Kerala Court May 2012 Judgments

V-star Creations Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its General Manager K.Vaidyanathan ...

Court: Kerala

1. The first petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Head Office at Little Flower Church Road, Elamakkara, Kaloor, Ernakulam, Kochi - 682 017. Petitioners 2 to 11 are employees of the first petitioner. In this writ petition the petitioners challenge Ext.P13 order passed by the first respondent allowing an appeal filed by the fourth respondent and setting aside Ext.P3 order passed by the registering authority under the Kerala Headload Workers' Act, 1978, granting registration as headload workers to petitioners 2 to 11 and another, under rule 26A of the Kerla Headload Workers' Rules, 1981. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The first petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of clothing and wearing apparel of various types. The first petitioner opened two branches of its business establishment; one at premises bearing door No.49/681 at Puthukkalavattom and another at premises bearing door No.48/1748 at Perumbotta Road...

Kerala State Insurance Department Vs. Union of India

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(2)KLT941; 2012(2)KHC683

Both these writ petitions have been filed by the Kerala State Insurance Department of the State. It involves a common issue, as to whether the petitioner, a Department of the Govt. of Kerala, established for providing 'Life Insurance' coverage to the State Government employees, as provided under Rule 22A of Part I KSR and also for providing General Insurance coverage for the assets of the Government/Governmental Institutions, is liable to pay 'service tax', treating such insurance as 'taxable service'. Contention is that the petitioner is not rendering any 'taxable service' having been excluded from the purview of any such activity governing 'life insurance' by virtue of the 'exclusion' under Section 44(f) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (LIC Act in short) and 'exemption' under Section 36(1)(a) of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. 2. The parties and proceedings are referred to, as arrayed in W.P.(C)No.15892 OF 2008, treating the same as the lead ca...

V.E. Moyi Haji Vs. State of Kerala, Rep by Its Secretary to Government ...

Court: Kerala

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. These writ petitions respectively are filed at the instance of the Manager of an aided school and the claimant under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV A Kerala Education Rules for appointment. The Government by Ext.P11 order produced in W.P.(C).No.30021/2011 directed the Manager to appoint the claimant in terms of Rule 51B and she is seeking implementation of the said order in W.P.(C).No.32889/2011. 2. The question which emerges for consideration is whether the application filed by the claimant, namely, the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.32889/2011, who is the third respondent in W.P.(C).No.30021/2011, is belated. The Management has got a further case that the claimant at the time of the date of death of the parent was not having the qualification for appointment as Teacher and waited till the acquisition of B.Ed qualification and this circumstance also will have its own bearing in the matter. 3. I shall refer to the facts of the case as stated in W.P.(C). No.30021/2011....

Chakiat Agencies (P) Ltd., Represented by Its Director M. Jairam Vs. S ...

Court: Kerala

1. Whether the dictum in 2001(2) KLT 840 (M/s. Chakkiat Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, as to the liability of the petitioners to satisfy tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 has lost its significance in virtue of the amendment made to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as per Act 54 of 1994, particularly defining the terms 'semi-trailer' and 'trailer' under Sections 2(39) and 2(46) respectively (so as to absolve the petitioners from the liability) is the point sought to be projected. The contention raised by the petitioners is that the amendment is 'clarificatory' in nature and hence, though it was introduced as per the Act 54 of 1994, w.e.f. 14.11.1994, it should be applicable right from the beginning and the petitioners are not liable to satisfy any tax in respect of the 'chassis' as depicted in Ext.P1. 2. Both the petitioners are shipping and transporting agents, undertaking loading and unloading of cargo into and from the Vessels in the 'wharf' area of Cochin ...

T.O. Aleyas Vs. the Institute of Chartered Accounts of India, 'icai Bh ...

Court: Kerala

S. Siri Jagan, J. 1. The issues involved in these two writ petitions area as to whether, on a complaint received from an aggrieved person, the Board of Discipline and the Disciplinary Committee (the respective 3rd respondent in these two writ petitions), constituted by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, (the 1st respondent herein), under Sections 21A and 21B of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), can, without giving any reasons, decide not to initiate disciplinary action against two chartered accountants, especially when the Director (Discipline), the 2nd respondent herein, without giving any reasons in exercise of powers under Section 21 (2) of the Act, arrives at a prima facie opinion on the commission of misconduct by one of them, who are partners of a firm of chartered accountants, which firm was engaged for auditing the accounts of a company, in respect of which audit, the complaints were raised, while exercising statutory powers...

The Manager, Lms Special Schools Lms Compound, Thiruvananthapuram, Rep ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J: 1. This writ appeal is filed by the Management and the Headmaster appointed by them challenging the judgment of the single Judge declaring the senior most teacher, though blind namely, the 1st respondent eligible for appointment as Headmaster in preference to 2nd Appellant. 2. We have heard Adv. R.T. Pradeep appearing for the appellants and senior counsel Sri. Babu Vargheese appearing for the 1st respondent and Government Pleader for the remaining respondents. 3. The facts leading to the controversy are the following. The 1st first appellant is a school for the blind where all the students suffer from some kind of visual disability. A vacancy of Headmaster arose as on 01-06-2002. The 1st appellant appointed the 2nd appellant as Headmaster who had only 8 years of service as on the date of arising of Headmaster's vacancy. The Kerala Education Rules do not specifically provide any Special Rule for appointment of teachers or Headmaster in Special schools for the disab...

Ms. the Windsor Castle, Kodimatha, Kottayam, Represented by M.O. Asram ...

Court: Kerala

1. Constitutional validity of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act 1976 (herein after referred to as the ‘KTL Act’), particularly Sections 4, 10, 15 and 16 forms the majo0r challenge involved in these writ petitions. In W.P.(C) Nos.33681 of 2006 and 18545 of 2007 (filed by the same petitioner) the revised assessment orders passed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 6(5) of the Act are also under challenge on various grounds. 2. The main grievance is with regard to the reckoning of the disputed turnover in respect of the Ayurveda treatment, Laundry charges, Beauty Parlour, Boating charges, Swimming pool charges etc., to fix the tax liability, which were not completely taken at the time of passing the original assessment orders. It is also contended in some of the writ petitions that the above provision ie., Section 6(5), having been brought about only as per the Act 41 of 2005 w.e.f. 28.08.2005, the same could not have been pressed into service for revision the asses...

Paul Varghese, Ernakulam Vs. the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Thi ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)ILR(Ker)118; 2012(3)KLT805

1. When Section 17(5A) of the KGST Act specifically provides for penalty on failure to return the correct figures in a case covered by Section 17(4) of the Act, whether levy of penalty again under ‘Section 45A’ of the Act would amount to ‘double jeopardy’ and hence unconstitutional, is the moot point. 2. The petitioner is a dealer in furniture and is an assessee on the rolls of the second respondent. The petitioner filed returns in respect of the assessment year 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 opting for simplified procedure of assessment under Section 17(4) of the Act and the assessment was completed accordingly. But subsequently, investigation conducted by the third respondent brought to light certain transactions involving the sale of goods by the petitioner to SIDCO in respect of the above three assessment years, which however did not find a place in the returns filed and the books of accounts. After confronting with the incriminating circumstances, the petit...

Mather and Company Pvt. Ltd., Kochi, Rep. by Its Managing Director K.M ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT41(SN)(C.No.43)

1. Constitutional validity of the newly introduced proviso to Section 8(a) (iiii) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) by the Finance Act 2007 (Act 15/2007) published in the official gazette of the State of Kerala dated 28.07.2007, taking away the benefit of the lesser rate of compounding, being availed by the petitioners with retrospective effect from 01.04.2005,is the main challenge in both the writ petitions. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.35048 of 2007 is a company registered under the relevant provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1958, while the petitioner in the other case i.e. W.P.(C) 860 of 2008 is a partnership firm registered under the relevant provisions of the Indian Partnership Act. Both the petitioners are construction contractors engaged in the business of construction of multi-storeyed residential complex and are assessees on the rolls of the second respondent, registered under the KGST Act, who got transposed as reg...

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Org ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants were the opposite parties in CC.45/04 of CDRF, Kannur. The complainants, 3 in number were retired employees of the Central State Farm, Aralam. The 1st opposite party collected contributions for Employees Provident Fund scheme and allied schemes from employees as well as from the employer and administered the same as per the EPF Act 1952. The 1st opposite party is disbursing the EPF benefits to the subscribers on retirement and transferring the family pension account of the 2nd opposite party for disbursement of pension. The 2nd opposite party is also administering the EPF accounts. The 3rd opposite party has passed pension payment order in respect of the complainants. The CDRF, Kannur allowed the complaint in favour of complainants 2 and 3 and directed the opposite parties to issue revised pension benefit order. The 1st complainant was allowed a pension of Rs.410/- per month and 3rd complainant was allowed a monthly pension of Rs.420...