Court : Kerala
Decided on : Oct-31-2000
Reported in : AIR2001Ker60
Sankarasubban, J.1. These Writ Appeals are filed by the State of Kerala and also other Officials of the Public Works Department. In these Writ Appeals, the challenge is against the judgment of the learned single Judge directing the appellants to pay the respondents the amount covered by the bills for the work done by them as contractors.2. Petitioners in the Original Petitions are contractors registered with the Government of Kerala. They have undertaken works on the basis of contract for the construction of roads, bridges, etc. The contract is awarded on the basis of tenders invited and thereafter, the contractor who has been chosen for the work, executes an agreement with the Government containing conditions regarding the governance of the contract. In all these cases, grievance of the petitioners is that even though the works undertaken by them has been completed, they were not paid the amounts due to them as per the final bills. The grievance appears to be that the works have been ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Oct-09-2000
Reported in : I(2001)DMC302
D. Sreedevi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment in A.S. No. 237/77 of the District Court, Kollam, which was filed against the decree and judgment in OS. No. 20/74 of the Munsiff's Court, Adoor. The defendants are the appellants.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff one Velu Filial claiming himself to be the only legal heir as brother, to the estates of one C.K. Thankappan Pillai, who according to the plaintiff, was a bachelor and died intestate. The suit is for declaration of title and recovery of possession of plaint schedule properties. Plaint 'A' schedule properties belonged to the deceased absolutely and 'B' schedule properties were jointly owned by the deceased and his elder brother Ramakrishna Pillai who predeceased him. The defendants are the widow and children of this Ramakrishna Pillai. According to the plaintiff, Ramakrishna Pillai and the deceased Thankappan Pillai were the children of one Parameswaran Pillai and Karthiyayani Amma. As the deceased ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : May-25-2000
Reported in : 2001ACJ119; (2000)IILLJ1554Ker
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The scope of Section 46 read with Section 51-B and Section 2(15-A) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') arises for consideration in this case. 2. The appellant has been employed as a Security Guard in the Sitaram Textiles Ltd. Punkunnam, Trichur. He was an insured employee under the Act. He sustained an employment injury on December 15, 1987 due to an accidental fall in a pit causing fracture to his right ankle. According to him, due to the injury sustained it is not possible for him to work as a Security Guard though he is continuing in employment due to the magnanimity of the employer. On June 8, 1988 the appellant was referred to the Medical Board for assessing his loss of earning capacity. The Board initially fixed his loss of earning capacity at 6% on a provisional basis for a period of one year and later, the loss of earning capacity was fixed at 2% on a permanent basis. Aggrieved by the fixation of the loss of earn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-15-2000
Reported in : [2000]243ITR709(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for opinion of this court, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short 'the Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, incentive bonus being part of salary, the assessee is entitled to claim any deduction out of incentive bonus received by the assessee over and above standard deduction available to salary income ?'2. The dispute relates to the question, (a) whether incentive bonus is salary, and (b) whether the assessee is entitled to claim any deduction over and above standard deduction available in respect of salary income.3. The factual position is as follows: The assessee is a Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short, 'the LIC'). Different amounts were claimed as expenses in respect of incentive bonus received. The Assessing Officer disall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Feb-03-2000
Reported in : [2000(86)FLR142]; (2000)IILLJ224Ker
ORDERAr. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. M. Ramachandran for the appellant and Mr. V. V. Surendran for the second respondent.2. The appellant establishment is a Printing Press, which filed the Original Petition challenging Exhibit P-2 award passed by the Labour Court, Kozhikode in I.D. 7/1989. The said dispute had been raised by the workman, K. Suresh Kumar, challenging termination of his services as a Binder. According to the appellant, additional hands were used to be employed on temporary basis when there is pressure of work and in order to tide over the situation. Appointment orders were also used to be given showing the tenure and the emoluments payable. Exhibit P-1 was a specimen copy of appointment order issued to the workman on September 7, 1987. He was so engaged from September 7, 1987 to October 10, 1987. Altogether, from December 3, 1985 the workman had been given work on seven different spells, ranging from 30 days to 75 days on each occasion. Apart from the second respondent, c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jan-13-2000
Reported in : [2000]100CompCas811(Ker); (2008)3CompLJ502(Ker)
R. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of the applicant in C. A. No. 257 of 1998 in C. P. No. 20 of 1994 on the file of this court (company court). The applicant, the managing director of Belhouse Associates (P.) Ltd., who was an accused in C. C. No. 456 of 1996 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam, filed C. A. No. 257 of 1998 before the company court to stay the above proceedings invoking Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956. The company court dismissed the above application and the above order is under challenge in this appeal.2. The second respondent herein (complainant) filed C. C. No. 456 of 1996 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam, against the applicant and Belhouse Associates Pvt. Ltd., a company under liquidation, for the commission of an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was alleged that a cheque for Rs. 1,12,000 issued by the accused on January 19, 1996, toward...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jun-01-2000
Reported in : AIR2000Ker389
Balasubramanyan, J. 1. After this Court declared in Bharat Kumar v. State of Kerala, AIR 1997 Ker 291, that the calling of a bundh and the enforcement of that call is illegal and unconstitutional and that decision of this Court was confirmed in appeal by the Supreme Court, in Communist Party of India (Marxist) v. Bharat Kumar, AIR 1998 SC 184, political parties including the appellant before the Supreme Court started calling for Hartals. In Bharat Kumar's case, this Court had made a distinction between a 'bundh' and a 'hartal' and had pointed out that a 'bundh' involved coercion of others into toeing the line of those who called for the bundh and that act was unconstitutional since it violated the rights of others. This Court proceeded on the basis that a hartal was a peaceful act of non-co-operation or was a passive resistance movement and a call for it did not involve coercion of a person who did not want to join the hartal into compulsorily participating in the hartal. The Supreme C...
Tag this Judgment!