Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ419; (2009)25VST546(Ker)
H.L. Dattu, C.J.1. This judgment would dispose of Writ Appeal No. 1877 of 2007 and connected appeals, which have been filed against the common judgment passed by learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 8711 of 2007 and connected matters, whereby petitions filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India were dismissed. The question which arises for determination in these appeals is whether the amended provisions of Section 7(a) and (b) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 can be applied to those dealers who had opted for payment of Turnover Tax for the assessment year 2006-07 before the amendment was brought into the statute and whether the dealers are entitled to pay tax at the rate prescribed in Clause (a) of Section 7 of the KGST Act before its amendment on the purchase of liquor for the assessment year 2006-07.2. The appellants are registered dealers under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ517
H.L. Dattu, C.J.1. In the Writ Appeal filed, the appellant has arrayed Mr. Mathew T. Thomas, Honourable Minister for Transport, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, Mr. Kodiyeri Balakrishnan, Honourable Minister for Home, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram and the State Public Information Officer, Police Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram as respondents 6,7 and 8.2. At the time of hearing of this appeal, appellant has filed an application, I.A. No. 805 of 2007. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, at paragraphs 2 and 3 it is stated as under;2. I filed IA 772/07 to have the Writ Appeal heard and disposed of emergently since I am due to retire in 6 months time and since my transfer before completing the minimum tenure has been stigmatic on my reputation and a blot on my career. In view of the fact that notices have not been issued to the 6th, 7th and 8th respondents and since service of notice on them will entail further delay in having the Writ Appeal heard, I am constrained to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2008(116)FLR908]; 2008(1)KLJ304
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The issue that arises for decision in this case is as to whether the regulations issued by the Kerala State Electricity Board, hereinafter the 'Board', to govern the service conditions of its employees, applicable to the employees in the Electricity Wing of the Thrissur Corporation, hereinafter, the 'Corporation'.2. Petitioner's father, while employed in the Electricity Wing of the Corporation, met with a motor accident on 5-9-2000, resulting in injuries that led to him being paid invalid pension. Thereafter, the petitioner applied on 2-1-2002 for appointment on compassionate grounds, referable to the invalid situation of his father. The Director of Municipal Administration recommended that request favourably on 14-11-2002. The Government rejected the request of the petitioner by the impugned Ext. F7 order, passed after directions were issued by this Court for consideration of the claim of the petitioner on merits.3. Petitioner challenges Ext. P7 order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ125
ORDERHarun-Ul-Rashid, J.1. These two revision petitions are filed by the tenant against the common judgment dated 25.5.2002 passed in RCA Nos. 195/2001 and 53/02 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam. Both the appeals arise from the jdgment dated 12.10.2001 in RCP 26/1998. The respondent is the landlod. The parties are hereafter referred to as the landlord and the tenant.2. The Rent Control Court had directed the tenant to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the landlord under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereafter referred to as the Act). The claim for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act was not considered and was rejected. The landlord preferred RCA 53/2002 against the rejection of the claim for eviction under Section 11(3) and the tenant preferred RCA 195/2001 against the order of eviction under Section 11(8). The Appellate Authority by the impugned judgment allowed RCA 53/2002 filed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007(3)KLJ721
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The facts unravelled by the various stages of the chequered career of this seemingly interminable case, reveal the shockingly disturbing manner in which an investigation ordered by no less a court than the highest Court of this country and the consequent prosecution, have been attempted to be sabotaged by an I.P.S. Officer by grossly abusing the process of various Courts. He was resorting to a tiring out process in which the de facto complainant who had exhibited tremendous courage to fight his case upto the Apex Court had to give up his battle by bidding farewell to this world when the Providential call came in the meanwhile.2. In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. the revision petitioner, K.G. Premshankar, Addl. Director General of Police, Thiruvananfhapuram and who was at the relevant time Superintendent of Police, Kannur challenges Annexure - V order dated 22-2-2007 passed by the Chief Judl. Magistrate, Ernakulam in Crl. M.P. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ68
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition is a company registered under the Companies Act 1956, engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing pharmaceutical products. The first respondent herein was a medical representative working in the petitioner company from 16-7-1986. He was discharged from service on 6-9-2001, against which he raised an industrial dispute, which was referred by the Government of Kerala to the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha for adjudication. The same was being adjudicated as I.D. No. 70/2002 by the Tribunal. In the same, the petitioner company raised a preliminary objection that the 1st respondent being neither a sales promotion employee as defined under the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, ('SPECS Act' for short) nor a workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, the reference itself was not maintainable. The tribunal considered the maintainability of the reference as a preliminary issue and passed Ext....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008CriLJ845; 2008(1)KLJ98
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner (Mammen Mathew) who is the Editor of Malayala Manorarna, Kottayam, seeks to quash Annexure-A complaint dated 15-3-2006 and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 1/2006 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Mannarkadu. The above case arose out of a private complaint filed by the first respondent herein (M.N. Radhakrishnan) alleging the commission of an offence under Section 499 IPC. and punishable under Section 500 I.P.C.The Complaint2. The averments in the above private complaint a copy of which has been produced as Annexure A can be summarised as follows:The complainant is the Manager of the Mannarkkad Branch of United India Insurance Company Limited. He was on leave for the period between 11 -4-2005 and 24-4-2005 and 26-04-2005 and 6-5-2005. At the time of entering on leave the complainant had, as usual, entrusted the keys of the branch office with the Senior Assistant. While the complainant was on leave as a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007(3)KLJ748; 2008(1)KLT437
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. All these four writ petitions hinges on the question as to whether Smt. K.R. Beegum, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 21229/07 is entitled to preferential appointment under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules, in a vacancy which arose on 15-7-2005 in recognition of her earlier approved service for 112 days between 28-6-2000 to 17-10-2000, in a maternity leave vacancy in the post of HSA (Arabic). The question arises on account of the introduction of the first proviso to Rule 51A by amending Rule 51A, by G.O.(P) No. 121/05/G.Edn. dated 16-4-2005 published in the Gazette dated 27-4-2005, by which for claiming preferential right of appointment under Rule 51A a minimum continuous service of one academic year as on the date of relief pursuant to the prior service was made compulsory.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these writ petitions may be stated as under.3. Smt. K.R. Beegum was initially appointed as HSA (Arabic) in the M.S.R H.S.S., Malap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(1)KLT303; (2007)10VST743(Ker)
V. Giri, J.1. The principal challenge in this writ petition is with regard to the note forming part of form No. 9 in the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (for short, 'the Rules') prescribing the format for credit notes and debit notes, that are to be exchanged by a selling dealer and a purchasing dealer in cases where subsequent to the sale of taxable goods by a dealer the purchaser has returned the goods covered by the tax fully or partly. The challenge is on the premise that the note forming part of form No. 9, contained in the Rules is invalid, inoperative and unenforceable to the extent it specifies that every credit note would bear a corresponding debit note and vice versa and the same is, therefore, contrary to Section 41(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'). There is also a challenge to the order of assessment passed by the assessing authority for the months of April, May and June, 2006. Obviously, the said order of assessment is a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007(3)KLJ556
ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. The core issue in these appeals filed by the State of Kerala and the Original Petitions filed by the licensees who were issued with licences under the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act read with Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1974 is, as to whether it is permissible for the State Legislature to enact a provision for the forfeiture of the whole or any portion of the kist deposited by persons who purchased the right to sell toddy, arrack, foreign liquor or ganja in addition to damages recoverable by the Government on account of the breach of conditions of sale laid down by the Government from time to time.2. The law we are concerned with is, the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act and the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules 1974. The statutory provisions which we are required to interpret in these appeals are Section 29(2)(r) of the Abkari Act and Rule 6(28) of the Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules.3. The source of power for ...
Tag this Judgment!