Kerala Court June 2007 Judgments
V.V. Sathimani Vs. the Payyannur Ednl. Society and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KLJ738
K.M. Joseph, J.1. Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:Petitioner was appointed against a leave vacancy of Junior Lecturer in the Department of Chemistry in the first respondent College vide Ext. P1 order of appointment. This was preceded by a selection process under the relevant regulations. Petitioner was appointed on 25-9-1987 pursuant to Ext. P1 and she worked till 15-6-1988. Thereafter a vacancy arose in the same department. She was appointed as per Ext.P2 appointment order dated 31-8-1988. Ext. P2 order of appointment was due to her claim over the vacancy which she acquired by virtue of Ext. PI. She has claim over the next arising vacancy as she had worked as Junior Lecturer for two spells. The first respondent cannot notify the next arising vacancy as the petitioner has a lien over the same, but Ext. P3 notification was issued on 13-12-2003 by the first respondent. One vacancy in Chemistry department is notified. Petitioner has lien. Petitioner made a request before the...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and anr. Vs. J.C. Augustine and a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-2007
Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Ker)377; [2007]293ITR26(Ker); 2007(2)KLJ762; 2007(4)KLT70
H.L. Dattu, C.J.1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue, being aggrieved by the common judgment of the learned single Judge in OP Nos. 1798 of 2000 and 12979 of 2003 and Writ Petn. (C) No. 9866 of 2004 dt. 20th July, 2004.2. The facts, as noticed by the learned single Judge are as under:The petitioner is an income-tax assessee. For the asst. yrs. 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93, the AO had completed the assessment and had demanded income-tax, in a sum of Rs. 78,45,838 along with interest. He had also demanded an additional amount of income-tax of Rs. 9,62,240 on the basis of the additional income disclosed by the assessee.3. After completion of the assessment proceedings by the authorities under the IT Act ('Act' for short), the assessee had filed an application before the Settlement Commission under Section 245C of the Act. Before the Settlement Commission, the assessee had also made an application for allowing him to remit the additional income-tax of Rs. 9,62,240 in instalments. The Set...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Kunju Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3929
V. Ramkumar, J.1. In this appeal preferred from the Central Prison, Kannur, the appellant who was the sole accused in S.C. 353 of 2005 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Court, Fast Track (Ad hoc No. 1), Thrissur, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Section 376, IPC.THE PROSECUTION CASE2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:On 31-8-2001 at about 2 p.m. inside the thatched hut situated in Kadappuram colony (sea side colony) to the west of Azheekode Puthenpalli in Azheekode village within the limits of Kodungallur Police Station 48 year old Muhammed Kunju with the intention of committing rape of 8 year old Faseela residing in the neighbouring house, got her into his kitchen under the pretext of asking her to fetch beedies for him and committed forcible sexual intercourse with the girl after removing her underwear. The accused has thereby committed the offence of rape punishable under Section 376, IPC.TH...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnankutty Nair Vs. K.K. Pankajam and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker250
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The question which arises in this case is whether a legal heir of the deceased defendant who had not been brought on record as a party to the suit will be bound by the decree if the circumstances of the case indicate that such legal heirs was aware of the proceedings in the suit.2. Ext. P3 order passed by the Additional Munsiff, Cherthala dismissing an application filed by the husband of the original defendant in the suit which was one for specific performance of an agreement for sale of property is under challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution instituted by the unsuccessful applicant-husband. The suit was instituted in the year 1987 against Smt. Janakiamma, wife of the petitioner by the 1st respondent. On receiving summons, Smt. Janakiamma entered appearance and contested. Upon her demise all the five children of Smt. Janakiamma were impleaded as additional defendants and they filed a statement adopting the contentions which h...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakar Dev Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-2007
Reported in: [2009]148CompCas600(Ker); 2007(2)KLJ692; (2008)ILLJ86Ker
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Does the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act') contemplate (or rule out) the existence of plurality of employers for a plantation? Does the deemed employer under Section 2(e) oust the real employer from his chair? Does the deemed employer continue to be the sole employer for the purposes of the Act2. These are the interesting questions that are raised in these petitions where the Managing Director of the owner - a public limited company as well as a Manager of its plantation face indictment in various prosecutions under the Act and the Managing Director seeks quashing of proceedings against him.3. The area of dispute is limited. It is unnecessary to advert to the specific facts in each prosecution. The prosecution relates to various acts of omission and commission in the plantation in contravention of the provisions of1 the Act and the Kerala Plantations Labour Rules, 1959 (for short 'the Rules'). The alleged violations include the failure to make vita...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Shahal Hassan Musaliyar Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-13-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Ker21; I(2008)BC359; 2007(3)KLJ781
