Kerala Court March 2010 Judgments

Dr. Saiful Islam Vs. University of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT286

S. Siri Jagan, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the bone of contention as between the petitioner and the 4th respondent is the post of Reader in Political Science in the Kerala University, which vacancy was reserved to be filled up from among the candidates belonging to Muslim community, to satisfy the roster point applicable to that community. Both the petitioner and the 4th respondent applied for the post. The 4th respondent was selected. The petitioner is challenging the selection of the 4th respondent on four grounds. The first is that as on the last date for submitting applications, the 4th respondent did not have the qualification prescribed for the post. Secondly, the experience qualification prescribed, viz., 8 years teaching experience should have been one obtained after the acquisition of the basic qualification of Ph.D., which the 4th respondent did not possess at the relevant time. Thirdly, for the purpose of consideration for selection, the candidate was expected to produce ano...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Johnson G. Oommen

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLJ635

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in the connected appeals filed by the revenue is whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that retrospective amendment to the statute does not entitle the assessing officer to invoke the powers of rectification under Section 154 of the I.T. Act. We have heard senior standing counsel appearing for the revenue, and Sri T.M. Sreedharan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee.2. Two assessees in these cases are cashew exporters who have claimed deduction of income from export of cashew kernels under Section 80HHC of the Act. It is the admitted position that Taxation Law Amendment Act, 2005 introduced an amendment to Section 80HHC by introducing various provisos with retrospective effect from 1.4.1992. The original assessment completed in one case was under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 and in another case regular assessment completed under Section 143(1) was rectified under Section 154 to make ...

Kumaran Vs. Muriyad Service Co-operative Bank

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT97

ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. Heard both sides.2. The revision petitioner challenges the order dated 18.11.2009 passed by the Additional Munsiff-II, Irinjalakuda refusing to lift the attachment under Section 84(1) Cr.P.C.3. One Jose was the accused in S.T. Case No. 51 of 2004 on the file of the court below. It was a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Since Jose never appeared before the Court and was absconding, the court below had initiated steps under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. and an immovable property belonging to Jose had been attached under Section 83 Cr.P.C. Pending the said case, the said Jose died and the court below as per order dated 18.11.2009 closed the proceedings, holding that the charge against the accused was abated. But the attachment made under Section 83 Cr.P.C. was not lifted by the Magistrate. The said accused Jose had availed a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the Muriyad Service Co-operative Bank (R1) in the year 1997 and due to his failu...

Shybimon Vs. Haridas

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT158

ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The revision petitioner who was the complainant in a private complaint filed as C.M.P. No. 2480 of 2009 before the J.F.C.M.I., Cherthala, alleging offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 I.P.C. against the Ist respondent herein, challenges the order dated 20.8.2009 passed by the Magistrate dismissing the complaint presumably under Section 203 Cr.P.C. after recording the sworn statement of the complainant.2. Eventhough the accused to whom no process was issued by the Magistrate, has no right to be heard in this revision, since the revision petitioner had made the accused a party respondent and also since this Court ordered notice to him, I also heard Advocate Sri Azad Babu on behalf of the Ist respondent/accused.The Background Facts:3. The facts leading to the filing of the aforesaid complaint can be summarised as follows:A) O.S. No. 555 of 2008 before the Munsiff's Court, Cherthala was a suit filed by the complainant's mother Kaumari and the complainant ag...

South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. Labour Court

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT350

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The writ petitioner is the appellant. It is a Scheduled Bank. It filed the Writ Petition, challenging Ext.Pl order of the Labour Court, Ernakulam.2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The respondents 2 to 8 were Head Clerks working under the appellant Bank in different branches. From the day they were appointed to that post, they were discharging the functions of Special Assistants also. So, they claimed that they were entitled to get special allowance, for discharging the functions of the Special Assistants. When their claim in that regard was not accepted by the appellant Bank, they moved the Labour Court, Ernakulam, under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, by filing claim petition Nos. 24 and 25 of 1993, 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 of 1994. Those claim petitions were heard together by the Labour Court and Ext.P1 common order was passed by it, directing payment of special allowance to them. The relevant portion of Ext.Pl reads as follows:In the...

T.R. Rajan S/O. Ranganathan Vs. State of Kerala,

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. The petitioner is the licencee of six Toddy Shops in Irinjalakkuda Excise Range. He is an accused in Crime No. 292/2008 of Irinjalakuda Police Station involving offence under Sections 55(a) and 56(b) of the Abkari Act. In this writ petition his grievance is that by Ext.P5 he applied for a clearance certificate in order to claim preference as provided under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Kerala Abkari Disposal Rules 2002 and that he was issued Ext.P6 rejecting his application in view of the fact that the case referred to above has been registered and charge sheeted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda. It is challenging Ext.P6 and for a direction to the respondents to issue clearance certificate, the Writ Petition is filed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on Ext.P3 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 10041/2008.2. Rule 5(1)(a) of the Abkari Shops Disposal Rules 2002 provides for preference. However, one of the conditions ...

Vijayan Vs. Gopinathan Nair

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT180

ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. Under challenge in this revision under Section 20 is the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Chengannur in the assumed capacity of Rent Control Appellate Authority, Chengannur dismissing an application for condoning the delay of 9 days caused in the matter of filing a Rent Control Appeal under Section 18 and the judgment consequently rejecting the appeal as time barred. On considering the revision for admission, this Court directed the Registry to enquire of the learned Subordinate Judge as to whether any notification has been issued notifying the Sub Judge, Chengannur as Appellate Authority under Section 18 of the Rent Control Act. The learned Subordinate Judge would inform the Registry that he has not come across any notification notifying the Sub Judge, Chengannur as Appellate Authority under Section 18 of the Rent Control Act. He however, referred to the judgment of this Court in Vijayappa Kurup v. Padmanabhan 2009 (2) KLT 939 for justifying the acti...

Basith C. S/O. Muhammed Koya and ors. Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. The issue raised in these writ petitions are connected and therefore, the Writ Petitions are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners challenge the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of acquisition of 32.0479 hecters of land for establishing a Knowledge Park by the Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation.3. The first contention raised is that Section 4(1) notification was issued on 3/12/2007 and that declaration under Section 6(1) was made only on 26/2/2009. It is contended that since Section 6(1) declaration was made beyond one year from Section 4(1) notification, the proceedings have lapsed. 4. From the counter affidavit filed by the KINFRA, it is seen that Section 4(1) notification was issued by the Land Acquisition Officer on 3/12/2007, published in the Gazette on 4/12/2007 and in the newspaper on 1/1/2008 and 4/1/2009. It is stated that this notification was p...

Thankachan S/O. Narayanan Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J.1. Did the court below err in accepting the version of PW2 about the alleged subsequent incident that took place at Velayilppadi?ii) Did the court below err in coming to the conclusion that an offence under Section 302 I.P.C is made out even accepting the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution? These questions are raised before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri. P. Vijayabhanu in this appeal.2. The appellant-Thankachan has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced under Section 302 I.P.C to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default he has been sentenced to undergo R.I for a further period of 2 months.3. According to the prosecution, on 25.11.2007, the appellant and the deceased, who were standing in a queue in front of an outlet of the Beverages Corporation had picked up a quarrel. That quarrel was related to one Periyaswamy, who allegedly attempted to break and get into the queue. The deceased had taken objections agains...

State of Kerala Vs. Komalan

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT190

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.W.A. No. 513/2010:1. The point that arises for decision in this appeal is, on stay of prosecution of a criminal case registered against an abkari contractor under Section 57(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whether it can be taken that no abkari case is registered against him for the purpose of Sub-rule (1)(a) of Rule 5 of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants.2. The brief facts of the case are the following:The respondent is the licensee of the toddy shops in Group I of Thiruvananthapuram Excise Range. Samples of toddy taken from T.S. No. 1 under the said Range on 3.5.2007 was found to contain 8.83% volume by volume of ethyl alcohol. The sale of toddy containing that much volume of ethyl alcohol was a violation of Rule 9(2) of the Rules. The said conduct of the licensee disclosed offences under Sections 57(a) and 56(b) of t...