Kerala Court July 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.
Mohanan Vs. Director of Homeopathy
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT641; 2006(6)AIRKarR220(FB)(Ker)
ORDERS. Siri Jagan, J.1. This matter relates to appointment to the post of Pharmacist Grade II in the Department of Homeopathy under the Government of Kerala. In 1995, the Kerala Public Service Commission (for short 'the PSC) invited applications for selection to the post of Pharmacist Grade II in the Department of Homeopathy under the Government of Kerala. Notification dated 2-9-1995 was published in the official gazette on 17-10-1995. The last date for submission of applications was 29-11 -1995. A written test and interview were conducted and the rank list dated 27-6-2003 was published. In the meanwhile, the Government issued the Special Rules for the Homeopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1999, in supersession of all existing Rules and Orders on the subject prescribing qualifications for the various posts in the Homeopathy Subordinate Service, including those for the post of Pharmacist Grade II by changing the previously existing minimum qualifications prescribed for appointment to t...
Balan Vs. Kesavan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT100
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This is a petition filed under Sections 10, 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Court Act 1971 and Contempt of Court Rules (High Court of Kerala) 1971 to initiate contempt of court proceedings against respondents for not giving effect to the judgment in OP. No. 4888 of 1993.2. Petitioner herein was an applicant in OA. 348 of 1981 before Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode which was subsequently transferred to Forest Tribunal, Palakkad and numbered as O.A. 2 of 1991. The Forest Tribunal, Palakkad vide its order dated 29-6-1991 allowed the petition in part and ordered that the petitioner is entitled to get restoration of 7 1/2 acres of land in R.S. 1226 pt. (new Sy. No. B1.32 sy.260 pt.). The order was challenged before this Court by the State in MFA. 518 of 2002 which was dismissed on 20-12-2002, against which State preferred C.A. No. 22227-28/2003 before the Apex Court, which was dismissed on 5-12-2003.3. Petitioner then submitted several applications for restoration of the...
Muraleedharan Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT551
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. Petitioners are aggrieved by the shifting of toddy shop No. 15 of Mavelikkara Range to Building No. T.P.XII 753 situated in RS No. 268/11 of Vettiyar Village, which is being conducted by the 6th respondent as licensee. According to the petitioners, the present location of the toddy shop is within the prohibited distance under Rule 7(2) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules 2002 ('the Rules' for short), from a mosque. The petitioners therefore seek quashing the order dated 25.4.2006 passed by the 4th respondent allowing shifting of the toddy shop No. 15 of Mavelikkara Range to the above said building. Related reliefs are also prayed for.2. Essentially the question is whether the present building is within the prohibited distance under Rule 7(2) of the Rules. The mosque referred to by the petitioners is the Hidayathul Islam Jamayath (West) Vettiyar. The 6th respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the contentions of the petitioners. According to the 6th r...
ishwardas Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-26-2006
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Ker)551; 2006(4)KLT426
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Assessee is the appellant. Following are the questions of law raised for our consideration.1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the tribunal is correct in law in reversing the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is correct in law and fact in holding that the 'contingency deposit' being money received from the principals and retained by the agent for the discharge of the liability of the principals from the payments due to the principals is a trading receipt in the hands of the appellant?3. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and fact in holding that as 'dealer' under the Sales Tax Act includes a commission agent also, the burden to pay turnover tax which is on the principals shifts to the appellant?4. Whether the Tribunal has erred in not properly considering the relationship between the agent and the principals and in ignoring the fact that the ag...
Ajith George Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT743
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. In all these Writ Petitions, a common question of law has been raised and therefore these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The petitioners in these Writ Petitions are students who aspire for admission to Engineering Degree courses in management quota in various self-financing colleges in Kerala. They challenge a condition in the prospectus for admission to professional degree courses in Kerala during the year 2006-2007. The impugned clause is 9.7.5 of the prospectus. The said clause lays down that to qualify in the entrance examination and thereby become eligible to figure in the rank list, a candidate has to secure a minimum of 10 marks each in paper 1 and paper 2. They challenge this clause on various grounds like legislative competence for the State Government to make a law regarding fixation of higher standards for technical education, power to disqualify any candidate on the basis of marks in the entrance test, discrimination as betw...
Kunhi Mohammad Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4352; 2006(3)KLT795
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This Writ of Habeas Corpus has been preferred to set at liberty one M.P. Kunji Mohammed alias Kunjhippa who was detained in Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram in pursuance to an order of detention bearing No. 5017/SSAl/05/home dated 14-3-2005 issued by the Government of Kerala. Kunjhippa was ordered to be detained under Section 3(1)(i) to (iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 as per detention order dated 14-3-2005. The grounds for detention with copies of the documents in support of the grounds were served on the detenu and called for his objection. He submitted representation dated 3-12-2005. Representation was considered by the detaining authority and the same was rejected and reply was sent to the detenu vide letter dated 21-12-05. The Advisory Board after hearing the detenu opined vide letter dated 16-1-2006 there was sufficient reasons for the continued detention of the detenu. Detaining Authority, t...
C.C.E. Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-2006
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Ker)97; 2006(4)KLT749; 2006[3]STR625; (2007)5VST46(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise Under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 aggrieved by the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Circuit Bench, Cochin holding that service tax shall not be demanded from the Kerala State Electricity Board as per the Service Tax Rules.2. Following are the questions of law framed in the appeal for our consideration.(i) Where the service is volunteered by the service receiver from a foreign company having no office in India under an agreement, is it the service receivers liability to pay service tax on behalf of the service provider, prior to the amendment of Rule 6(1) of the Service Tax Rules on 16-8-2002?(ii) Is it not the service receiver who acts as an agent or authorised person when an agreement is entered into between a foreign service provider and an Indian service receiver, within the meaning of Rule 6(1) of the Service Tax Rules?(iii) After the amendm...
Lekha Vs. Trivandrum Service Co-op. Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT109
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The point that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is concerning the interpretation of the word 'year' used in Rule 183(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The brief facts of the case are the following.2. The first respondent-Bank issued Ext.P1 notification, inviting applications for appointment to various posts under it, on 11.02.2006. The petitioner applied for three posts viz. Data Entry Operator, Appraiser and Attender, which were notified as per Ext.P1. Her date of birth is 28.5.19.68, as evident from Ext.P2. Going by Ext.P1, the petitioner is over-aged. As per that notification, the candidates must be between 18 and 37 years of age, as on 01.01.2006. The petitioner submits, the said prescription of age limit in Ext.P1, is illegal and contrary to Rule 183(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. Therefore, this Writ Petition is filed, seeking a declaration that the rejection of her applic...
Bhaskaran Nair Vs. Abdul Kareem
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC330; 2006(4)KarLJ48
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- The cheque bears the date 05/03/1993. The cheque was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Notice of demand was sent to the accused allegedly in the correct address. It was returned with the endorsement that the notice was not claimed. The complainant came to the court with this complaint scrupulously observing the statutory timetable. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P4. The accused examined DWs.1 and 2 and proved D1 to D4.2. Two contentions appear to have been raised before the courts below. The first contention is that the cheque was not issued for the due discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability. There was a transaction between the complainant and the son of the accused. A blank signed cheque was handed over as...
C. Bhaskaran Nair Vs. M. Abdul Karim and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4537
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. This revision petition is directed against, a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The cheque bears the date 5-3-1993. The cheque was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Notice of demand was sent to the accused allegedly in the correct address. It was returned with the endorsement that the notice was not claimed. The complainant came to the Court with this complaint scrupulously observing the statutory timetable. The complainant examined himself as P.W. 1 and proved Exts. P1 to P4. The accused examined D.Ws. 1 and 2 and proved D1 to D4.2. Two contentions appear to have been raised before the Courts below. The first contention is that the cheque was not issued for the due discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability. There was a transaction between the complainant and the son of the accused. A blank signed cheque was handed o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »