Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(1)KLT133
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The University of Kerala published Ext.P1 Notification dated 22nd November, 1999 inviting applications for appointment to the plan posts in the Departments of Environmental Sciences, Bio-Technology, Computer Science and Opto-Electronics in the University. It is stated therein that the appointments to the posts will be made in accordance with Section 6 Sub-section (2) of Chapter II of the Kerala University Act, 1974. The principles that would be followed as regards the turn of appointment and communal rotation are also stated therein. The last date fixed for submission of completed applications was 10th January, 2000.2. Respondents 3 to 5 and the petitioners were among those who applied for being considered for appointment to the posts of Lecturers in Environmental Sciences. On scrutiny of the applications, they were found eligible for being considered and were interviewed along with other candidates on the 17th and 18th of July, 2001.3. Respondents 3 t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(1)KLT714
K.K. Denesan, J.1. Respondents in O.P. No. 25783/2002 are the appellants. The learned Single Judge before whom the case came up for hearing quashed Ext.P2 challenged in the Original Petition holding that the writ petitioners were not liable to be prosecuted for any offence punishable either under Section 56(b) or under Section 57(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act (for short, 'the Act')- It was also declared that Rule 9(2) of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 2002 introduced on 1.4.2002 fixing the strength of ethyl alcohol in toddy drawn from coconut palms as 8.1% v/v was arbitrary and unreasonable and hence illegal and unenforceable. Aggrieved, the State of Kerala and the Excise Authorities have filed this Writ Appeal. It is brought to our notice that the judgment of the learned Single Judge in a connected case, Unni v. State of Kerala, involving identical issues, has been reported in 2003 (3) KLT 306.2. It is pointed out before us that Rule 9(2) of the Kerala Abkari Shops...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(3)KLT901
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee to sales tax both under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and under the Central Sales Tax Act. The question involved in this Writ Petition is as to whether penal interest Under Section 23(3) of the KGST Act can be imposed in respect of delayed payment of Central Sales Tax due under the said Act. According to the petitioner, Section 9(2) of the CST Act did not provide for levy of penal interest provided under Section 23(3) of the KGST Act for delayed payment of Central Sales Tax. Whereas according to the respondents, by virtue of the provision of Section 9(2) of the CST Act, all the provisions of the KGST Act in regard to assessment and recovery of penal interest, etc. will automatically apply.2. In this case, the petitioner has challenged Exts.P2, P4 and P5 assessment proceedings under the CST Act to the extent of the interest levied therein by invoking the provision of Section 23(3) of the KGST Act. The petitioner has also sought for a d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2008)11VST709(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee to sales tax both under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The question involved in this writ petition is as to whether penal interest under Section 23(3) of the KGST Act can be imposed in respect of delayed payment of Central sales tax due under the said Act. According to the petitioner Section 9(2) of the CST Act did not provide for levy of penal interest provided under Section 23(3) of the KGST Act for delayed payment of Central sales tax. Whereas according to the respondents by virtue of the provision of Section 9(2) of the CST Act, all the provisions of the KGST Act in regard to assessment and recovery of penal interest, etc., will automatically apply.2. In this case, the petitioner has challenged exhibits P2, P4 and P5 assessment proceedings under the CST Act to the extent of the interest levied therein by invoking the provision of Section 23(3) of the KGST Act. The petitioner has also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2005]272ITR534(Ker); 2004(3)KLT869
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. In all these Writ Petitions the sole question is as to whether the petitioners who are either conducting kuries or conducting business in consumer goods giving prizes by taking lots either for prompt payment of kuri instalments or for increasing the sale of consumer products is liable to pay advance tax under Section 194B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). In all these cases the Income Tax Officer (TDS) Division-II, Thrissur had issued notices regarding deduction of tax at source under Section 194B of the Act directing the petitioners to appeal before him for a personal hearing. Since the petitioners did not respond to the said notices they were asked to furnish details , regarding the scheme under which the lottery is taken. The petitioners have challenged the said notices in these Writ Petitions.2. According to the petitioners who are conducting chits a scheme for taking lot for awarding certain prizes to subscribers who are making prompt payment o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(1)KLT391
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Whether Secretary of the Vigilance Department can grant sanction under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for taking cognizance of offences against officers who are working under other departments is the question of law referred by the learned Single Judge in these appeals. In all these cases charge-sheets were issued before the introduction of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and charges were framed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Section 6 of the Act reads as follows:'6. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.-- (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 161 or Section 164 or Section 165 of the Indian Penal Code or under Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3A) of Section 5 of this Act, alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction,-(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(3)KLT217
Kurian Joseph, J.1. After the amendment to Rule 18 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) by introducing a second proviso to the Rule, is the dismissal/removal from service of a Government servant. who is convicted on a criminal charge by a criminal court and sentenced to imprisonment and or with fine is automatic is the question to be decided in these cases.2. The petitioner in the former case Sudheer, an employee under the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, was convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Attingal on 1.10.2003 in C.C.340/1999 for an offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for another six months. Petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.477/2003 before the Sessions Court, Trivandrum. By order dated 28.10.2003 in Crl.M.P.No.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(3)KLT1
K. Thankappan, J. 1. Questions involve in both the Original Petitions are identical and hence, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. By Ext.P1 notification dated 28.3.2001 applications were invited for appointment to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate in the Kerala Judicial Service in the pay scale of Rs. 2,500-4,000/- (pre-revised). Probable number of vacancies is 70. The petitioners submitted their applications for the above post. They belong to reserved categories namely, Muslim (Backward Community) and Hindu-Kurava (Scheduled Caste) respectively. Qualifications and method of recruitment are also prescribed in Ext.P1. Clause (6) of Ext.P1 deals with reservation of appointment, which reads as follows:-'6. Reservation of appointment:-- The Rules relating to reservation of appointment for Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes contained in Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (Rules 14 to 17) shall ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(3)KLT139; (2004)IIILLJ1017Ker
M. Ramachandran, J. 1. By order dated 13.12.1995, the Government had referred the following issue for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad (2nd respondent herein):'Whether the termination of 6 workers namely, M.T. Mary Devassy, T.M. Mariamma, K.S. Vasanthi Smt.V.N. Radha, Omana Xavier and K.K. Lilly is justifiable?If not what relief they are entitled to?' 2. The Tribunal, by Award dated 8.3.1999 in I.D. No. 3 of 1996, has overruled the objection of the management-Hospital viz., that being contract workmen the dispute was not maintainable. The claim of the management that in any case they were entitled to invoke the provisions of Sub-clause(bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act') also has been rejected. It is pointed out that they had no complaint against the workers regarding the performance of their duties. Since their services were terminated without giving them notice and compensation or assigning any reasons, there was no compliance wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(1)KLT12
R. Basant, J.1. What is the effect of a trial held by a Court of Sessions consequent to cognizance taken in breach of the stipulations of Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? Does such breach ipso facto vitiate the trial? Is there any conflict between the two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Vidyadharan v. State of Kerala (2004 (1) KLT 103) and State of M.P. v. Bhooraji (2001)7 SCC 679)? These questions of contextual relevance are raised in this appeal.2. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had committed the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'). The final report was submitted by the police before the Special Court notified under Section 14 of the SC/ST P.A. Act.3. Cognizance was taken by the Sessions Court without insisting on committal of the case, obviously on the basis of a decision of the Full Bench of the K...
Tag this Judgment!