ORDERKurian Joseph, J.1. Whether a suit for recovery of money due to a bank/financial institution, based on a foreign judgment is liable to be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal and if so, at what stage, is the issue arising for consideration in this case.2. Ext. P1 is the foreign judgment rendered by the Civil Court of First Instance, Dubai in Civil Case No. 82/87. The first respondent herein viz. Bank of Baroda is the plaintiff, the 5th respondent is the first defendant and the second defendant is one Tabakhol Kongoma Musaliar H. Shahal. The suit was one for money. The suit was decreed, ordering recovery of Dhs. 711,476.20 with interest and costs. Based on Ext. P1 foreign judgment, Ext. P3 suit was filed by, the Bank before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kollam, as O.S. 271/87 praying for a decree to realize equivalent amount in Indian currency with interest and costs. The petitioner filed writ statement contending that the petitioner is not a party to the suit, necessary part...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. O.E.N. India Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Ker)85
H.L. Dattu, C.J.1. The IT Department has filed this appeal, under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter for the sake of convenience referred to as Act, 1961, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Cochin dt. 31st Jan., 2000 for the asst. yr. 1992-93.2. The facts in nutshell are:The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture of switches, relays and potentiometers. In the returns filed under Section 139 of the Act for the asst. yr. 1992-93, the assessee had claimed exclusion of excise duty paid from the total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. The case of the assessee was that as per the method of accounting consistently followed by it, the excise duty collected and paid has been credited to a separate account and treated as a liability in the accounts and not as assessee's income and therefore, it should not be included in the assessee's total income for the purpose of computation of deduction u...
Tag this Judgment!Roy Varghese Vs. High Court of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR46]; 2007(2)KLJ669
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner, who is a practising lawyer is an applicant for appointment to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate. Ext. P1 notification was issued by the High Court of Kerala, inviting applications for the said post. The petitioner is a physically challenged person with 50% locomotive disability. According to him, the High Court should have reserved 3% of the vacancies, notified to be filled up, for the physically handicapped persons. Feeling aggrieved by the omission of the respondents to reserve 3% seats for the physically handicapped persons, this writ petition was filed, seeking the following reliefs.i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to earmark 3% vacancies to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate in the Kerala Judicial Service for the persons having disabilities.ii) Issue a further direction directing the respondents to earmark 3% vacancies mentioned in Ext. PI notification and to fill the backlo...
Tag this Judgment!E. Velappan Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KLJ685
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner, then a Ranger in the Kerala Forest Subordinate Service, was entitled for being considered for recruitment by transfer as Assistant Conservator in the Kerala Forest Service, havingregard to the fact that he possessed the two qualifications prescribed for recruitment by transfer as Assistant Conservator. On 6-10-1997, the Departmental Promotion Committee met for preparation of select list in terms of Rule 28(b)(i) of Part II of Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules for the vacancy of Assistant Conservator that arose on 14-3-1996.2. While the confidential reports of the Officers being assessed for the purpose of preparation of that select list, going by the provisions of Rule 28(b)(i)(4), are those relatable to the preceding three years, thereby, not the previous date of occurrence of vacancy, Note (i) under Rule 28(b)(i)(7) provides a method of dealing with the cases of officers who are either under suspension, facing disciplinary pro...
Tag this Judgment!Padinjarekara Agencies Limited Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-08-2007
Reported in: (2008)13VST146(Ker)
ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. Sri. V.V. Ashokan, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) is directed to take notice for the respondent. He is permitted to file his memo of appearance in one month's time.2. Since common questions of law and facts involve in all these sales tax revisions, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order.3. The petitioner is a public limited company, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is also a registered dealer, both under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('the KGST Act', for short) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('the CST Act', for short). It is engaged in the production and sale of centrifuged latex. It is also registered as an industrial unit.4. For the assessment years after April 1, 1988, the assessee, while filing annual returns before the assessing authority, had claimed the benefit of the notification issued by the State Government in S.R.O. No. 1727/93. In the said notification, the bene...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »