Kerala Court November 2009 Judgments

Subash Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT352

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The fourth respondent, while a member of a credit society 'A', became a member of another credit society 'B', the third respondent. The petitioner, a member of 'B' society complained to the first respondent Joint Registrar. This Court issued Ext.P5 judgment directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings. Ext.P6 was issued by the first respondent holding that though the fourth respondent was a member of 'A' society when he became member of 'B' society, he has since ceased to be a member of 'A' society and therefore, ends of justice do not require his removal from membership of 'B' society. This is under challenge.2. That societies 'A' and 'B' are credit societies to which Rule 17 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', applies, is not disputed. The fourth respondent, admittedly, became member of the 'B' society, while he was a member of 'A' society. He applied to 'A' society and his membershi...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Director, Prasar Bharti

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2010)230CTR(Ker)277,[2010]189TAXMAN315(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in the appeals filed by the Revenue is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the commission paid by Doordarshan Kendra which is under the control of the respondent to advertising agencies for advertisments canvassed by them does not attract the provisions of Section 194H of the IT Act which provides for deduction of tax at source on payments of commission or brokerage. We have heard standing counsel appearing for the Revenue and Sri Dale P. Kurien, counsel appearing for the respondent.2. Respondent is a fully owned Government of India undertaking engaged in telecast of news, various sports, entertainments, cinemas and other programmes. Advertisement income is a major source of revenue for all telecasting companies including the respondent. Advertisements are canvassed through agents appointed by the respondent under agreement with them. Advertising agencies recognised by the respondent are of two types, the unregistered agen...

T.M.L. Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT209

S.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. The Writ Petition is filed seeking mainly the following relief:To set aside/reverse the order dated 17.11.2008, passed by the learned Court of the Munsiff of Hosdurg in the Interlocutory Application No. 3475 of 2008 in Original Suit No. 233 of 2008, titled as 'Mr. Vinod Kumar V. v. TML Financial Services Ltd.' and may consequently be pleased to allow the application filed by the petitioner under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, thereby referring the matter to arbitration, to be conducted by the Arbitrator.2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 233 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Hosdurg, and the respondent, the plaintiff. Suit is one for damages for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-and also for a declaration that the plaintiff is not liable to repay the outstanding instalments defaulted on the loan availed from the defendant for the purchase of a vehicle in view of its illegal seizure by the defendant. P3 is copy of the plaint in th...

All Kerala Private Bankers Association and P.J. Pious, Proprietor, New ...

Court: Kerala

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. In these Writ Petitions, the petitioners challenge the validity of the Government order dated 27.05.2008, imposing Presumptive Profession Tax on money lenders and others.2. W.P.(C) No. 26260/2008: This Writ Petition is treated as the main case for the purpose of referring to the parties and exhibits. The first petitioner is an Association of private bankers, engaged, mainly, in money lending. The second petitioner is a member of that Association. They challenge Ext.P2 order dated 27.5.2008, as per which presumptive profession tax has been imposed on money lenders at the rate of Rs. 1250/- for a half-year. Going by Article 276 of the Constitution of India, this is the maximum amount that could be levied by way of profession tax for a half-year. The petitioners point out that the levy of tax is governed by Section 204 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Sub-sections (2) and (3) thereof are relevant in this case. They are extracted below for convenient reference.20...

George Joseph, General Secretary Vs. S. Chandramohan Nair, Member,

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2010Ker68,2009(4)KLT853

Kurian Joseph, J.1. Quo warranto is derived from Latin which literally means 'by what authority'. It is a judicial remedy against an intruder or an usurper of an independent or substantive public office or franchise or liberty. The writ of quo warranto is an ancient Common Law remedy of a prerogative nature. A person holding an office, if not able to establish his claim as well- founded, was to be ousted. In Corpus Juris Secundum, (Volume 74, para 1, page 174 )quo warranto is defined thus:Quo warranto is a proceeding to determine the right to the exercise of a franchise or office and to oust the holder if his claim is not well founded, or if he has forfeited his right. In the Commentaries of Blackstone, (page 262 it is explained thus:The ancient writ of quo warranto was in the nature of a writ of right for the King against any office, franchise or liberty of the Crown to inquire by what authority he supported his claim, in order to determine the right. In Halsbury's Laws of England, (4...

