the counting of broken spells was introduced for the first time, which reads as follows:Explanation: Broken periods of duty within a continuous period of two years can be reckoned for calculating the one year duty period. The Manager is competent to declare the probation with retrospective effect from the date on which the person concerned is found eligible/suitable for declaration of completion of probation. Subsequently, it is seen that the said explanation to Rule 6(a) of Chap. XIV(A) has been substituted by explanation as per G.O.(P)13...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »