Court : Kerala
The short question arising herein is whether the application submitted by the petitioner to the Public Service Commission in the form prescribed for SC/St candidates valued at Rs.5/-, could be accepted as valid. She is not a Schedule Caste, but is a Muslim. According to the Commission, the application prescribed for general categories ought to have been submitted by the petitioner. 2. The notification issued by the Public Service Commission is for appointment to the post of H.S.A. (Maths) in various districts including, Alappuzha which has been produced as Ext.P3. On submission of application, she was allotted bar code No.28416529. But since she did not get the memo for the written test, she contacted the district office of the Commission and was informed that since the application submitted by the petitioner values only Rs.5/- instead of the application worth Rs.10/-, the same cannot be considered. Thereafter, she submitted a representation before the Secretary of the commission and s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE29H DAY OF JANUARY20149TH MAGHA, 1935 ITA.No. 221 of 2012 () ----------------------- (ITA.NO.118/COCH/2004 OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN DATED3007-1998) ------------------------------ APPELLANT : ------------------------ M/S.MEDICAL LAND, PUTHUR BUILDINGS, ERINJERI ANGADI, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENT : ---------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(APPEALS), KOCHI -682 031. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2708-2013, THE COURT ON2901-2014 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts I.T.A.NO.221/2012 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX1COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED318/2000 ANNEX II COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) IS DATED208/2004 ANNEX III COPY OF THE ORDER DATED303/2010 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL SERVED ON THE APPELLANT ON154/2010 RESPONDENT'S AN...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE TUESDAY, THE19H DAY OF AUGUST201428TH SRAVANA, 1936 WP(C).No. 18703 of 2014 (K) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- 1. JIJESH, HAVILDAR7405 S/O.GANGADHARAN,AGED26YEARS, F COMPANY, KAP4H BATTALION, MANGATTUPARAMBU, KANNUR DISTRICT.2. RASHEED.A., PC7757 S/O.P.K.HAMZA, AGED34YEARS,C COMPANY, KAP4H BATTALION, MANGATTUPARAMBU, KANNUR DISTRICT.3. SUBHASH,PC7612S/O.RAJARAM, AGED28YEARS, HQ COMPANY,KAP4H BATTALION, MANGATTUPARAMBU, KANNUR DISTRICT.4. RAKESH, TECHNICAL HAVILDAR1302 S/O.SASIDHARAN, AGED33YEARS,HQ COMPANY, KAP4H BATTALION, MANGATTUPARAMBU, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.SMITHA BABU RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE COMMANDANT, KAP4H BATTALION, MANGATTUPARAMBU, KANNUR DISTRICT.PIN-670 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT,KAP4H BATTALION, MANGATTUPARAMBU, KANNUR DISTRICT.PIN-670 001 3. RANJITH K., HAVILDAR6567 RETURNING OFFICER, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ramkumar, J. 1. The two defendants in O.S. No. 139 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kasaragod, are the appellants in this first appeal. Pending the appeal the first appellant died and her legal representatives were impleaded as additional appellants 3 to 8. The aforesaid suit was one for specific performance of Ext.A1 agreement for sale dated 19-1-1993 of two items of immovable properties each admeasuring 12 cents belonging to the first and second defendants respectively. The plaintiff's case 2. The case of the plaintiff can be summarised as follows:- The plaint schedule items 1 and 2 belong to defendants 1 and 2 respectively. As per Ext.A1 agreement for sale dated 19-1- 1993 the plaintiff agreed to purchase and the defendants agreed to sell the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiff for a total consideration of ` 1,45,000/-. The plaintiff paid ` 55,000/- on the date of the agreement itself and the defendants have acknowledged the same in Ext.A1 agreement. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
The complaint filed under Sec.17 (2) read with Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming compensation of Rs.75,00,000/- on the ground of medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in treating the complainant at the 1st opposite party hospital under the 2nd opposite party Dr.K.R.Vikraman. 2. The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is aged 35 years engaged in film industry and doing the business of advertisements. The 1st opposite party is a limited company running a hospital by name Kerala Insitute of Medical Sciences, a super speciality hospital and that the 2nd opposite party a super specialist in Urology attached to the 1st opposite party hospital. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party on 2/3/02 with abdominal pain and the ailment of the complainant was diagonised as Renal Stone and advised treatment and medication and to approach the 2nd opposite party for the treatment. The complainan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(1)KLT984
B.N. Srikrishna, C.J.1. These connected cases raise the same issue of law, though under slightly differing factual matrices. It would be convenient to dispose of all these cases by a common judgment. For the puipose of appreciating the factual matrix in which the question of law arises, it would be sufficient to refer in detail to the facts in O.P. No. 7112 of 2002.2. O.P. No. 7112 of 2002(a) The petitioner is a private limited company running resort hotels in different areas and does business in the tourism industry within the State of Keraia. It has constructed resorts near Munnar, a well known tourist holiday place in Keraia. by investing huge amounts. The hotel resort at Munnar is classified as 'approved restaurant' by the Central Government in the Ministry of Tourism. The respondents are the State of Keraia and the Commissioner of Excise.(b) On 11.12.2000 the petitioner applied for an FL-31 icence which would permit it to serve liquor in its restaurant. This application was not pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2008(117)FLR257]; 2008(1)KLJ607; 2008(1)KLT858; (2008)IILLJ985Ker; 2009(2)SLJ78(Kerala)
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. A very difficult question arises for consideration in this case, on the question of interpretation of Section 14 of the Minimum Wages Act on which there are two conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court, one by a three Member Bench and the other by a two Member Bench. The situation arises in the following factual scenario.2. The petitioners in this original petition filed an application under Section 14 of the Minimum Wages Act before the 1st respondent seeking overtime wages. As per the settlements arrived at between the management and the Unions, the workmen were actually getting wages in excess of the minimum wages prescribed as per notifications issued under the Minimum Wages Act. The authority under the Minimum Wages Act, by Ext.Pl order, following a decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Council. Hatta v. Bhagat Singh and Ors. 1998 (1) LLJ 815, denied jurisdiction on the ground that Section 14 can be invoked only by persons who are getting minimum rate of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2003Ker39
ORDERR. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The Kunhimon Haji Memorial High School (KHMHS) at Alathiyur was established in 1974 by late Hamsa Haji, who died on 16-9-1993. He was the Individual Educational Agency and the Manger of the School. The fifth respondent Sainaba is the wife of iate Hamsa Haji. They had nine daughters and two sons. Petitioner Mohammedkutly is the eldest son and the younger son Moideenkutty, later died leaving his widow and three children. The KHMHS belonged to the deceased Harnsa Haji and the school was located in an area of 3.5 acres of land. In 1988 Hamsa Haji proceeded for Haj and during the period of his absence, he authorized the petitioner to be the Manager of the School and the DEO approved the petitioner as the temporary Manager as per Exhibit P2 proceedings. During May 1993 Hamsa Haji became ill and he authorised the petitioner to be the Manager of the School till Hamsa Haji recovers from his illeness the younger brother of the petitioner also had consented to the abov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(2)KLT851
M. Ramachandran, J.1. A batch of writ appeals along with a few Original Petitions/Writ Petitions had come up for hearing together. Original Petitions had been posted along with the writ appeals taking notice of the circumstance that identical issues have been agitated. The writ petitions had been filed challenging the constitutionality of SRO Nos. 326/96 and 225/98, whereby amendments were brought to Rule 2 of the Foreign Liquor Rules.2. The learned Judge had granted substantial reliefs to the petitioners recognising the merit of the contentions raised, but however taking notice of the circumstance that the petitioners had challenged a Rule after it had been deleted from the statute book and the delay had not been appropriately explained, he had refused to entertain arguments about the sustainability of the consequential proceedings. The follow up proceedings of prosecution initiated in enforcement of the Rule thus were to continue. The petitioners have filed the appeals, aggrieved tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(1)KLT145; [2004]137STC570(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act'). The same assessee is the petitioner in all these cases. The assessment years concerned are 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80, 1983-84, 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 respectively. The Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam had disposed of a batch of appeals filed by the petitioner and by the State by a common order dated January 29, 2001. The present revisions arise from T.A. Nos. 627 of 1995, 911 of 1996, 547 of 1990, 321 of 2001, 601 of 1995, 79 of 1996, 260 of 1996 and 548 of 1990 respectively of which T.A. No. 321 of 2001 which is the subject-matter of T.R.C. No. 292 of 2002 was disposed of by a separate order dated September 13, 20.01 following the common order of the Tribunal in the other cases.2. The question that arises for consideration in all these cases is as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay purchase tax under section 5A of the Act on t...
Tag this Judgment!