Kerala Court January 2012 Judgments

The Deputy Director of Education, Kozhikode and Others Vs. V.P. Chandr ...

Court: Kerala

RamachandranNair, J. 1. Writ Appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge prohibiting recovery of excess salary drawn by respondents based on 1998 pay revision orders. We have heard Senior Government Pleader for appellants and counsel appearing for respondents. 2. The contention raised by learned Government Pleader is that the learned Single Judge, though accepted the claim of the appellants that by a wrong pay fixation excess amount was drawn by the respondents, still recovery was prohibited inspite of specific rule authorizing it based on two decisions of the Supreme Court in Registrar of Co-operative Societies v. Israil Khan (2009 (4) KLT SN 61 SC) and Syed Abdul Quadir and Others v. State of Bihar and Others (2009) 3 SCC 475). Rule 3C of Part-III K.S.R. relied on by the Government Pleader does not as such apply to the respondents because the said Rule provides that recovery of excess amount paid during four years prior to the retirement and reco...

T.R. Sankara Narayanan Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Chief S ...

Court: Kerala

1. The petitioner in this writ petition is the owner of a marriage hall. That hall was assessed to building tax under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Ext.P1 bill was issued to the petitioner directing the petitioner to pay yearly tax of Rs.3,844/- with effect from 1.4.1996 in respect of the said hall. Subsequently, by Ext.P2 demand notice, the petitioner was directed to show cause why the building tax in respect of the property should not be re-assessed under Rule 6(4) as Rs.17,500/- with service tax (LT) of Rs.5,000/- and Library cess of Rs.875/-. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 reply objecting to the proposal. Thereafter, by Ext.P4, the proposal was confirmed and the petitioner was directed to pay the balance building tax payable accordingly. Against Ext.P4, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Panchayat. By Ext.P8 judgment in O.P.No.21954/1997, the Panchayat was directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 appeal filed by the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P9 order was pa...

Oil Palm India Limited, Represented by Its Managing Director Vs. Assit ...

Court: Kerala

C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J 1. The petitioner is a public limited Company fully under the control of the Kerala Government engaged in cultivation of oil palms and production and sale of crude palm oil. The main operation of the company is the cultivation of oil palm which produces palm fruit with kernel inside. Both the pericarpas well as the kernel contain palm oil which is extracted in the factory by the petitioner in crude farm. The activity as a whole is essentially agricultural as well as industrial because production of crude palm oil from pericarp and the kernel is a complicated process done in the factory. Rule 7 of the Central Income Tax Rules, 1962 provides for assessment of income which is partly agricultural and partly business income. Even though, Rule 7 was in force from 1962 onwards, the Income Tax Department until 2004 allowed income from crude palm oil earned by the petitioner to be assessed as 100% agricultural income by the Agricultural Income tax authorities of the St...

Shaila E.J. Vs. the Kerala Psc and Others

Court: Kerala

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Appellant was an applicant for the post of High School Assistant in Mathematics for selection conducted for appointment in Government Schools in Alappuzha District. Appellant is a female Muslim candidate entitled to appointment in the quota reserved for them. Her application was rejected by the Kerala Public Service Commission for the reason that the application submitted was in a Rupee 5 form which is meant for reserved candidates like Schedule Casts and Scheduled Tribes and not in the Rupee 10/- form which is applicable for all other candidates. The form was purchased from the post office and on account of an inadvertent mistake, the appellant purchased Rupee 5/- form and sent the application. The application was rejected for the simple reason of shortage of Rupee 5/- in the value of the application form. However, when the rejection of application was challenged before this court through interim order permitted the appellant to participate in the selecti...

K. Jayakrishna Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission Rep. by Its Secret ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair The appellant joined the School as a Hindi Teacher in 2000 after acquiring M.A. and B.Ed in Hindi, whereas B.A. and B.Ed are the qualifications required for appointment as a Teacher in High School. However, after acquiring 5 years’ teaching experience, the appellant took leave and acquired M.Ed. degree and also NET qualification in the examination conducted by the UGC. With the M.A. degree with above 50% marks and the experience as HSA and other qualifications she acquired, she was eligible for appointment as a Lecturer in V.Ed. College in terms of the Special Rules, namely Kerala Collegiate Education Service Rules, 1994. Under the Special Rules, Lecturers in Training Colleges are appointed by “recruitment by transfer through PSC from among High School Assistants in the Kerala Education Subordinate Service. However, in the absence of qualified High School teachers for appointment under this category, appointment can be made by direct recruitment from gener...

C.S. Varkey (Zacharia Varkey) Vs. Sunny Zacharias

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(1)KLJ372; 2012(1)ILR(Ker)268; 2012(1)KLT334; 2012(1)KHC72

V. RAMKUMAR J 1. In this intra-court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, the appellant who was the plaintiff in O.S.No.237/1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Kottayam challenges the judgment and decree dated 03.02.1997 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in A.S.No.269/1988. 2. The aforementioned suit O.S.No.237/1984 was one for realisation of a sum of Rs.28966.65 with 12% interest on the principal amount of Rs.25,000/- from the date of the suit namely 09.11.1984. 3. The case of the plaintiff can be summarised as follows:- The plaintiff and the defendant are close friends. There were previous money transactions between them. On 20.06.1983 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5000/- from the plaintiff. Subsequently on 15.07.1983 he borrowed a further amount of Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff. The defendant agreed to repay the total amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum or before 30.08.1983. The defendan...

Assistant Secretary, Electricity Dept., Thrissur Corporation and Anoth ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants/Corporation of Thrissur has sought for condonation of delay of 154 days in filing the appeal over the order in OP.667/05 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The reason mentioned in the affidavit is that the predecessor in the office of the present Secretary was laid up and also that there was departmental delay in obtaining legal opinion. We find that the inordinate delay of 154 days is not properly explained and the reasons mentioned are not sufficiently explanatory of the delay. There is only a bald statement of illness and departmental delay. We find that the petitioner has not furnished sufficient reasons for condoning delay. Hence the delay condonation petition is dismissed. Consequently appeal is also dismissed....

The Commissioner of Income Tax CochIn Vs. Pushpa Vijoy and Another

Court: Kerala

RamachandranNair, J. 1. The question raised in the two sets of appeals filed by the Revenue against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal issued in favour of the two assesses is one and the same, i.e., whether the assesses are entitled to credit, tax deducted at source in the assessment year following the previous year in which deduction of tax at source and remittance was made by the payer even though income in respect of which deduction is made is not returned or assessed in that assessment year. 2. We have heard senior counsel Sri.P.K.R.Menon appearing for the Revenue and the learned counsel Sri.P.Balakrishnan appearing for the respondents-assessees. The undisputed facts leading to the controversy are the following. 3. The respondents-assessees were holding cumulative term deposits in banks entitling them for interest on deposits which was periodically credited by the Bank in the deposit account. As required under Section 194A of the Income Tax Act, the Banks recovered tax...

Molly Ajithkumar Vs. Vimala Sasidharan and Another

Court: Kerala

K.T. SANKARAN, J. 1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by respondent No.2 in E.P.No.149 of 2006 in O.S.No.496 of 2005 on the file of the court of the Additional Munsiff of Alappuzha. By the order impugned, the objections to the execution raised by the petitioner were rejected by the court below. 2. On 15.2.2005, an agreement for sale was executed between Prabhakaran (second respondent) and Vimala Sasidharan (first respondent). As per the terms of the agreement, Prabhakaran agreed to sell an item of property having an extent of 9 cents in favour of Vimala for a consideration of Rs.7 lakhs. An advance of Rs.4,50,000/- was paid to the seller. Under the agreement, the time for performance was agreed to be on or before 17.8.2005. 3. Even before the time stipulated for completing the transaction, Vimala filed O.S.No.496 of 2005 on the file of the court of the Additional Munsiff, Alappuzha against Prabhakaran for an injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the plaint schedule p...