Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WEDNESDAY, THE10H DAY OF DECEMBER201419TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936 WP(C).No. 2644 of 2014 (E) --------------------------- PETITIONERS:- ---------------------------- 1. SHRI.JOSE JACOB, S/O.JACOB,AGED57YEARS, INSPECTOR (RETD), KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THODUPUZHA AND RESIDING AT OONNANAL HOUSE, VAZHAKULAM P.O., ERNAKULAM - 686 670.2. C.K.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.KRISHNAN PANICKER, AGED61YEARS, INSPECTOR (RETD), KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THODUPUZHA AND RESIDING AT CHEERANKUZHIYIL HOUSE, PUTHUPPARIYARAM P.O., ANGAMVETTI JUNCTION, THODUPUZHA - 685 684.3. K.J.JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH,AGED61YEARS, INSPECTOR (RETD) KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THODUPUZHA AND RESIDING AT KOCHUKAROOR HOUSE, KOLANI P.O., THODUPUZHA - 685 584.4. K.M.AUGUSTINE,S/O.MATHAI, AGED61YEARS, INSPECTOR (RETD), KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THODUPUZHA AND RESIDING AT KANJIRAKKATU HOUSE, PER...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1954CriLJ63
ORDERSankaran, J.1. The petitioner in both these criminal revision petitions is the same. He is the second accused in Calendar Case No. 11/50 on the file of the Special First Class Magistrate's Court at Cranganur. He is also the 1st accused in Calendar Case No. 12 of 1950 on the file of the same court. Both these prosecutions were started against him for having contravened the provisions of the Paddy (Acquisition and Movement) Control Order, 1950 issued by the Government of the State of Travaneore-Cochin in exercise of the powers conferred on them by Section 3, Public Safety Measures Act, 1950 (Act 5 of 1950).According to the prosecution, this accused obtained on loan 75 paras of paddy from the 1st accused in C. C. 11/1950 on 18-6-1950 and transported the same from the 1st accused's house in Kakkulisseri Village to the petitioner's house in Poyya village in the Mukundapuram Taluk. It is stated that the borrowing and the subsequent transport of the paddy were done without obtaining the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(3)KLT946; (2004)ILLJ617Ker
A.K. Basheer, J.1. Does the appellant-Association of Steamer Agents come within the purview of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948? This is the short question in this appeal under Section 82 of the Act, which has been referred to the Full Bench. First, the facts.2. The appellant is a registered Association consisting of Steamer Agents functioning in the Cochin Port. The appellant-Association has 57 Steamer Agents as members on its roll. The ships/steamers which visit the Cochin Port require services of Steamer Watchmen to do 'watch and ward duty'. Earlier the services of Steamer Watchmen were made available to the ships/Steamers by 'Watchmen Contractors'. In the year 1981, the labour unions raised a dispute regarding the service conditions of the Steamer Watchmen who were employed through the contractors. A conciliation meeting was convened by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Ernakulam. Representatives of the Indian Chamber of Commerce, Cochin and the Cochin Chamber of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(3)KLT1063; [2006]143STC467(Ker)
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. Is 'pasteurised milk' not 'fresh milk' as contemplated under Entry 23 of the Third Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 so as to be exempted from the levy of tax? This is the short question that arises in these two writ petitions. The Counsel for the parties have referred to the facts in O.P. No.5975 of 2002. These may be briefly noticed.2. The petitioner is a private limited company, It is engaged in the processing of milk. It is running a small-scale industrial unit. It is registered as a dealer under the K.G.S.T. Act. The petitioner is selling pasteurised milk, curd and ghee etc. The petitioner filed its return for the assessment year 1996-97. It showed a total turnover of Rs. 35,51,706.65 on account of the sale of milk. It claimed exemption from payment of sales tax. Vide order dated March 21, 2001, the Assessing Authority accepted the petitioner's claim and finalised the assessment 'as a case of nil demand'.3. The petitioner had also filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
The correctness and sustainability of the R.R. proceedings pursued by the respondent Bank, when, the civil suit instituted by the Bank is pending consideration before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram for the purpose of quantification, is the subject matter of dispute involved in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is a business man engaged in fish trading, who purchases fish and such other items by way of auction from the sea shore of Vizhinjam/ Thiruvananthapuram. In connection with the requirement of business, the petitioner sought for and obtained a loan of Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees eight lakhs only) from the respondent Bank, on the strength of the hypothecation given over the equipments and the fish and such other items procured in the course of business. Ext.P1 is the application for the loan, after considering which, it was sanctioned as per Ext.P2. Admittedly, there occurred some default in repayment; under which circumstances, the Bank filed O.S. No.856/2011 before the Sub