Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2002(94)FLR139]
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether theemployees of associate or nominal members of the Apex or Central Society are alsoeligible for appointment for the post of Clerk-Cashier in the District Co-operativeBank on the basis of Ext. P1 notification.2. In the notification it is stated that 50% of the vacancies will be filled up byselection from eligible employees of Primary Co-operative Societies and rank list willbe prepared for each District Co-operative Banks. As per the notification 50% of theappointment is by direct recruitment and 50% from eligible employees of the PrimaryCo-operative Societies and separate rank lists will be published in respect of bothcategories. Applications were invited by the Public Service Commission as per theamended Co-operative Societies Rules reads as follows:187. Vacancies in Apex Society or Central Societies - Notwithstanding anythingcontained in Rule 186, in appointments to apex societies or cen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2010(1)KLT541
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Writ Appeal is filed by the Appellant-Bank challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge vacating the order of the Government in appeal, restoring the order of the Joint Registrar and directing the appellant to appoint the first respondent in the Writ Appeal as Junior Clerk pursuant to her inclusion in the select list prepared by the Appellant based on the examination conducted by the Co-operative Service Examination Board in the year 2003. We have heard Sri. George Poonthottam, counsel appearing for the Appellant-Bank and Sri. P.N. Mohanan, counsel appearing for the first respondent.2. The Co-operative Service Examination Board constituted under Section 80B of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, conducted examination for selection of Junior Clerks for appointment to various Banks including that of the appellant. Pursuant to list of candidates prepared by the Examination Board, the appellant-Bank prepared merit list wherein the first respondent fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1978Ker30
ORDERGeorge Vadakkel, J.1. The petitioners are the Secretary, Accountant, Senior Clerk and Junior Clerk of the 4th respondent Society and they impugn here the classification of Banking Co-operative Societies with working capital between Rs. 5 lakhs and 10 lakhs into Urban Banks coming under the Banking Regulation Act and Credit Societies for the purpose of regulating the qualification, remuneration, allowances and other conditions of service of officers and servants as contained in Appendix III to the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969,2. Section 80 (1) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 enables the Government to classify the societies governed by the Act according to their type and financial position. Sub-section (3) therein enables the Government to make rules regulating the qualification, remuneration, allowances and other conditions of service of the Officers and servants of different classes of Societies specified in Sub-section (1). Sub-section (2) of the section enabl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2003)180CTR(Ker)369; [2003]260ITR442(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The petitioners in all these original petitions are either co-operative societies or co-operative banks registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act engaged in advancing loans to its members. Even though the societies are constituted to serve to various categories of people such as farmers, employees in companies, small traders, etc., their activities are essentially the same, i.e., advancing loans to its members and accepting deposits from members and public. These co-operative banks and societies are challenging the validity of notices issued to each of them under Section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act by various authorities under the Act. A specimen of the notices issued to the petitioner in O. P. No. 35300 of 2002, is extracted hereunder : 'In connection with the income-tax investigation in your case, you are requested to appear and furnish the following information in writing on November 22, 2002, at 11 a.m. 1. Whether you are assessed to inco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(4)KLT807
K. Thankappan, J.1. Similar issue involved in this Writ Petition, has already been considered by this Court in W.P.(C).No.27196/2006 and this Court found that as per Rule 44A the Administrator is fully justified in nominating a member of a Primary Cooperative Society as delegate to the District Co-operative Bank and nominate him as delegate to the State Co-operative Bank. The contention now raised by the petitioners is that after the amendment brought to Section 33 on 1.1.2000, on supersession of the committee of a Co-operative Society or an apex society, the Registrar shall appoint more than one administrators not exceeding three. If the amendment is taken into consideration, appointment of a single administrator to manage the day today affairs of the committee of the Society or the Bank is irregular and illegal.2. This Court heard the learned Advocate General and the counsel for the petitioners and also the counsel for the State and District Co-operative Banks. On reading the amendme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1999Ker23
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The petitioners filed their nomination papers for contesting election to the com-mittee of Ponmundam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., No. 10820, hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank'. Ext. P 1 is the election notification. The petitioners filed their nomination papers along with a declaration in the form of an affidavit. The forms were obtained from the society. But the petitioners omitted to sign the declaration in the form of an affidavit which forms part of the nomination paper. On that basis, the first respondent Returning Officer rejected their nominations. It is in the above circumstances the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the rejection of their nomination papers and seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider their nomination papers and to include their names in the final list of candidates tor election to the committee of the Bank.2. It is submitted by the petitioners that the nomination paper need contain only the det...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2001Ker58
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The challenge is with regard to Ext. P1 order of the Arbitrator overruling the objection raised that the election petition filed as Suit No. 3/98 is not maintainable.2. The contention raised by the petitioner as 8th defendant therein was that the suitwas not maintainable for the reason that the Court-fee of Rs. 500/- each has not been paid by the plaintiffs therein. Reliance was placed in that regard on the decision in Peter v. Aravindakshan (1998) 2 Ker LT 729. After a reference to R. 67(7) of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 which provides that for non-monetary disputes, the Court-fee payable will be Rs. 500/-. It was observed that over and above the said fee, a person who challenges an election, has to affix a Court-fee of Rs. 2/- as well. The petitioner's case is built upon a reference to the words 'a person' contained in the said Judgment. According to him, ' a person' means each person and depending upon the number of persons in the array of p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2003)182CTR(Ker)517; [2003]263ITR161(Ker); 2003(2)KLT32
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. The scope and ambit of Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') as amended by the Finance Act, 1995 arise for consideration in these appeals. All these writ appeals arise from a common judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 30610 of 2002 and connected cases. The petitioner in the writ petitions are the appellants. All the appellants are either co-operative societies or co-operative banks registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. Being aggrieved by a communication of the nature of Ext.P2 in O.P. No. 30610 of 2002 received from the Income Tax authority having jurisdiction over the petitioners calling for information such as a list of persons, who have made term/recurring deposits of Rs. 50,000/- and above as on date along with their complete postal addresses, etc. they have filed the writ petitions. In the notice it is stated that the information is required in connection with the investigation of the appellants' case and the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(1)KLT407
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. When this appeal came up for admission, Sri. T.R. Ramachandran Nair entered appearance for respondent No. 4, Sri. S.P. Aravindakshan Pillai took notice for respondent No. 3 and the learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 and 2. The appeal itself was heard.2. The petitioner in O.P. 10627 of 2003 has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1.7.2003 dismissing the Original Petition filed by him. The appellant was elected as one of the members of the Board of Directors of the Trivandrum Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union ('TRCMPU' for short) in the election held on 31.8.2000. He was elected as the Chairman of the Board of Directors also. On 20.10.2000 the third respondent filed a petition before the second respondent for a declaration that the appellant is disqualified to continue as the. Board Member of TRCMPU alleging that the appellant had disqualification to contest the election due to default as he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2007]8STT33; (2007)7VST323(Ker)
K. Balakrishnan Nair J.1. The constitutional validity of Sub-section (16A) of Section 47 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the sustainability of two circulars issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under the said provision are the points, that arise for decision in these writ petitions. Since same points arise for decision in all these writ petitions, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. W.P. (C) No. 2844 of 2007 is treated as the main case.W.P. (C) No. 2844 of 2007:2. The petitioner, which is a firm, is a dealer in glass sheets. It is an asses-see on the files of the third respondent, Sales Tax Officer, Manjeri, under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KVAT Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The fourth respondent, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued Circular No. 50 of 2006, in exercise of his powers under Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 read with Sub-section (16A) of Section 47 of the KVAT A...
Tag this Judgment!