Eliyamma Kuriakkose Vs. the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2010Ker52,2009(4)KLT874

Kurian Joseph, J.1. A simple but an interesting question has come up for consideration by reference before us, in the matter of payment of court-fees. In the case before us a penalty proceedings was challenged by a person before the learned single Judge. The writ petition was dismissed. The writ petitioner died in the meanwhile. The legal representatives of the writ petitioner have come up in appeal. The question is whether the legal representatives should pay court-fee per appellant at the rate of Rs. 200/-.2. In order to appreciate the question posed before us it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions. Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act provides for intra Court appeals, which reads as follows:5. Appeal from judgment or order of single Judge.--An appeal shall lie to a Bench of two Judges from--(i) a judgment or order of a single Judge in the exercise of original jurisdiction; or(ii) a judgment of a single Judge in the exercise of original jurisdiction in respect of a dec...

Mullikulangara Devi Kshethra Bharana Vs. the District Collector and or ...

Court: Kerala

A.K. Basheer, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in R.P. No. 1081 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 17794 of 2008.2. The writ petition was filed by respondent No. 5 herein praying for issue of a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, direction or order to respondents 1 to 3 to remove the unauthorised structures allegedly put up by the appellant with the help of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chengannur.3. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by judgment dated July 17, 2009 directing respondents 1 to 3 to facilitate measurement of the property in question with notice to the writ petitioner and the appellant. The learned Judge issued the above direction pursuant to the agreement reached between the parties. It was recorded by the learned Judge that the appellant had undertaken that the unauthorised structures would be demolished by it, if it was found, on measurement of the property, that the unauthorised structures w...

E.P. Kochukrishnan, Vs. State of Kerala and the Chittur Thathamangalam ...

Court: Kerala

Balakrishnan Nair, J.W.P.(C) No. 5165/2009:1. The writ petitioners are Advocates practising in the Courts at Chittur - Thathamangalam Municipality in Palakkad district. This Writ Petition is filed by them, challenging Rule 3(2) of the Kerala Municipality (Profession Tax) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The relevant portion of the said Rule reads as follows:3. Levy of Profession Tax: (1)(2) For the purpose of levying profession tax from those engaged in self employment companies and those transacting business and not coming within the purview of Sub-rule (1), as to which categories they shall be classified and how much half-yearly tax to be levied on each category shall be as described below, namely:Half-yearly tax Advocates, Private Doctors, Vaidyans, Rupees 1,250 para-medical experts and others engaged in similar professions.xxx xxx xxx xxxExplanation:- If any person or institution belongs to more than one categories of the above schedule at the same time, such p...

Salu Varghese Vs. Prabhakaran

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT280

ORDERS.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. The revision is directed against the order dated 9.10.2009 in E.A. No. 402 of 2000 in E.P. No. 557 of 1996 in O.S. No. 529 of 1994 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur. Petitioner is the judgment debtor in the above execution petition. The execution proceedings relate to the decree passed in O.S. No. 529 of 1994, a suit for money, and the respondents are the decree holders. Petitioner/judgment debtor had moved an application under Order XXI Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to certify the payment purported to have been made to one of the decree holders, the 1st respondent by way of a cheque to satisfy the decree. That application, after enquiry, was dismissed by the learned Additional Sub Judge, under the impugned order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision.2. I heard the counsel on both sides. Previously, there was a revision before this Court as C.R.P. No. 629 of 2001 at the instance of the...

Usha Jose D/O P.J. Joseph Vs. the Mahatma Gandhi University and the Co ...

Court: Kerala

A.K. Basheer, J.1. Since a common issue is involved in this batch of writ appeals, they have been taken up for hearing together, as agreed by learned Counsel on either side in all these case.2. These writ appeals are directed against an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in the pending writ petitions. Since the order that we pass will effectively put an end to the grievance of the appellants in the pending writ petitions, they are also taken up for hearing along with these writ appeals as agreed by the learned Counsel in all the cases.3. The common grievance of the appellants is that because of the delay on the part of the University to complete the process of revaluation of the answer scripts of the examination held by the University some time back, they are not being permitted to write the examinations for the first and fourth year B.Sc Nursing examination scheduled to commence from November 24 and 20th respectively. The learned Single Judge in his interim order decline...