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.
State of Kerala Vs. Ecowood Limited
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ98; (2009)25VST469(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in the revision filed by the State is whether the Tribunal was justified in granting exemption on purchase turnover of rubber wood by the respondent for the year 2001 -2002. We have heard Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the respondent.2. Respondent was approved as a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) by the Central Government on 20-02-95. The approval was for a period of 5 years ending on 20-02-2000. Respondent claimed exemption on purchase turnover of rubber wood under notification SRO No. 1090/99, which provided for exemption for five years for purchase of industrial raw-material by 100% EOU from the date of approval of such EOU by the Central Government. The Notification was later amended whereby exemption for 5 years was to commence from date of commencement of commercial production instead of date of approval as an EOU. In the course of assessment, the assessing officer did not grant exemption ...
Marita Joseph and ors. Vs. K.S.E.B.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ179
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The seniority of the petitioners who were originally recruited as L.D. Typists in the respondent-Board and were later promoted to the higher cadre of Junior Personal Assistant, which is the re-designated post of Stenographer (Selection Grade) based on the test qualification was stated as shattered and unsettled by Ext. P8 issued by the Board allegedly in compliance with the directions given by the Apex Court as per the decision Kerala State Electricity Board v. N. Sukesen and Ors. : AIR1996SC2525 which, hence, was sought to be intercepted by filing O.P No. 4729 of 1998, leading to Ext. P10 judgment directing the respondent-Board to look into the aspect and pass final orders as specified.2. In furtherance to Ext. P10 verdict, the respondent-Board considered the matter and issued Ext. P11 order whereby Ext. P8 was upheld, simultaneously explaining the scope and ambit of the same specifying that pursuant to the re-fixation of the seniority bringing the petitio...
Narayanankutty Menon Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ741
ORDER1. The petitioner in this review petition has sought for a review of the judgment dated 4-11-2008, essentially with regard to the observations made in the judgment in the writ petition, 'as to the absence of a suitable statutory frame work for dealing with cases of mentally retarded persons both in the context of appointing a guardian for management of the person and the property of the mentally retarded person or for any other ancillary purpose dealing with the person and properties in that regard.'2. After having observed so, this Court also proceeded to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was filed alleging that one Sunilkumar, son of late Mudakodi Chandrasekhara Menon and late Mulappilli Kamalamma is a mentally retarded person. Certain items of properties were obtained by Chandrasekhara Menon and Kamalamma from their respective tarwards. Chandrasekhara Menon died on 24-3-1995; the mentally retarded person was being looked...
Suresh R. (Dr.) Vs. Mahatma Gandhi University and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ76
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. Since common questions arose for decision in these Writ Appeals, they are heard and disposed of together by this common judgment. The main point that arises for decision in these cases is whether the Mahatma Gandhi University can make appointments to more vacancies than that are notified for selection.W.A. No. 1197/2007:2. This appeal is treated as the main case. The appellant was the 2nd respondent in the writ petition. Respondents 2 and 3 were the writ petitioners. The 1st respondent University issued Ext. P3 notification dated 24.12.2005, inviting applications for various teaching posts under it .Item No. 16 under the said notification was for appointment to two posts of Lecturer in International Relations/Political Sciences/History/Economics in the School of International Relations. The writ petitioners were qualified for appointment to the said post. Pursuant to the said notification, the Selection Committee met on 8.3.2006,held the interview of the cand...
State of Kerala Vs. Radheshyam Khandenwall
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ765
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The issue raised in the revision petition filed by the State is whether the respondent assessee is entitled to payment of tax at compounded rate under Section 7(7) of the KGST Act. The case of the Department is that the construction involved is a boat jetty which does not answer the type of civil work covered by Section 7(7) of the KGST Act, According to the Government Pleader, specific items of work only are covered by the Section, until the later amendment and therefore prior to amendment all works of civil nature are not covered by the Section. The items of work covered under Section 7(7) at the relevant time are construction of buildings, bridges, roads, railway tracks, walls including sea walls, dams and canals including any repair or maintenance of such civil work, The above provision is expanded later to cover every civil work. However, the question to be considered is whether the construction of a boat jetty will answer any of the items of the work ...
State of Kerala and ors. Vs. Prof. D. Gopalakrishna Pillai and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ854
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.W.P.(C) No. 16111/2006:1. The petitioners are retired High School Assistant (in short 'HSA'), who were working in aided schools. They completed the age of superannuation (55 years) in 10-2-1997 and 31-12-1996 respectively. But, on the strength of Rule 60(c) of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules (in short 'the KSR') read with Rule 62 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules (in short 'the KER'), they continued in service and retired only on 31-3-1997. All Government servants including aided school teachers retire on the last day of die month in which they attain the age of 55 years. But, in view of the said Rules, the teachers, who attain the age of 55 years. But, in view of the said Rules, the teachers, who attain the age of 55 years in the month of July or diereafter during an academic year, need retire from service only on the last day of the month in which die academic year ends. While the petitioners were continuing in service on the strength of the ab...
K. Sreedharan and Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-2009
Reported in: [2009]184TAXMAN470(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Heard counsel for the appellant and standing counsel for the department.2. The question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) and confirmed in first appeal. The appellant was engaged in the business of running theatre, bar, hotel and besides all these sale of arrack as a licenced dealer. During the previous year 1994-95 the department noticed that the assessee's accounts pertaining to arrack business was unreliable because in the first place assessee declared massive loss of above Rs. 12 lakhs which is unusual in the nature of the business. Secondly department found that sale price of arrack in the beginning of the financial year was Rs. 200 per litre, whereas towards the end sale price declined up to Rs. 80 per litre. After finding the accounts as unreliable, the assessment was completed with an addition of Rs. 15 lakhs. There is no dispute that the assessment got confirmed at all levels which...
Abdulrahiman N.K. Vs. Government of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ721; 2009(2)KLT105
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Cook in a leave vacancy in the 4th respondent's school on 10-7-2003. It is a special school meant for visually challenged children. On termination of the vacancy, he was relieved from service on 30-11-2003. The said appointment was approved by the District Educational Officer (D.E.O.). The petitioner submits that, thus he became a Rule 51A claimant for future vacancies that may arise in the said school.2. Later, a vacancy arose in the post of Scavenger on 1-7-2005. The petitioner was no appointed in that vacancy. Still later, another vacancy arose in the post of Cook on 5-6-2006. Even then, he was not considered for appointment. Claiming the vacancy in the post of Scavenger, the petitioner preferred Ext. P2 representation before the Manager on 12-9-2005. It was followed by Ext. P3 representation dated 10-10-2005 filed, before the D.E.O. Since the said officer did not take any action, the petitioner preferred Ext. P4 represent...
Ramesh Kumar S. Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ131
C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.1. The petitioner is challenging Exs. P8, P10 and P11 demands for arrears of contribution payable under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) issued by respondents 1 to 3, Through Ext. P11 the petitioner was threatened with coercive steps for recovery, on failure of payment of balance amount of Rs. 17152.10. The issue pertains to liability for contribution to the Provident Fund, payable by the 'employer' with respect to a Cashew Factory for the period from 1/2000 to 5/2000, The order of determination is Ext. P4, According to the petitioner, by virtue of Ext. P1 lease agreement, the factory owned by him was leased out to the 4th respondent for conducting business for the period from 9.1.2000 to 31.12.2001. It is evident from Ext. P2 that the lease was accepted by the Special Officer for Cashew Industry, and the 4th respondent was recognised as the 'occupier' by way of transf...
State of Kerala Vs. T.S. Kalyanaraman
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-2009
Reported in: (2009)26VST661(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This is a revision filed by the State against the order of the Tribunal rejecting an application for review filed by the Revenue under Section 39(7) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 to review an order in appeal issued by the Tribunal. The respondent-assessee, a dealer in gold jewellery, filed an application for payment of tax at compounded rate as provided under Section 7(1)(a) of the KGST Act read with Rule 30(1) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 for the assessment year 2000-01. Even though application for payment of tax at compounded rate was furnished in form 21 on due date, the assessing officer did not pass any orders or issue form 21A or demand in form 22 as required under the provisions of the Act and Rules. However, the respondent-assessee started remitting tax along with monthly returns in terms of the compounding application filed by him. The assessing officer did not raise any objection in the monthly returns filed by the respo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »