Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2005)ILLJ229Ker
ORDERR. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The common question for consideration in all these Original Petitions was whether the employer was entitled to discontinue from the remittance of the provident fund contributions in excess of the rate prescribed by law, when the employer was contributing in excess of the statutory limits on the basis of the joint application filed by the employer and employees before the Provident Fund Authorities.2. O.P. Nos. 13968/2001 and 14011/2001 were filed by the North Malabar Gramin Bank Officers' Association and the North Malabar Gramin Bank Employees' Association for quashing Exhibit P2 Circular issued by the North Malabar Gramin Bank directing the discontinuance of the payment of contributions in excess of the prescribed rate by the employer. O.P. Nos. 17647/2001 and 17994/2001 were filed by the South Malabar Gramin Bank Staff Association and the South Malabar Gramin Bank Officers Congress and also the Staff Union and others for quashing Exhibit P2 Circular for di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(1)KLT1011; (2007)8VST579(Ker)
N.K. Sodhi, Ag. C.J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this Writ Appeal directed against the judgment dated December 18, 2002 passed by a learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 35879 of 2002 is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case it was proper of this Court to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against a notice issued by the assessing authority calling upon the dealer to show cause why assessment be not made under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short 'the CST Act') and quash the same. The facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a narrow compass and these may first be noticed.2. Louis Dreyfuss India (P) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') is a Private Limited Company with its registered office at Mumbai. It is engaged inter alia in the trade of import and sale of various agricultural and other commodities including sugar. The Company has a branch offic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2006]144STC409(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The scope and ambit of the expressions 'have taken effective steps for setting up new industrial unit' occurring in Sub-clause (ii), Clause 1 of Notification S.R.O. No. 1092 of 1999 modifying the exemptions granted in Clauses 1 to 7 of Notification S.R.O. No. 1729 of 1993, both issued by the State Government under Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act') calls for consideration in this original petition.2. Pepsi Cola India Manufacturing Company, a private company with unlimited liability, had set up an industrial unit by investing approximately Rs. 50 crores at the Industrial Development Area at Kanjikode in Palakkad District and had commenced commercial production of soft drinks, etc., on March 6th/7th, 2001. The company made an application on June 20, 2001 (exhibit P8) for sales tax exemption to the tune of Rs. 43.32 crores under Notification S.R.O. No. 1729 of 1993 before the Director of Industries and Commerce, Thiruvananthapura...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2004(102)FLR207]; 2004(2)KLT220; (2004)IIILLJ106Ker
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C. J.1. Does Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act, 1948 discriminate against women or does it embody a special provision in their favour? This is the short question that arises for consideration in these four writ petitions. Learned Counsel for the parties have referred to the facts as averred in O.P.No. 16017/1997. These may be briefly noticed.2. The petitioner was appointed as a Binding Assistant with the Kerala Books and Publications Society on October 17, 1978. In the year 1982, the Society circulated a seniority list. The petitioner approached this Court through a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with the grievance that the seniority had not been correctly fixed. This petition was registered as O.P. No. 7510/1982. It was disposed of with a direction that the petitioner may file a representation. She did so. Thereafter, she was promoted to the post of Machine Operator on December 2, 1982.3. On June 20, 1997, Mr. K. Prabhakaran Pillai, the third res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(1)KLT731
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The point that arises for consideration in this case in whether a Grama Panchayat can cancel the licence of a factory manufacturing non-alcoholic beverages on the ground of excessive exploitation of ground water. The brief facts of the case are the following:-2. The petitioner is Perumatty Grama Panchayat. The 2nd respondent Company is running a factory at Moolathara in Perumatty Grama Panchayat. Its main products are soft drinks and bottled drinking water. The said factory was established after obtaining permission from the Panchayat. It started commercial production in March 2000 after obtaining licence from the petitioner Panchayat. The main raw material used in the manufacture of beverages is water. Substantial portion of the need for water is met by exploiting ground water through bore-wells. The people in the locality raised objection against the exploitation of ground water by the Company. Therefore, the Panchayat passed Ext.P1 resolution on 7.4.2003, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(3)KLT270
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. In all these cases, the applicants the accused in Crime Nos. 164, 182 and 214 of 2003 of Mattanchery Police Station or Thoppumpady Police Station, as the case may be, registered under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') had been found possessing 'Tidigesic', a preparation of Buprenorphine, in excess of the commercial quantity made mention of against item No. 169 in S.O.1055 (E) dated 19th October 2001 issued by the Union of India, as empowered under Section 2 (vii a) and (xxiii a). One among the applicants was found to be in possession of 64 ampules of the said substance; another one possessing 120 ampules and the remaining one possessing 15 ampules. The learned Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, as no Special Court is constituted under the Act for the said area, considered their applications and declined to grant bail. Thereupon, bail applications have been filed before this Court. When the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(1)KLT166
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Whether the petitioner who retired from the service of the first respondent in June, 1994 is entitled to the benefit of amendment to the Cochin Port Employees (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotions) Regulations, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') as amended in 1995 as per notification dated 15.3.1995 is the short question that arises for consideration in this Original Petition. Ext.P2 is the amendment notified on 15.3.1995. The amendment provides that benefit of Rule 30(1) of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 will be applicable to the scheduled employees. There is no dispute that the petitioner was a scheduled employee as per the Regulations. Rule 30 of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules reads as follows:'30. Addition to qualifying service in special circumstances(1) (A Government servant who retires from a service or post after the 31st March, 1960, shall be eligible to add to his service qualifying for superannuation pension (but not for any other class of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2004Ker143; 2003(3)KLT901
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. These appeals arise out of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 3 of 1996 on the file of the District Court, Thrissur. First defendant is the appellant in A.S. No. 415 of 2000 and the second defendant is the appellant in A.S. No. 419 of 2000.2. Suit was instituted by respondents 1 to 3 in these appeals under Section 26 and Order VII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 49 of the Indian Trust Act seeking modification of some of the stipulations in Ext. A1 trust deed giving exclusive rights to the first defendant and to place fetters with regard to the rights of the first defendant to manage the affairs of the properties of the 'Sakshal Chathan Seva Madom' and also for a direction to the effect that the first defendant shall function as trustee only along with the first plaintiff and also for other consequential reliefs.3. We may deal with the facts in detail in the latter part of the judgment, after dealing with some of the legal questions raised fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2004Ker111; 2004(1)KLT55
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. Is an appeal from a judgment, decree or order passed by a Judge of this Court on an appeal against the Order or Decree of a Court or Tribunal maintainable despite Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act 22 of 2002? This is the core of the controversy before this Bench in these two appeals from first Appeals filed under Section 5(ii) of the Kerala High Court Act read with Order XLII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. A.F.A. 83 of 2002 arises from the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Land Acquisition Appeal No. 467 of 1999 of this Court. This appeal was filed against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Kottarakkara in L.A.R. 24 of 1989 under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. The trial court found that all claimants are entitled to a share in the amount of compensation. One of the claimants, who claimed exclusive right over the entire compensation, filed the Land Acquisition Appeal. Since the value of the subject matter of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(3)KLT788
K.K. Denesan, J. 1. Petitioner, a Head Nurse working in the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Thirroorangadi in the Health Services Department of the State has approached this Court with the grievance that she is required to do continuous duty for 14 hours at a stretch for 6 days consecutively. 2. A few facts may be noticed. The strength of the nursing staff in Govt. Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Thirrorangadi is 44, out of which 36 Nurses are Staff Nurses and 8 are Head Nurses. 4 Staff Nurses are working in other hospitals on working agreements. Similarly 2 Head Nurses are working in other hospitals. The strength of the Nursing Staff in the above hospital is thus reduced to 30. Government have introduced shift system in some of the Government Hospitals. Since shift system is not introduced in the Govt. Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Thirroorangadi, members of the Nursing Staff are compelled to work for 14 hours a day at a stretch. Petitioner is working 14 hours a day and she is allowed to ...
Tag this Judgment!