Court : Kerala
1. The petitioner is the Apex Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank having its Head Office at Thiruvananthapuram, with branches across the State. In its Regional Office at Kasaragode, the second respondent's wife, Smt.Syamala worked from 16.06.1995 to 18.11.2005 as a Sweeper on daily wage basis. Later, having been afflicted with cancer, she could not continue in service. She died on 15.03.2007. 2. In the course of time, the second respondent, being the husband and legal representative, filed A.R.C. No.84/2008 before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the first respondent, claiming that his wife, the erstwhile employee of the petitioner Bank, was entitled to regularisation of service in terms of Exhibit P1 Government Order and consequentially, for the arrears of salary and other service benefits. Then, the first respondent passed Exhibit P2 order dated 31.03.2010 directing regularization of the second respondent's wife and also the payment of consequential benefits ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the levy of Turnover Tax on Textile articles, that was introduced in the KVAT Act [hereinafter referred to as the 'KVAT Act'], with effect from 01.04.2014 and continued in the statute book till 01.04.2015, with effect from which date, it was omitted therefrom. The provision was introduced through the Kerala Finance Bill of 2014 and, by virtue of a notification under the Kerala Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, came into force with effect from 01.04.2014. Thereafter, it assumed a modified form when the Kerala Finance Act, 2014 was enacted on 23.07.2014, with effect from 01.04.2014. With effect from 01.04.2015, the levy of turnover tax on textile articles was omitted and the goods were made taxable under the KVAT Act @ 1% under II Schedule to the KVAT Act. Before dealing with the grounds of challenge raised in the writ petitions, therefore, I feel it would be apposite to notice the provisions as they stood, when introduced ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. Second respondent in Crl.Appeal Nos.133/2006, 127/2006, 129/2006 and 131/2006 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thrissur, is the appellant in all these appeals. All these cases were arising out of four private complaints filed by the appellant against the 2nd respondent alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called the 'Act'). 2. The common case of the complainant in all these cases was that, the complainant is the proprietor of M/s.Sastha Motors Guruvayoor and he was the authorized distributor of petroleum products of M/s.British Petroleum. The accused was appointed as talkist by the complainant for the area of Guruvayoor and Punnapra to distribute Tata B.P. Lube products as per agreement dated 17.08.1998. Accused used to purchase lube products from the complainant on credit basis. As per the accounts, there was an amount of Rs.3,45,277.81 was due from the accused to the complainant and in discharge of those liabilities he h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Vinod Chandran, J. 1. The State is in appeal against the judgment in a writ petition in which the petitioner, who was running a unit manufacturing mineral water, was permitted to carry on such activity even without an environmental clearance. It was found that the petitioner, for carrying on the activity concerned, did not require an environmental clearance and the order of the District Collector [Exhibit P18] was set aside. It was also held that the remedy of the impleaded respondents, whose grievance was in respect to indiscriminate extraction of water, was independent of the issues decided in the writ petition and was left the remedy to move appropriate authorities to redress their grievances. 2. The parties are referred to as is their status in the writ petition. 3. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company [Exhibit P1], having SSI Registration [Exhibit P2], obtained Exhibit P3 Green Channel Clearance of the District Industries Centre, Palakkad for establishment of a factory carryi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. These Writ Petition are filed by the petitioners seeking to quash Ext.P2 resolution of the 1st respondent Municipal Corporation bearing No.G19-19133/05 dated 29.5.2007. Since the subject matter of these Writ Petitions are one and the same, I think it is only just and proper that both the Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common judgment. I am herewith referring to the facts in W.P.(C) No.20593/2007 and the decision taken by me in the said case will decide the fate of other Writ Petition. 2. Brief facts for the disposal of the W.P.(C) No.20593/2007 are as follows: 3. Petitioners are traders conducting business at Kizhekkekkotta in Thrissur town. The land in which their shops were situated was acquired by the Thrissur Municipal Corporation. In a resolution passed by the Municipality on 12.1.1973 it was decided to construct a municipal shopping complex within one year and to allot shop rooms to those tenants whose shop rooms were involved in the acquisition proceedings. The land was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
C .T. Ravikumar, J. This bunch of cases viz. Criminal Revision Petitions filed by the convicts who faced prosecution and Criminal Miscellaneous Cases filed by the accused who are facing prosecution, for offences under different Sections of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, PFA Act ) read with different rules of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 (for short, PFA Rules ), relating to food adulteration were placed before us on orders of reference. All the Crl.M.Cs. except Crl.M.C.No.2755/2013 were referred as per order dated 25.9.2014 and all the other cases including Crl.M.C.No.2755/2013 were subsequently referred based on the order of reference dated 25.9.2014. Apparently, the order of reference dated 25.9.2014 was made in the wake of cleavage of opinion and divergent findings made by three learned Single Judges regarding the ratio decidendi in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Inspector [2010 (4) KLT 7...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reference Order: P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. The law stands declared by a Full Bench of this Court, vide decision reported in 2015 (1) KLT 1 (National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jisha K.P. And others), that mere absence of 'badge' by driver of a transport vehicle is not sufficient to exonerate the insurer from the liability to pay compensation to the claimant and that absence of 'badge is not a fundamental breach of the statutory/policy condition to enable the insurer to have recovery from the insured, after satisfying the liability to the claimant/third party. The question remains to be considered is what is a 'badge' and is it the same as 'authorisation to drive a transport vehicle'. If it is not the same, will it not come within the purview of statutory defence under Section 149 (2) r/w. Sub-sections 4 and 5 of Section 149 of the M.V.Act, enabling the insurer to have recovery from the insured for driving the transport vehicle without authorisation to drive such vehicle (based on t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. These writ petitions are respectively filed by the Manager and four teachers. The teachers are referred to by their names and the documents are referred to from W.P.(C) No.27736/10. 2. E.P.Sajith Kumar, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8287/12 was appointed on 5.6.2002 as an Assistant Teacher by Ext.P20 order ; whether such an appointment is as UPSA or LPSA is the crux of the controversy in the above cases. Subsequently, Latha E.V., the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27736/10, was appointed as a LPSA on 31.5.2005 by Ext.P1 order which was approved w.e.f. 1.6.2005 onwards as per the endorsement of the Assistant Educational Officer (A.E.O.) seen in Ext.P1. Rajitha K., the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.35253/10 was appointed as a LPSA on 4.6.2007. Nisha M.Nair was appointed as a UPSA on 21.6.2002. The claim of Rajitha K. and Nisha M.Nair would depend on the resolution of the dispute arising between Sajith Kumar and Latha. 3. The brief facts, which led to the controversy, are that, in the year 2008-'0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. This group of Writ Petitions raising common issues have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. All the Writ Petitions have been filed as Public Interest Litigations. The Writ Petitions can be divided into two groups. First group consists of Writ Petitions raising grievance of common man residing in different Corporations, Municipalities and Panchayats who is affected by the menace caused by stray dogs. Writ Petitions cite various instances where stray dogs have bitten small children, old men and even young persons, some of them subsequently died of rabies. Petitioners pray that the local authorities may remove/destroy stray dogs to save the common man from their furry. W.P(C) No.12302 of 2014, W.P(C) No.28255 of 2011, W.P(C) No.17958 of 2015, W.P(C) No.14210 of 2014, W.P(C) No.28720 of 2015, W.P(C) No.19005 of 2014, W.P(C) No.18374 of 2015, W.P(C) No.29543 of 2015 and W.P(C) No.30792 of 2011 which are included in the second group, belo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The petitioner in this writ petition runs a unit in the Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai. The said unit is engaged in the manufacture of essential oils, natural extracts and products of sandalwood. As part of its business operations, the petitioner sources sandalwood from Marayoor in Kerala, where it participates in auctions conducted by the Forest Department of the State of Kerala and purchases sandalwood. The issue in the present writ petition is regarding the liability of the petitioner to pay tax under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'KVAT Act', on the purchases of sandalwood. While the petitioner maintains that she is not liable to pay local tax on the sandalwood purchased by her at the auction, since the goods so purchased are taken by her directly to the unit in the Madras Export Processing Zone, it is the case of the respondents that the transaction of sale would attract tax under the KVAT Act since the sale was concluded in the...
Tag this Judgment!