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.
Thomas Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT60
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Whether an inter-departmental transferee, transferred within five years of a districtwise recruitment, would be entitled to retain the seniority based on the date of advice is the question to be considered in this case. The answer depends on the interpretation of the 4th proviso and Note thereunder to Rule 27(a) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules.2. On the basis of the position in the ranked list for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerks in various Departments in Pathanamthitta district, the petitioner was advised against the Headquarters vacancy in the Directorate of Medical Education, Thiruvananthapuram as per Ext.Pl advice dated 8-10-1986 by the Pathanamthitta District Office of the Public Service Commission. According to the petitioner the Directorate of Medical Education did not have a District Unit at Pathanamthitta. Since the posting of the petitioner at Thiruvananthapuram against Headquarters vacancy was without his consent and sinc...
Nazeera Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT272
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner contested in bye-election to the second respondent-Grama Panchayat, held on 30.5.2006. On 31.05.2006 as per Ext.P1, the petitioner was declared elected. On 01.06.2006, he made Ext.P4 to the Secretary of the Panchayat, as is required by Rule 3(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Oath of Members, President and Vice President) Rules, 1995, hereinafter called the 'Oath Rules', for short. The said Rules are framed invoking the rule making power contained in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 for short, the 'Act', hereinafter. On 05.06.2006, the President of the Panchayat issued a communication to the petitioner fixing 15.6.2006 as the date for the petitioner to take oath before the President, in terms of the aforesaid Rule.2. Section 152(5) of the Act provides that when an elected member has not entered upon his office without sufficient cause by taking oath within a maximum period of thirty clays from the date he was declared as elected, the Sta...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Southern Cables and Engineering Works
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-08-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Ker)269; [2007]289ITR167(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The CIT, Thiruvananthapuram, is the appellant herein. He is aggrieved bythe order of the Tribunal deleting the disallowance made by the AO holding thatthe claim of Rs. 2,28,336 was not relatable to the accounting year since the assessee was following mercantile system of accounting.2. The assessment year in question is 1991-92. Assessee is engaged in the manufacture and supply of aluminium cables for the use of Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB). AO while framing the assessment noticed that the assessee had claimed in the P&L; a/c an amount of Rs. 2,28,336 towards penal deduction from supply bills. AO also noticed that, there was no such claim for the earlier years. When the assessee was informed of the same, assessee explained that the assessee had failed to deliver the goods as per schedule and therefore, the assessee was liable to pay 1 per cent of the value of the materials supplied as liquidated damages for every month or part thereof subject to 10 per ...
Radha Sasidharan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-08-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4702; 2007(4)KLT268
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The first accused, in S.C. No. 45/97 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam, is the appellant. She, along with the 2nd accused, was tried for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 304 of the IPC, read with Section 34 thereof. The second accused was acquitted and the appellant/first accused was convicted of offences punishable under Sections 419 and 304, Indian Penal Code. She is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under the first count and for another term of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- in default whereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months under the second count. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. On all other counts, she also was acquitted.2. The allegation against the appellant was that she cheated by personation exhibiting the board 'S.N. Hospital and Maternity Home' in building No. TP/415 and by deception making others believe that she was a qualifie...
Viswambharan Pillai Vs. Food Inspector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-07-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3232; 2006(3)KLT72
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act').2. The crux of the allegation against the petitioner is that he sold pineapple cool drinks to the Food Inspector - P.W.1. On analysis that was found not to conform to the standards prescribed for fruit drinks in Appendix B - Item A. 16.05 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules). The prosecution alleged that the article must be held to be adulterated under Section 2(ia)(m) of the Act.3. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and proved Exts.P1 to P17. No defence evidence - oral or documentary, was adduced by the defenqe.4. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioner, Accordingly, the courts proceeded to pass ...
Viswanathan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-07-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC359; 2006CriLJ3864; 2006(3)KLT539
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Accused in S.T. No 1723 of 1990 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Pala is the revision petitioner. He was convicted for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 56,000/- in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for another three months. On appeal Sessions Court reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 35,000/- in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for three months more. Aggrieved by the said order accused preferred this revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Accused died during the pendency of this revision petition. Hence it is pointed out that the revision petition is abated and be dismissed as abated.3. Sri K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that since sentence of fine was also imposed ...
Prema Ramakrishnan Vs. Salmath
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT284
ORDERM. Ramachandran, J.1. Concurrent finding entered into respectively by the Rent Controller, Tirur in R.C.P No. 23 of 1994 and the Appellate Authority, Manjeri in R.C.A. No. 28 of 1995 is challenged by the tenant in these proceedings.2. Mr. P. Chandrasekhar, appearing for the petitioner tenant had confined his argument on one issue, namely as to the effect of the demise of the petitioner before the Rent Control Appellate Authority during the pendency of the appeal. He submits that the Appellate Authority had failed to take notice of the impact in its proper perspective. Advertence was made to the decisions of this Court in Kutty Krishnan v. Cheriyeri Raran 2001 (3) KLT SN 29 (C.No. 41) as well as Jayarajan v. Yesoda 2003 (2) KLT 325.3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the landlords placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court, reported as Kamleshwar Prasad v. Pradumanju Agarwal AIR 1997 SC 2399 as well as Mathew V. Thomas v. Sali Sunny 2003 (1) KLT SN 40 : 2003 (...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C.F. Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Ker)21; [2006]284ITR557(Ker); 2006(3)KLT355
V. Ramkumar, J.1. I.T.R. No. 134 of 1999 at the instance of the Revenue is a reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). In the said income-tax reference, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, assails the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 859/Coch. of 1992 which was an appeal filed by the respondent, namely, C.F. Johnson, the assessee. I.T.A. No. 123/00 is an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, under Section 260A of the Act challenging annexure D order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal passed in I.T.A. No. 187/Coch/1994 in the matter of the assessment of the respondent, C.F. Raju. Both the proceedings relate to the assessment year 1989-90. The Tribunal had, inter alia, accepted the contention of the assessees that there was no evidence of the assessees having obtained a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 (rupees ten lakhs) by way of pakidi from their tenant one Sundaresa Pai to whom the g...
Mammootti Vs. Rajaji Mathew Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT335
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.T.No. 2240 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur to quash a private complaint filed by the first respondent, Sri Rajaji Mathew Thomas.2. S.T.No. 2240 of 2004 arises from a private complaint filed by the first respondent alleging that the petitioners along with four others committed an offence punishable under Section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant/first respondent is a follower of Communist Patty of India and General Secretary of All India Youth Federation; a Youth Wing of C.P.I. He was also stated to be the Vice President of World Youth Federation known as WFDY for a period of 11 years and a person who presented papers in Seminars held in 40 countries. He is working as Executive Member of C.P.I., Thrissur District and also working as a co-ordinator for Kerala Social Forum.3. Petitioners, who are accused...
Sheeba Kuttiatan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT69
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioners are candidates, who are desirous of applying for the post of Villageman, in the Revenue Department. The Public Service Commission invited applications for appointment to the said post, by Ext.Pl notification dated 31.12.2005. But there was a stipulation in it, to the effect that women are not eligible to apply for the post. The petitioners have got all the prescribed qualifications for appointment to the said post. But, because of the above stipulation, they are ineligible to apply. The P.S.C has issued the notification, based on Ext.P5 Government order dated 28.6.1973, prescribing the qualifications and method of appointment to the post of Villageman, in the Revenue Department. Ext.P5 order provides the method of appointment as direct recruitment from male candidates only. In view of the said stipulation contained in that order, the P.S.C has included a condition in Ext.Pl notification to the effect that women are ineligible to apply for the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »