Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2000Ker274
Pasayat, C.J.1. Doubting correctness of view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in Padmanabhan v. Joint Registrar, 1995 (1) KLT 630 : (1995 AIHC 5581) following question has been referred to a larger Bench for opinion :Whether Clause 36-A of the bye-laws of the Bank, which permits co-option, can be operative notwithstanding the specific provisions in Rule 38(5) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules as to the manner in which the vacancies have to be filled up?The question has to be considered tn the light of Section 110(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (in short, the Act).2. Dispute arose in the following background : Respondent-Syed was elected as President of the Kumarampathur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). Election to the Managing Committee was conducted and the term of office of the Managing Committee was to expire in February, 2000. Nine members were elected to the Managing Committee, out of whom five members sen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
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!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 : AIR2000Ker340
Narayana Kurup, J. 1. By virtue of the powers conferred under Sub-Section (ii) of Section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. 1960 (For short 'the Act'), the Govt. of India had issued a notification dated 2-3-1991 banning the training and exhibition of five animals, viz. bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and dogs. Subsequently, a corrigendum dated 7-8-1991 was issued by which the ban on training and exhibition of dogs was withdrawn. The validity of the said notifications were challenged by the Indian Circus Federation (ICF), New Delhi by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 890/91 before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court of Delhi by order dated 20-3-1991 stayed the operation of the notification dt- 2-3-1991. Later, the High Court of Delhi after hearing the writ petitioner at length, by its order dated 21-8-1997 order that: 'The Government may take up the Notification dt. 2-3-1991 for consideration afresh. It may take into consideration such materials as may be available with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2001]252ITR668(Ker)
1. The challenge is against Ext. P4 order passed by the 1st respondent-Government rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the Assignment on registry of 75 cents of government land in survey No. 319 and 320 of Aranattukara village in Thrissur District, in favour of the 4th respondent.2. Petitioner says that Exts. P2 and P4 have passed malafide and flouting the mandatory provisions in the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960 (Act 30 of 1960) and the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964.3. 'Government lands' for the purpose of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules (For short 'the Rules') shall consist of lands belonging to Government and available for assignment as per lists prepared by the Revenue Department and approved by the competent authority under the Rules and such other lands as may be set apart for the purpose of the Rules. 'Assignment' is defined in Rule 2(c) of the Rules as transfer of land by way of registry and includes a lease and a grant of lic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2002]126STC411(Ker)
Kurian Joseph, J.1. The best person to dispute a signature is the signatory himself. But when signatory himself disputes a signature affixed years back, is it reasonable, rather prudent to obtain sample signature after informing the person the purpose and subject the same to expert study Yet another interesting feature of the instant case is the challenge by the State on the validity of a regulation framed with its approval.2. The original petition is at the instance of the State. There is a challenge against Regulation 37 of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1966 framed under Section 4(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' with the previous sanction of the Government. Regulation 37 reads as follows :'The Tribunal may, in any proceedings, issue a Commission for the examination, or interrogatories, or otherwise, of any person or for examining the accounts or records of any person resident within the State. Provisions of ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2002]121TAXMAN332(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.These appeals are filed by the revenue against the common order passed by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in IT Appeal Nos. 246 to 249 (Coch) of 1996. The assessment years are 1987-88 to 1990-91. The question of law raised in these cases is 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction in respect of the payments made to the Co-operative Society Ltd., Bombay, on account of water charges, security charges, society management expenses, etc., under section 24(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?' The facts of the case are as follows:2. The assessee was having one-third ownership in a flat in Anand Kamal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Bombay. While filing the return of income, the assessee claimed Rs. 25,560 as co-operative society's dues for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 and Rs. 92,052 for the other two assessment years in computing income from house property. These dues were towards the municipal tax...
Tag this Judgment!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 : I(2003)ACC62
R. Rajendra Babu, J. O.P. No. 17712/2001 : 1. Petitioner K.T. Sureshan applied for four months temporary permit on the route Chaliam-Providence College a city permit as notified by the RTA, Kozhikode in the vacancy of stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KLZ 9659, having a valid regular permit till 16th June, 2000. The permit holder had not renewed the permit and hence there was vacancy for conducting service as a substitute one. Another operator also had applied for four months temporary permit on the above route. Both the applicationswere rejected by the RTA, Kozhikode as per Ext. P1 proceedings, dated 6th February 2001 holding that as per S.R.0.891/2000 the number of stage carriages in Kozhikode city had been limited to 400 and the above number of regular permits had already been exhausted. The petitioner filed this Original Petition challenging Ext. P-3 notification, i.e., S.R.O. 891/2000 issued by the Government under Section 71(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : II(2002)ACC115; AIR2002Ker178
R. Rajendra Babu, J. O.P. 17712/2001 1. Petitioner K.T. Sureshan applied for four months temporary permit on the route Chaliam-Providence College a city permit as notified by the RTA, Kozhikode in the vacancy of stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KL2 9659, having a valid regular permit till 16.6.2000. The permit holder had not renewed the permit and hence there was vacancy for conducting service as a substitute one. Another operator also had applied for four months temporary permit on the above route. Both the applications were rejected by the RTA, Kozhikode as per Ext. P1 proceedings dated 6.2.2001 holding hat as per SRO 891/2000 the number of stage carriages in Kozhikode city had been limited to 400 and the above number of regular permits had already been exhausted. The petitioner filed this Original Petition challenging Ext. P3 notification, i.e. SRO891/2000 issued by the Government under Section 71(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') limiting the number ...
Tag this Judgment!