Court,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, CJ. 1. This Writ Petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation seeks enforcement of statutory Rules framed by the State and Circulars issued prescribing wearing of uniform by the Officers of the Metrology Department of the State of Kerala. Petitioner, an Indian citizen and a practising Advocate complains about the non-wearing of uniform by the Officers in violation of the statutory provisions and Circulars and inaction on the part of the State and its Officers in taking appropriate action. FACTS 2. Petitioner's case in the Writ Petition is that under the Acts enacted by the Parliament Rules have been framed by the State which provides for wearing of uniform by Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology, Senior Inspector and Inspector of Metrology while on duty in the office or in field. Petitioner in the Writ Petition has referred to various Circulars issued by the State Government and the Controller of Weights and Measures emphasising on wearing of uniform by Inspectors a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(3)KLT542
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Whether Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (K.S.R.T.C.) is bound to pay revised pension and pensionary benefits to its retired employees as per the Government Service Rules (K.S.R.) on par with pensioners of Government service without fixing a different cut off date is the question that is to be considered in these appeals. Earlier, this Court answered the above question in the affirmative. In appeal, the matter was remanded as according to the Honourable Supreme Court, this Court had considered only the entitlement of the pensionary benefits and not regarding the legality of fixing a different cut off date. Apex Court also noticed that reliefs claimed in the Writ Appeals were not identical. There are two classes of employees in all the Writ Appeals: (1) erstwhile Government employees who were transferred and absorbed by the Corporation and (2) employees who were appointed after the formation of the Corporation. The Apex Court also held that this Court has not con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1996)132CTR(Ker)178; [1996]221ITR1(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. These are the three petitions of the Department against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (annexure 'E'), refusing to make reference to this court as per their applications. The three petitions relate to different assessment years, but the question being the same, they are taken up for hearing and decision in a consolidated manner and likewise are being decided by this.2. Kanam Latex Industries P. Ltd. is a company described as a closely held company deriving income from the business of centrifuging rubber latex. In the computation statement, deduction under Sections 80J and 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is claimed on the ground that it being an industrial undertaking manufacturing or producing articles--centrifuging rubber latex, the benefits of these statutory provisions are available to them.3. The Assessing Officer (annexure 'A'), by order dated August 29, 1983, rejected their claim and this was also further confirmed by the Commissi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2006]148STC212(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Original petition was preferred by the appellant herein seeking a writ of certiorari to quash exhibit P9 notice and P13 letter and also for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to initiate any proceedings against the petitioner contrary to or inconsistent with exhibits P4 and P5 and also for other consequential reliefs.2. Exhibit P9 is a notice dated December 19, 2001, issued under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, in short, 'the KGST Act', proposing a total penalty of Rs. 49,39,45,410 stating that the assessee had failed to pay tax on the purchase turnover for the years 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02 on the ground that they were exempted turnover. S.R.O. No. 1729/93, it was pointed out, had allowed exemption only on the purchase value of rubber used and no exemption was allowed on the turnover of any processing of one form of goods into another form of the same goods by mixing with chemicals or gas fumigation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2003]129STC389(Ker)
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Chicken has been on the tax table of this Court for quite some time for the main reason that the State had not been finding it easy to prepare and promote Kerala chicken. The State intends to support and promote poultry farmers in Kerala ; but is unable to reach at them and that is the unfortunate story unfolded in these cases. To quote from the counter-affidavit of the respondents 'it is respectfully submitted that from the year 1967-68 onwards the intention of the Government is to give special incentive to farmers in Kerala. Each time when notification is issued with the above intention clever dealers outside Kerala could take advantage of the notification by adopting skilful means. But the Government never intended to give any such benefit to outside Kerala people, because the clear intention ever since 1967 was to encourage poultry industry in Kerala'. The last of such attempts to encourage poultry farmers in Kerala has given rise to the present litigation. The ...
Tag this Judgment!