Court : Kerala
Decided on : Nov-07-2007
Reported in : 2008(2)KLJ488
ORDERT.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This Revision Petition is filed by the tenants challenging the judgment rendered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. This respondent herein is the landlord. The landlord filed RCP No. 42/1998 to evict the tenants under Sections 11(2), 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The rent control court dismissed the eviction petition, and on appeal by the landlord the appellate authority has allowed eviction under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Act.2. The facts of the case which are necessary for disposing of the revision petition are the following:The tenant premises is a shop room in the ground floor of a multi storeyed building. The landlord is occupying a similar shop room adjacent to it on the northern side of the petition schedule room. The same is owned by his wife, and the landlord is conducting jewellery shop named 'Maharani Jewellers' in the said shop room. The petition schedule shop room was purchased...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-08-2007
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!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jan-23-2007
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ109; AIR2007NOC1100(SB)
ORDERV.K. Bali, C.J. and K.P. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. I have gone through the illuminative concurring judgments of Abdul Gafoor and Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. as also the concurring judgments of Kurian Joseph and Padmanabhan Nair, JJ. expressing however, a different view than the one expressed by Abdul Gafoor and Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. The present may be one of the rarest of rare cases where every Honourable Member of the Bench has chosen to write, even though concurring with the other, his own judgment. May be that the Honourable Member of the Bench concurring with the other wished to express the same view point in his own way.2. I have given deep and anxious the (sic) to both the views and after considering and reconsidering the whole issue, I have come to the conclusion that the view expressed by Kurian Joseph and Padmanabhan Nair, JJ. appears to be correct. With respect, thus, I would differ with the view taken by Abdul Gafoor and Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. Tenant means any person by whom o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jan-17-2007
Reported in : 2007(1)KLJ622; (2007)IILLJ925Ker
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. An hospital against which a consultant physician employed by them filed a C.P. before the Labour Court, Ernakulam as C.P. No. 47/ 1991 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming certain benefits due to him including Sunday and holiday wages is challenging the order in that C.P in this Original Petition. The petitioner raised a preliminary point on the question as to whether the consultant physician, the 1 st respondent herein, is a workman or not. That question was considered as a preliminary point and by Exhibit P1 preliminary order, relying on the Supreme Court decision in the Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Co. of India Ltd. v. Burma Shell Management Staff Association and Ors. : (1970)IILLJ590SC the Labour Court held that the 1st respondent Consultant Physician is a workman coming within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore the claim petition under Section 33-C(2) is maintainable. Although the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jan-04-2007
Reported in : AIR2007Ker146
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar. J.1. A compromise petition was filed signed by plaintiff, defendants, except one and their counsel. A compromise decree was passed in terms of the compromise. Whether the defendants, who did not sign the compromise petition, is entitled to file an application to set aside the compromise decree on the ground that he is not a signatory to the compromise alleging fraud Whether the signature of the counsel for the party in a compromise petition is sufficient and whether it is mandatory that all the parties to sign the compromise petition? There the questions to be settled in the revision petition,2. Respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs. Petitioner and his brothers, respondents 3 and 4, are defendants. O.S. 357/94 was filed before Sub-Court, Thalassery for fixation of boundaries. After Commissioner submitted a report and plan, objection was filed to the report. Thereafter a settlement was arrived at between the parties. LA. 814/ 01 was filed on 7-3-2001. In tha...
Tag this Judgment!