Kerala Court March 2006 Judgments
Shamna Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT673
K.K. Denesan, J. WPC 18178/2001. Petitioners are included in the rank list published by the third respondent Commission for appointment to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (for short 'HSST') in Botany. The rank list which includes a main list and a supplementary list came into force with effect from 15.7.2004. Main list contains 86 candidates. First petitioner is rank No: 83 in the main list. The second petitioner is rank No. 5 in the supplementary list of Muslim candidates.WPC 26583/2005Petitioner is rank No: 64 in the main list. Additional respondents 4 and 5 are HSST (juniors).WPC 14502/2005Petitioner is rank No: 70 in the main list.WPC 14419/2005Petitioner is rank No: 71 in the main list.WPC 36992/2004Petitioner is rank No: 57 in the main list.2. Petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent-Director of Higher Secondary Education to report all the vacancies of HSST in Botany reckoning the same as 75% of the total posts of HSST in Botany i...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Trustee Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker300
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This original petition has been preferred seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts. P7 and P8 notifications issued by the Government of Kerala in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 directing the petitioner not to cut trees mentioned in the areas specified in the Schedule thereto except on the ground that the tree constitutes a danger to life or property or the tree is dead, diseased or wind fallen. Explanatory Note attached to Ext. P8 Notification reads as follows:Explanatory Note(This does not form part of the notification, but is intended to indicate its general purport.)As per the sketch prepared by the Assistant Director of Survey, Forest Mini Survey, the area computed is 44.1342 hectares in survey No. 2050 in Agali Village. The area shown as 11.7950 hectares on the sketch prepared by the Division Surveyor is only an error while computing the area and out of this 0.5422 hectares r...
Tag this Judgment!Beaver Estates Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Philip Thomas and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker285
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. These two appeals are filed by the judgment-debtors in Arbitration O.P. Nos. 2 of 1995 and 38 of 1994 respectively. The Awards were passed by the City Civil Judge of Udupi in Karnataka State and they were transferred for execution to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ernakulam. The appellants are the same in both the appeals. There were four arbitration original petitions against the appellants in which awards were passed and in two of them (Arb. O.P. Nos. 26 of 1993 and 12 of 1994) full satisfaction was recorded and attachments were lifted. The validity of the sale in execution proceedings in the remaining two cases, is the question to be considered in these two appeals.F.A.O. No. 17 of 20052. This appeal arises out of the order in E.A. No. 185 of 2001 in E.P. No. 271 of 1997 in Arb. O.P. No. 2 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Ernakulam. The execution petition was filed for realising an amount of Rs. 37,17.274/- by sale of seven items of properties. Thou...
Tag this Judgment!Thaliath and Cyrils Jewellers Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-2006
Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Ker)408; 2006(2)KLT765
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J,1. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P2 order whereunder the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in exercise of powers under Section 35 of the KGST Act has set aside the petitioner's sales tax assessment for the year 1996-97 at compounded rate of tax on the ground that petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 7(1)(a) of the KGST Act. Even though statutory appeal is provided against the impugned order under the Act, petitioner filed this O.P, because the matter involves interpretation of scope of Section 7(1) (a), In any case after keeping the O.P. pending for over five years, there is no justification for this Court to send back the petitioner for pursuing statutory remedy. In the circumstances. I proceed to decide the case on merits. I heard counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.2. Since the issue involved is scope of Section 7(1)(a) of the Act prior to its amendment the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Moideen Bava Vs. Shahida
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker362; I(2007)DMC116; 2006(3)KLT763
R. Basant, J.1. Is a party to a proceeding before the Family Court entitled to apply for a copy of the order through his counsel when he is unable to appear before the court personally to apply for and receive such a copy? Does Section 13 of the Family Courts Act or Rule 9 of the Family Courts (Procedure) Rules take away such an option of a party to a proceeding before the Family Court? These are the interesting questions that come up for consideration in this Writ Petition.2. This is the second time the petitioner is coming before this Court. Against him, his wife has secured an order dissolving the marriage as per an ex parte order passed inO.P. No. 124/05. He applied for a certified copy through his counsel. That application was returned with an endorsement that 'the party must apply directly for the certified copy'. The petitioner is employed abroad. He could not come to India to personally apply for a copy. So, he filed W.P.(c) No. 2725/06 before this Court to direct the Family Co...
Tag this Judgment!Kandath Bus Service Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-2006
Reported in: [2007]290ITR717(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner is challenging exhibit P3 order whereunder the Commissioner of Income-tax has granted waiver of only 50 per cent, interest payable under Section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and rejected the claim for the balance amount.2. Counsel contended that in the case of some other assessees within the same group, full waiver was granted by a Chief Commissioner of Income-tax. According to counsel, the facts are the same and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to full waiver of interest for the years 1985-86 and 1987-88 also.3. However, on going through exhibit P3, I find, the petitioner has not satisfied all the conditions for waiver of interest under Section 220(2A) of the Income-tax Act, inasmuch as tax was not paid voluntarily but was recovered by coercive steps by attachment and sale of immovable properties. Even though counsel has submitted that the financial hardship is a ground for claiming waiver, I find, the Commissioner has accepted t...
Tag this Judgment!Malabar Cement Ltd. Vs. Secretary, Mcl Labour Union
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT965
K.M. Joseph, J.1. Since common questions arose in these cases, they are being disposed of by a common Judgment.2. The petitioner Company in W.P.(C) No. 35098/05 challenges Ext.PIO Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in so far as it has reserved 75 per cent of the vacancies of Casual Labour Pool Workers (for short CLP Workers) and also for having fixed the inter se seniority guidelines. The Company also seeks a declaration that the workmen concerned are not entitled to any relief awarded by the fourth respondent in Ext. PIO Award, and that the fourth respondent is not competent to fix any ratio for appointment, or lay down any guidelines for fixing inter se seniority. A further declaration is sought that the petitioner is entitled to fill up the vacancies of Mazdoors from the open market. Petitioners in W.P. (C) Nos. 70/06,2164/06 and 371/06 are the workers and the Union. They also challenge the Award to the extent that the Tribunal has restricted regularisation of CLP Workers to 75...
Tag this Judgment!Damodaran Vs. Krishnankutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT753; (2006)IIILLJ407Ker
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J1. The revision petitioner herein was an employee of the respondent. His monthly wages was Rs. 850/-. There was arrears of wages to the tune of Rs. 28,900/- for the period from 1.10.1980 to 31.7.1983. He filed a claim petition under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act before the Labour Court, Kozhikode. Claim petition was allowed by order dated 20.12.1984. Respondent employer questioned the above order. The main contention was that since the petitioner was employed in a managerial capacity, he is not entitled to claim under the Payment of Wages Act. There is no jurisdiction for the payment of wages authority to award any amount. Payment of wages authority rejected the above contention. In appeal, District Court was of the view that petitioner is not a 'workman' and, therefore, he is not entitled to claim under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (in short 'the Act'). Against the above order, this revision petition is filed. During the pendency of the revision petition, ...
Tag this Judgment!CochIn Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Bobby
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR926]; 2006(3)KLT317; (2006)IIILLJ702Ker
V.K. Bali, C.J.1. By this common judgment, we dispose of these two connected Writ Appeals arising from the judgment dated 14th August, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in O.P.No. 261 of 2001. Writ Appeal No. 2026 of 2003 has been filed by the additional respondents 8 and 9 while Writ Appeal No. 1008 of 2004 has been filed by respondents 1 to 3, in the original liSection 2. M.C. Bobby, President, Kerala Cine Exhibitors Association, the petitioner in the original lis challenged the notification issued by the Government as G.O. (Rt) No. 4153/2000/LBR dated 2nd December, 2000, revising the minimum rates of wages payable to the employees of the Cinema Theatres in the State, a copy of the notification aforesaid was placed on record as Ext.P1. By the notification aforesaid, a revision of wages was made in respect of the employees of the Cinema Theatres right from Manager to sweeper cum scavenger. It is the case of the petitioner that the last notification for the same purpose was chall...
Tag this Judgment!Jameson Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT186
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. Lands belonging to the petitioners were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. Dissatisfied with the award, the petitioners filed Exts.P? to P11 applications before the third respondent for reference to the appropriate court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The grievance voiced by the petitioners is that the third respondent has not taken any positive steps to refer the matter to the Land Acquisition Court. The petitioners prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the third respondent to refer Exts.P7 to P11 applications to the Land Acquisition Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the reference applications submitted by the petitioners were received on 23.1.2002. The Land Acquisition Officer approved the reference applications on 11.9.2002. The despatch seal was affixed on the office c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »