Kerala Court January 2009 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.
indrasenan and anr. Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ918
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioners, while working in the service of the second respondent, were placed under suspension on 15-3-2006. Show cause notice with memos of charges were issued to them on 10-7-2006. Being dissatisfied with their replies, an enquiry was ordered and enquiry officer appointed.2. The elected committee then in office was superseded on 12-01-2007. An administrator was put in charge. Later, administrative committee took charge on 8-2-2007. Disciplinary proceedings were dragged on. But the fact remains that neither the then elected committee nor the successor administrator or the administrative committee applied for prior approval of the Registrar in terms of Rule 198(6) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter, the 'Rules' for short, to continue the petitioners under suspension for a period beyond six months.3. Matters stood so for quite a long time and the managing committee now in office assumed charge on 30-1-2008. The sub committee ...
Parameswaran Nair Vs. Surendran S/O Karuthkunju Panicker and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2762
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Whether a Magistrate is competent to take cognizance of a protest complaint filed by a complainant on receipt of the notice on a refer report submitted by the police officer after investigation under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, ignoring the refer report and without considering the question whether the refer report is to be accepted or not? This is the question to be settled in the revision. Incidentally, what is the proper procedure to be adopted by a Magistrate on receipt of a refer report is also to be settled.2. Facts on a narrow compass is as follows: First respondent filed a complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Haripad against three accused alleging that they committed offences under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 474 and 477A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate on receipt of the complaint sent it for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as th...
Surendaran and ors. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ760
K.M. Joseph, J.1. In these writ petitions, what is under challenge is a clarification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The claim of the petitioners is that they are Central Government employees working on deemed deputation to BSNL. The question relates to the interpretation of Rule 3(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The provisions which are relevant are contained in Table I in relation of the value of residential accommodation provided in the Table. For the year effective up to 31-3-2005, the Table read as follows:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sl.No. Circumstances Where the where theaccomodation is accommodationunfurnished is furnished-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) (2) (3) (4)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Where the accommodation License fee determined The value of perquisite asis provided by Union or State by U...
S. Sthanukumaran Thampi Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-2009
Reported in: [2009]180TAXMAN350(Ker)
K.M. Joseph, J.1. In these writ petitions, what is under challenge is a clarification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The claim of the petitioners is that they are Central Government employees working on deemed deputation to BSNL. The question relates to the interpretation of Rule 3(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The provisions which are relevant are contained in Table I in relation of the value of residential accommodation provided in the Table. For the year effective up to 31-3-2005, the Table read as follows:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sl. Circumstances Where the Where theNo. accommodation is accommodation unfurnished is furnished----------------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) (2) (3) (4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) Where the accommodation License fee The value of is provided by Union or determined by perquisite as State...
V. Surendran Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-2009
Reported in: [2009]182TAXMAN211(Ker)
ORDERK.M. Joseph, J.1. In these writ petitions, what is under challenge is a clarification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The claim of the petitioners is that they are Central Government employees working on deemed deputation to BSNL. The question relates to the interpretation of Rule 3(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The provisions which are relevant are contained in Table I in relation of the value of residential accommodation provided in the Table. For the year effective up to 31-3-2005, the Table read as follows:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sl Circumstances Where the Where theNo. accommodation is accommodation unfurnished is furnished--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) (2) (3) (4)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) Where the accommodation License fee determined The value of perquisite a...
Sudhakaran C.B. (Dr.) Vs. the CochIn Educational Society and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ349
ORDERP.R. Raman, J.1. The revision petitioner was working as a Selection Grade Lecturer as also the Head of the Department in English in the Cochin College run by the Cochin Educational Society, which is a private college affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University. He possess a Doctorate in English. While working so, he was elected as a staff representative of the Parent Teacher Association (hereinafter referred to as 'PTA' for short) during 2002-03 and 2003-04. The constitution of the Executive Committee consists of 25 members of which 16 shall represent the parents/guardians of the students studying in the college and 9 members are to be selected as representatives of the staff of the college the President of the PTA is considered to be the guardian of students as per the bye-laws and its Secretary, a member of the staff. While holding the position as the Secretary of the PTA, the petitioner along with the President happened to sent a complaint to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Burea...
Sasidharan Nair Vs. the Trivandrum Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ112
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner, employed with a local authority, is a guarantor for a loan availed by the third respondent from the first respondent, a cooperative bank. He executed an agreement to which Section 37 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'KCS Act', applies. Thereby, the creditor may require the petitioner's employer to deduct amounts due to it from the petitioner's emoluments. In exercise of that covenant, supported by the law contained in Section 37 of the KCS Act, the first respondent creditor issued Ext. P1 to the petitioner's employer, seeking deduction at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month from the petitioner's salary. This is under challenge.2. The question whether there is any outer limit for the amounts that could be recovered by recourse to Section 37 of the KCS Act is well settled by the decision of this Court in TVM. CO-OP. A. & R.P. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala 2004 (2) KLJ 85.3. However, the learned C...
Eldhose Kuriakkose Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2009
Reported in: (2009)25VST122(Ker)
K.M. Joseph, J.1. The petitioner challenges exhibit P1 assessment order and exhibit P2 demand notice. By exhibit P1, the petitioner is assessed purportedly by the fast track team under Section 17D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Exhibit P2 is the demand notice.2. I heard Dr. K.B. Mohammed Kutty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. The main contention is based on exhibit P4 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court as per which pre-assessment notice is to be given. In the counter-affidavit, it is not disputed that pre-assessment notice was not issued and also it is stated that since the assessment was completed by the fast track team, the rate of tax is 5.6 per cent which was correctly applied and it was brought to the notice of the authorised representative and the assessment was completed without issuing pre-assessment notice. A reply affidavit is filed, wherein, it is stated, inter alia, as follows:The Statement i...
Chacko Varghese and ors. Vs. the Registrar of Co-op. Societies and ors ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ499
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioners and respondents 7 to 11 were elected to the committee of the 5th respondent co-operative society, The first meeting of the newly elected committee was scheduled to be held at 11 am on 14-11 -2008. The petitioners were, admittedly, not present at that appointed time. The Joint Register, acting on the report made by the Assistant Registrar dated 14-11-2008, issued Ext.P9 on that day, appointing a part-time administrator in exercise of authority under Section 33(1)(b) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter, the 'Act', for short. This is under challenge.2. The contention of the petitioners is that as a result of the break down of the vehicle in which they were travelling, they could reach the office of the 5th respondent only by 11.20 am on 14-11 -2008 and therefore, it is not a case where they have failed to enter on office. They content that the impugned action is motivated in as much as the 6th respondent, secretary of th...
Surendran Unnithan and ors. Vs. Sakthibadran and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ504
ORDERK.P. Balachandran, J.1. The matter is put up before this Court on the request of the counsel for the petitioners in view of the objection raised by the Registry regarding the maintainability of this revision petition against the order, appointing a Receiver, passed by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court in C.M. Appeal, in view of the decision of this Court in Thilakan v. Kunhalankutty : AIR2004Ker95 .2. Heard counsel for the petitioner. Section 115(1) CPC enables the High Court to call for the record of 'any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto.' Explanation to Section 115 CPC states that in the said section the expression 'any case which has been decided' includes inter alia any order made in the course of a suit. Proviso to Section 115(1) CPC states, however, that the High Court shall not, under Section 115 CPC, vary or reverse, inter alia, any order made in the course of a suit, except...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »