Kerala Court May 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.
Kerala State Warehousing Corporation Vs. Pauly John
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-23-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR598]; 2006(3)KLT27; 2007(2)SLJ271(Kerala)
M. Ramachandran, J.1. A Class IV employee of the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation had remained under suspension for a prolonged period pending disciplinary proceedings. Finally, he had been awarded punishment of reduction in rank and there was also a proposal for recovery of the loss sustained to the Corporation through his conduct. Proposal also was there to recover substantial part of subsistence allowance that was paid to him. The appeal filed by him was rejected and the Writ Petition had been filed challenging the orders as above.2. A learned Judge had found that the, appellate authority had made only superficial examination of the issues and therefore had set aside the appellate orders and directed the issue to be considered on merits. Since the employee had also challenged the contemplated steps taken for recovery of the amounts paid as subsistence allowance, the leaned Judge had found that the proposal as above was irregular and had quashed that part of the order.3. This Wri...
Vijayan Vs. Secretary to Government
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT291; (2006)IIILLJ337Ker
V.K. Bali, C.J.1. By this common order we propose to dispose of this bunch of connected matters. The bare minimum facts as projected that need a necessary mention have been extracted from W.P. (C) No. 574 of 2004 and W.A. No. 435 of 2004.2. The question that needs adjudication is as to whether an employer who may have been contributing in excess of the minimum prescribed under the statutory limits even though on the basis of a joint application filed by the employer and employees before the concerned authorities under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1952) can discontinue from the remittance of such excess share of provident fund.3. The petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 574 of 2004 are employees and association of employees of the Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited, second respondent herein, which consists of three regional co-operative milk producers unions; the Trivandrum Regional Co-operative Mil...
Vijayaraghavan Vs. Travancore Devaswom Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT1
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. The petitioner in this Writ Petition is an Advocate practicing in the High Court. His grievance is that while discharging his duties as a Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board and in the midst of a case, he was relieved of his duties on extraneous consideration. While making it clear that the petitioner does not want to continue in the panel of Advocates appearing for the Travancore Devaswom Board, he has filed this Writ Petition only to make sure that his removal from the panel and taking away the case from him was not on account of any want of professional integrity in him and such removal should not remain as a stigma on his reputation as a lawyer. Ext.P2 is the communication directing the petitioner to handover the file relating to Audit Report of Accounts for 1167 ME Sabarimala Festival pending before the High Court and Ext. P3 is the proceedings of the Travancore Devaswom Board informing the petitioner that he is relived of his duties as Standing C...
Philip Vs. Gainmore Investment
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-22-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3175; 2006(3)KLT15
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The complainant is in appeal, on dismissal of his complaint alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed against the respondent/accused.2. The admitted case by both the parties is as follows: On 25.8.1993, the appellant entrusted 1000 SBI Magnum Shares to the respondent/accused, a share broker for being sold through bi-weekly settlement in the Cochin Stock Exchange, where the respondent conducts his trade. Admittedly, the value of 1000 Magnum shares at that time was Rs. 49,500/-. The accused drew Ext.P2 cheque for the said amount and handed it over to the complainant. It is not forthcoming in evidence, on which date it was handed over. Admittedly by the accused, the cheque so handed over was a post dated cheque. It bears the date 10.12.1993. Therefore, it could have been handed over earlier than 10.12.1993 towards a legally recoverable debt on account of the consideration of 1000 SBI Magnum Shares entrusted by the complainant to the...
Abdul Razak Vs. Yousaf
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT58
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The appellant did not succeed in his complaint against the respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, this appeal.2. Ext.P1 is the cheque in question for an amount of Rs. 40,000/-. Ext.P2 memo issued from the bank discloses that it bounced for want of sufficient fund in the account of the respondent. Ext.P5 discloses that the statutory notice was returned unserved, even though due intimation was given from the post office to the addressee, the respondent/accused. It was in the above circumstances, the complaint was filed.3. The case of the complainant was that there was some dealings between the parties and when it terminated, the accused was found indebted to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- and accordingly, Ext.Pl cheque dated 4.4.1996 was issued in discharge of that debt, which bounced, as mentioned above and the demand for payment was not met, in spite of the statutory notice. Therefore, an offence ...
Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT581; (2007)8VST587(Ker)
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner is a Company, registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of printing and publication of a daily newspaper and other publications. It is a registered dealer, under the K.G.S.T. and C.S.T. Acts, on the files of the 1st respondent. For printing newspaper and other journals, printing ink is an essential raw material. Section 5(3) of the K.G.S.T. Act provides for a reduced rate of tax @ 3%, payable by the dealer, in respect of sale of raw materials to industrial units, for use in the production of finished products, for sale in the State. The seller to the industrial unit can claim the benefit of payment of the reduced rate of tax, subject to the condition of furnishing a declaration, duly filled and signed by the purchasing dealer, in Form 18. So, the petitioner was purchasing the printing ink, by furnishing the necessary declaration in Form 18 and therefore, the selling dealer was paying tax only at the rate of 3%.2. While s...
Madamuttathil Abdul Razak Vs. M. Yousaf
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-22-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC177
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The appellant did not succeed in his complaint against the respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, this appeal.2. Ext. P1 is the cheque in question for an amount of Rs. 40,000/-. Ext. P2 memo issued from the Bank discloses that it bounced for want of sufficient fund in the account of the respondent. Ext. P5 discloses that the statutory notice was returned unserved, even though due intimation was given from the post office to the addressee, the respondent/accused. It was in the above circumstances, the complaint was filed.3. The case of the complainant was that there was some dealings between the parties and when it terminated, the accused was found indebted to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- and accordingly, Ext. P1 cheque dated 4.4.1996 was issued in discharge of that debt, which bounced, as mentioned above and the demand for payment was not met, in spite of the statutory notice. Therefore, an offe...
M.K. Philip Vs. Gainmore Investment
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-22-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC3
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The complainant is in appeal, on dismissal of his complaint alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed against the respondent/accused.2. The admitted case by both the parties is as follows: On 25.8.1993, the appellant entrusted 1000 SBI Magnum shares to the respondent/accused, a share broker for being sold through bi-weekly settlement in the Cochin Stock Exchange, where the respondent conducts his trade. Admittedly, the value of 1000 Magnum shares at that time was Rs. 49,500/-. The accused drew Ext. P2 cheque for the said amount and handed it over to the complainant. It is not forthcoming in evidence, on which date it was handed over. Admittedly by the accused, the cheque so handed over was a post-dated cheque. It bears the date 10.12.1993. Therefore, it could have been handed over earlier than dated 10.12.1993 towards a legally recoverable debt on account of the consideration of 1000 SBI Magnum shares entrusted by the complainant...
Muhammad Ali Vs. State Election Commission
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT496
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Following the coming into force of the Constitution (73rd amendment) Act 1992 which received assent of the President and was published in the Gazette of India dated 20/04/1993, whereby Part IX relating to the Panchayats, as if now stands, was inserted in the Constitution of India. Kerala Panchayat Raj Act 1994, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' was passed which provides, inter alia, in Section 38 thereof, for notification for general election to Panchayats. On 29/08/2005, the Government of Kerala, in exercise of such authority, on the recommendation by the State Election Commission, notified the election to the Panchayats.2. Before that, the Electoral Roll for the constituencies in Nadapuram Grama Panchayat was published, in draft, in terms of Rule 8 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Registration of Electors) Rules 1994, hereinafter referred to as the 'Registration Rules', on 15/06/2005 and the Electoral Roll (final) was published on 19/08/2005. It is th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›