Kerala Court June 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.
Prasanth Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT276
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The Petitioners are House Sergeants who are undergoing internship after successfully completing M.B.B.S. course from the 4th respondent-college under the management of the third respondent. The W.P. is for direction to the third respondent to immediately refund the interest free deposit made by the petitioners at the time of admission to the M.B.B.S. course or to make payment to the various Banks from where some of the petitioners have availed loans against the security of deposit and on undertaking by the third respondent to make payment to the creditor institution. While the case of the petitioners is that they are entitled to refund of the interest free deposit after completion of the course, which according to them do not include the internship, counsel for the third respondent referring to the Medical Council Regulations contended that internship or house sergeancy is part of the M.B.B.S. course and so much so, petitioners having not completed the inte...
Mohan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT537
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to count his aided college service for the purpose of counting the length of service as teacher, in the matter of appointment as Principal under the Director of Collegiate Education is the question to be considered in this case. Petitioner was originally appointed in the aided college as Lecturer on 25.8.1976. Being a member of the scheduled caste, in the special recruitment for appointment to the post of Professor Grade II petitioner was advised by the Public Service Commission on 19.3.1985 and he was appointed as such with effect from 15.6.1985. It is admitted in the counter affidavit that the service of the petitioner under the aided college prior to his appointment as Professor Grade II has been counted for the purpose of seniority . Thus the petitioner who entered service as advice dated 19.3.1985 of the Public Service Commission has got his seniority just below T.U. John who was advised by the Public Service Commission on 11....
Indian Saree House Vs. Radhalakshmy
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT129
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1.The Revision petitioners- tenants challenge the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The petition schedule building is a part of a larger building. In a major portion of the main building facing Broadway, Ernakulam, a hotel under the name and style 'Bharat Coffee House' is being run by Gopalakrishna Rao, husband of the first petitioner in the Rent Control Petition. (The parties are referred as in the Rent Control Petition). On either side of the entrance to Bharat Coffee house, a telephone booth and milk booth are being run by petitioners 4 and 5, the daughters-in-law of Gopalakrishna Rao. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the sons of Gopalakrishna Rao. In the petition schedule building, a textile shop under the name and style 'Indian Saree House' is being run by the tenants.3. The Rent Control Petition was filed under Sec...
Rajendran Pillai Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Ker)600; 2006(4)KLT149
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioners who are employees of the third respondent company have filed this O.P. for direction to the third respondent not to deduct income tax on interest subsidy being part of the interest paid by the third respondent to various financing agencies from whom petitioners have availed loan for construction of house.2. The case of the petitioners is that interest subsidy granted to the petitioners by the third respondent for the House Building Loans availed by the petitioners from various financial instructions is not perquisite coming under Section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hereinafter called the 'Act' for the purpose of deduction under Section 192 of the Act. Petitioners are relying on the decision of the Karnataka High Court reported in C.I.T. v. M.K. Vaidya : [1997]224ITR186(KAR) and the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in P.V. Rajagopal v. Union of India : [1998]233ITR678(AP) for the proposition that interest subsidy granted b...
K. Rajendran Pillai and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-2006
Reported in: [2007]292ITR277(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioners who are employees of the third respondent-company have filed this O.P. for direction to the third respondent not to deduct income-tax on interest subsidy being part of the interest paid by the third respondent to various financing agencies from whom the petitioners have availed of loan for construction of house.2. The case of the petitioners is that interest subsidy granted to the petitioners by the third respondent for the house building loans availed of by the petitioners from various financial institutions is not a perquisite coming under Section 17(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter called the 'Act' for the purpose of deduction under Section 192 of the Act. The petitioners are relying on the decision of the Karnataka High Court reported in CIT v. M.K. Vaidya : [1997]224ITR186(KAR) and the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in P.V. Rajagopal v. Union of India : [1998]233ITR678(AP) for the proposition that interest subsidy ...
K. Rajendran Pillai . Union of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-2006
Reported in: [2006]156TAXMAN160(Ker)
Petitioners who are employees of the third respondent company have filed this O.P. for direction to the third respondent not to deduct income tax on interest subsidy being part of the interest paid by the third respondent to various financing agencies from whom petitioners have availed loan for construction of house.2. The case of the petitioners is that interest subsidy granted to the petitioners by the third respondent for the House Building Loans availed by the petitioners from various financial institutions is not perquisite coming under section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hereinafter called the 'Act' for the purpose of deduction under section 192 of the Act. Petitioners are relying on the decision of the Karnataka High Court reported in CIT v. M.K. Vaidya : [1997]224ITR186(KAR) and the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in P.V. Rajagopal v. Union of India : [1998]233ITR678(AP) for the proposition that interest subsidy granted by the employer is not perquisite to be su...
CochIn Yacht Club Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT67; (2006)IIILLJ427Ker
Kurian Joseph, J.1. The question to be decided is whether a Club is an establishment under the provisions of the Kerala Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1975. The Kerala Labour Welfare Fund Act was introduced mainly '...to provide for the constitution of a Fund for promoting the welfare of labour... in the State of Kerala'. Under Section 2(d) an employee means any person who is employed for hire or reward to do any work, skilled or unskilled, manual, supervisory, clerical or technical, in an establishment. Establishment is defined at Section 2(f) of the Act. It is seen that it is an inclusive definition and among other establishments it includes any commercial establishment coming within the meaning of Section 2 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act 1960, an establishment including a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or the Travancore Cochin Liberary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, which carries on any business, or trade ...
Samuel Mathew Parakkat Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT281
K. Thankappan, J.1. The question involved in these two Writ Petitions is whether the Government is justified in passing Ext.P8 order imposing a penalty of withholding of an amount of Rs.1820/- per month from the monthly pension of the petitioner for a period of 60 months.2. The allegations against the petitioner is that while he was working as Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer, Kasaragod, he was unauthorisedly absent from office from 21.12.1992 to 31.12.1992 and that he made short payment of the financial grants which were sanctioned to the Ex-servicemen and dependents by deducting Rs. 20 to Rs. 100/- from the sanctioned amount and making entries in the discharge books and office records to the effect that the amount has been paid and also obtained signature of the beneficiaries for the same. It is further alleged that the petitioner demanded and accepted amounts varying from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 300/- from widows of Ex-servicemen and thereby failed to maintain integrity and devotion to duty.3....
Mohammed Kutty Vs. Mohammed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-09-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC770; 2006CriLJ3601; 2006(3)KLT447
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. How is a Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 'to examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present'? What is the role of the learned Magistrate at that stage of the proceedings'? Is the Magistrate to function in an activist and dynamic manner to elicit the relevant information from the complainant and his witnesses? Is the Magistrate only to record what the complainant and his witnesses state on oath? These are the interesting questions that arise for consideration in this case.2. The petitioner went before the learned Magistrate with a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The crime relates to a cheque for Rs. 10,000/-. The complainant was put in the witness stand and his statement was recorded. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the impugned order reveal what precisely had happened. I extract the same below:2. The sworn statement of the complainant was recorded on 8.1.96. He has stated that on 20.8.9...
N.B. Krishna Kurup Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-09-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker309
ORDERS. Siri Jagan, J.1. In both these writ petitions, the challenge is against the award of licence to M/s. Hotel Royal, of which the 4th respondent is the Managing Partner, to run a mobile catering service to Train No. 2617/ 18 Mangala Lakshadweep express running between Ernakulam and Nizamuddin, pursuant to notification inviting tenders for the purpose. In W. P. (C) No. 11667/2006, the petitioner is one of the partners of a firm, which also participated in the tender proceedings. The petitioner is W. P. (C) No. 8 13847/2006 8 13847/2006 is another tenderer. Since the reliefs prayed for, in both these writ petitions are identical, these writ petitions are being heard and disposed of together by this common judgment. For convenience the averments and exhibits are referred to in this judgment with reference to the pleadings in W. P. (C) No. 11667/2006.2. The contention of the petitioner is that ' since M/s. Hotel Royal, which claims to be g a partnership firm represented by the 4th res...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »