Kerala Court February 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.
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Food Inspector and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2224; 2009(1)KLJ665
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. M/s. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. - a beverages manufacturer and its Directors, face prosecutions before various courts in the State of Kerala. They have come to this Court with these Crl. M.Cs. with a prayer that the prosecutions launched against them may be quashed on various grounds raised by them invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr P.C.2. To the skeletal facts first. Samples of carbonated beverages allegedly manufactured by M/s. Pespsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., were purchased by the Food Inspectors at various centres in the State. They were sent to the Public Analysts. The Public Analysts analysed the samples in these cases and reported that the samples of carbonated beverages analysed by them were adulterated. They have furnished their opinion in the prescribed form. Thereupon, prosecutions were lunched. It is important to straightaway note that the option under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adult...
irinjalakuda Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ729
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Irinjalakuda Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd No. R312 registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'KCS Act', has filed this writ petition through its President and Secretary. Its area of operation in terms of approved bye-laws is Mukundapuram and Kodunglloor Taluks in Thrissur District. It operates through its branches at Irinjalakuda, Kodungalloor, Chalakudy, Kodakara and Mala.2. The first respondent is the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited (KSCARD BANK, for short), which is so christened by the operation of Section 2(a) of the Kerala State Co-operative (Agricultural and Rural Development Banks) Act, 1984, hereinafter referred to as the 'CARD Act'.3. Primary banks which are registered under the KCS Act as Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited and admitted as members of the first respondent, ...
Jcr Trading Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. A.J. Varghese and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ771
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. RCR. No. 204 of 2007 is instituted by the tenants and RCR. Nos. 35 of 2008 is instituted by the landlords. Both these revision petitions are directed against the common judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissing the appeals filed by the tenants and the landlords. The landlords filed the rent control petition invoking the grounds of eviction under Sections 11(2)(b)(arrears of rent), 11(3)(bona fide need for own occupation) and 11(8)(requirement of additional accomodation for personal use).2. The landlords' case in the context of the ground for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) was that the contract rent was Rs. 4,850/- per mensem and that the same is in arrears since January 2002 and that despite statutory demand notice issued under Section 11(2)(b) the tenant did not pay the arrears of rent within the Section 11(2)(b) the tenant did not pay the arrears of rent within the period of 15 days of receipt of the notice or even thereafter. The Rent ...
Julius K.J. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ882; (2009)IVLLJ860Ker
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The challenge involved in this writ petition is as to the proper method of calculating gratuity payable to the petitioner, particularly as to the computation of the 'per day wage' as contemplated under the relevant scheme. The question is whether it has to be arrived at by dividing the monthly wages by the deviser of 30 (the total number of days in the month) or by 26 (after excluding the four Sundays/holidays). It is also in dispute whether the petitioner is justified in taking a 'U' turn to contend that the computation of the 'per day wages' shall only be in conformity with the stipulation under the statute i.e., Section 4(2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act ('Act' in short) after praying for and obtaining the benefit under a Scheme.2. The petitioner while working as Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) under the second respondent retired from the service on 30-06-1997 after attaining at the age of superannuation. In fact, the second respondent being a...
Mini Muthoottu Mutual Funds Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Centr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-2009
Reported in: [2009]180TAXMAN444(Ker)
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee under the Income-tax Act. Certain amounts were assessed as due from him under the Income-tax Act by Ext.P1 assessment order, which was subjected to challenge before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. While that appeal was pending, by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1998, a Scheme was introduced by the Parliament, by name, Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, whereby on a declaration made by an assessee in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme in respect of tax arrears due from an assessee, the amount payable under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme by the declarant shall be determined at the rates specified in that Scheme and the declarant would only be liable to pay that amount, instead of the actual amount due. The petitioner filed a declaration, Ext.P2 dated 24-12-1998, before the respondent claiming the benefit of the Scheme in respect of an amount of Rs. 6,82,606 due as interest from the petitioner as per Ext.P1 assessment order. Pursuant there...
Cit Vs. C.V. Jayachandran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-2009
Reported in: [2009]184TAXMAN68(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in the appeal filed by the revenue is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income 'escaping assessment completed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act in the case of respondent assessee for the year 1989-90 is invalid. An item of property belonging to the assessee was notified for acquisition on 3-6-1986. The possession was taken over on 24-10-1987 and the initial compensation was paid to the assessee on 17-1-1989. Even though assessee filed IT return for the year 1988-89 assessee did not include any income from capital gain. Though the transfer took place in the previous year relevant for the said assessment year, by Finance Act, 1991, amendment was introduced to Section 45(5)(a) providing for levy of income-tax on capital gains arising out of compulsory acquisition of land on receipt of initial compensation. Since assessee received initial compensation only on 17-1-1989 and under the amended provisions which came in...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Edamon Vanitha Society
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-2009
Reported in: [2009]185TAXMAN32(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Since respondent refused notice, only option for us is to hear the Standing Counsel for the appellant and dispose of the appeal. Moreover, we find that even before the Tribunal, the respondent did not make any appearance. Therefore, we proceed to hear the Standing Counsel and dispose of the appeal.2. It appears the assessee is a society engaged in manufacture and supply of stabilizers to a brand name holder. Even though its claim is exemption, it has not obtained registration as a charitable institution. It is seen that the assessment itself is completed as an income escaping assessment under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act. On appeal, the CIT (Appeals) allowed the claim holding that the department has not established that the income is not utilised for charitable purpose. It is mis order that is confirmed by the Tribunal against which this appeal is filed.3. Standing Counsel has relied on decision of this Court in CIT v. Ernakulam District Cement Dealers...
K.P. Kuriakose Vs. G. Santhosh Kumar and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ683; (2009)IIILLJ602Ker
R. Basant, J.1. Claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. His claim for compensation for loss suffered as a result of a motor accident was turned down by the Tribunal on the ground that Section 53 of the E.S.I. Act bars the claim of the appellant. The accident and injury are not seen disputed. The Tribunal took the view that Section 53 of the E.S.I. Act as explained in Western India Plywood Ltd. v. Ashokan 1997 (2) KIT 635 bars the claim of the appellant/claimant. Admittedly the appellant is receiving disablement benefit under the provisions of the E.S.I. Act.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has totally misconstructed the provisions of law in coming to the conclusion that a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is barred by the stipulations of Section 53 of the E.S.I. Act. The counsel submits that the position has been considered by the Supreme Court in the decision in Regl. Director E.S.I.C. v. Francis De Costa : [1992]3SCR2...
Ramakrishnan T.K. Vs. C.N. Subhadra and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ697
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Can the pace of execution proceedings before the Family Courts under Section 125 Cr. PC. be quickened? Should warrants both under Sections 421(1)(a) and (b) Cr. P.C. be issued invariably in every case before a sentence of imprisonment is imposed under Section 125(3) Cr. P.C., for recovery of the amount payable? Is it the law that the courts, even after being satisfied that the defaulter has no movable or immovable property, must ritualistically issue warrants both under Sections 421(1)(a) and (b) Cr. P.C and wait for the return of both warrants before passing an order imposing sentence under Section 125(3) Cr.PC? Do the decisions in Nithiyanandan v. Radhamani 1980 KLT 537 and Kuttappan v. Vijayamma 2001 (3) KLT 451 insist on inflexible adherence to such a procedure? These questions of relevance have come up for consideration before me in this RP (FC).2. My experience in this jurisdiction shows that there is lot of avoidable unnecessary delay in the expeditious exec...
Indian Council of Agricultural Research and ors. Vs. C.T. Abraham and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ736
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.W.P.(C) No. 27950 of 20071. The applicant in O.A. No. 593 of 2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench is the writ petitioner. The respondent herein were the respondents in that Original Application. Challenging Ext. P6 order of the Tribunal in the said Original Application, this Writ Petition is filed.2. The brief facts of the case are the following. The petitioner joined the service of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (in short 'the I.C.A.R.') as Land Surveyor and Head Draughtsman in 1958. In 1975, he was granted leave for two years to go to Oman. On the expiry of the leave period, the petitioner requested for extension of leave. But, there was no response. Though, the respondents claimed that they have issued letters to the petitioner to re-join duty, in his last known address, no such letters are available in the files. Finally, the petitioner was informed by communication dated 23-9-1981 that his services were terminated wi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »