Court : Kerala
Ramachandra Menon J. 1. Whether the dictum laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Nakeri Vasudevan Namboodiri and others versus Union of India,reported in 2007 (4) KHC 140requires reconsideration, with reference to the mandate of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, [as amended in the year 2003 by Act 16 of 2003] [hereinafter referred to as the Act] governing the transfer of captive animals, particularly captive elephants in the State of Kerala, is the basic question to be considered in these writ petitions filed as Public Interest Litigations by the very same petitioner. 2. In W.P.(C) 34618 of 2007, the petitioner seeks to direct the respondents to take all steps to see that no elephant is transferred to the State of Kerala, in contravention of Section 43 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and also to direct the second respondent to take appropriate action on Ext.P4 representation ventilating the grievances. In the other writ petition, the petitioner seeks to issue...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1964Ker25
M.S. Menon, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of Vai-dialingam, 'J., in O. P. No. 981 of 1960. That petition which has been allowed was by the respondent before us, Messrs. Harrisons' and Crossfield Limited, Quilon. The appellant -- the 1st respondent in O. P. No. 981 of 1960 -- is the Commissioner of the Quilon Municipality.2. The controversy relates to the assessment of the respondent to profession tax for the two half years of the financial year 1958-59. The assessment was on the basis of the proviso to Rule 18 (2) - of the Taxation Rules in Schedule II to the Travancore District Municipalities Act, 1116 (M. E.}. The assessment order is Ext. B and the resolution of the Municipal Council dismissing the respondent's appeal and confirming the assessment is Ext. F dated the 15th March, 1960.3. Rule 18 (1) of the Taxation Rules reads as follows :'Where a company of person transacts business in any half-year exclusively in the area of a single municipality, the income of such com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(3)KLT38
J.B. Koshy, J.1. In these group of cases, the main question to be decided is whether Co-operative banks are liable to comply with the directions of the Reserve Bank of India issued from time to time. W.A.No. 707 of 2003 was filed by Wandoor Service Co-operative Bank Limited against the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P.No. 26589 of 2002. The above O.P. was filed for a declaration that the registration of Wandoor Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd., fourth respondent in the O.P. in violation of the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (in short B. R. Act) and not to permit the fourth respondent to function as a Rural Bank. The learned single Judge found that the fourth respondent was not a primary agricultural credit co-operative society as defined under Section 2(c) of the Co-operative Societies Act as the bye-laws would show that it was for providing credit facilities for industry, education, trade and employment and the above Rural Cooperative Bank is, in fact, an Urban ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker361; [1960(1)FLR528]; (1960)ILLJ623Ker
S. Velu Pillai, J. 1. The petitioner, the employer, is a sub-agent of the Standard Vacuum Oil Company in Quilon, and he terminated the employment o three workmen on October 3, 1956. On October 19, 1956, they enrolled themselves as members of a labour Union called 'The Quilon Commercial Staff Association', hereafter referred to as the Union, which took up their cause and raised a dispute which was referred by the first respondent, the Government, of the State of Kerala, to the second respondent, the Industsial Tribunal, to be referred to as the Tribunal, as 'the Industrial Dispute between the management of Standard Vacuum Oil Company, Sub-Agency, Quilon, represented by tile Sub-Agent, and the workmen of the above concern represented by the Quilon Commercial Staff Association'. The reference concerned two issues, the first of which related to the termination o the employment of the three workmen and the second, to their claim for bonus, for the years 1953 to 1956. At an early stage of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(1)KLT245; [2004]135STC241(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioners in these cases challenge Sections 14(1), 14(1A) and 14(5) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as The Act') as unconstitutional and invalid. All the petitioners herein are dealers registered under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and under the Central Sales Tax Act (in short 'Central Act'). Section 13 of the Act requires compulsory registration of every dealer whose total turnover exceeds a particular limit. At present, Rs. 1 lakh is the limit prescribed under the Act. Section 14(1) prescribes the fees for registration. Section 14(1) after the amendment of the Act by Act 17 of 1988 with effect from 1.4.1988 with enhancement of rates pending till Act 23 of 1996 is as follows:'14. Procedure for registration : (1) An application for registration shall be made to such authority, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by a fee as specified below:- (a) Where the total turnover is less than...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. Whether the removal of admission and access to entertainment event and amusement facilities [sub-clause (j) of Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994] from the Negative List of Services by an Amendment of 2012 and the consequent imposition of service tax on such activity would result in the Union Parliament trenching upon the exclusive field assigned to the State, under Entry 62 List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India is the question raised herein. 2. Entry 62 of List II [any reference to Lists I, II or III is to the Lists under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution] deals with taxes on luxuries, including taxes on entertainments, amusements, betting and gambling . The State has also brought out the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as State Act of 1961 ], wherein Section 3, the charging section, provides for levy of tax and the rate of tax; connected cases the same being on the price for admission to any entertainme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1978Ker201
Subramonian Poti, J. 1. This appeal was referred by a Division Bench of this court to the Full Bench since two important questions arise for decision in this appeal and the Division Bench considered that it was desirable that the matter be examined and pronounced upon by a larger Bench.2. When the State Bank of Travancore, a subsidiary Bank within the meaning of Clause (k) of Section 2 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 took out execution of the decree in O. Section No. 28 of 1963 in the Sub Court of Kottayam as decree-holder the judgment-debtor filed a petition under Section 8 of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act 11 of 1970 seeking amendment of the decree in terms of the provisions of the said Act. The judgment-debtor claimed to be an agriculturist entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Act relating to the scaling down of the debt. The subordinate Judge assumed that the petitioner was an agriculturist. He found that the decree-holder State Bank ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(3)KLT253
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. These Criminal Revision Petitions and Crl.M.C. No. 2605 of 2003 are filed challenging a common order passed by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kozhikode dismissing five Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions filed by accused Nos. 4, 6 to 12 and 14 to 16 in S.C.No. 124 of 2002 on the file of that Court contending that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against them and hence they may be discharged under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Crl.R.P. No. 661 of 2003 is filed by the 14th accused in the case. He along with the 11th accused filed Crl.M.P. No. 171 of 2002 praying that he may be discharged. Crl.R.P. No. 782 of 2003 is filed by accused No. 7. A7 to A10 filed Crl.M.P. No. 198 of 2002 for the very same relief. Crl.R.P. No. 865 of 2003 is filed by the 8th accused in Crl.M.P.No. 198 of 2002. Crl.R.P.No. 938 of 2003 is filed by the 5th accused. Though he had not filed any petition for discharge, he has filed the Criminal Revis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1961]12STC657(Ker)
M.A. Ansari, C.J. 1. These seven writ petitions are against the provisional assessment orders under the General Sales Tax Act No. XI of 1125, and the grounds, on which the petitioners seek to vacate them, are two in number. The first is that the assessment orders, based on the notification under Section 5(vii) of the General Sales Tax Act, are notwithstanding the validation by the General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, No. III of 1960, defective and inadequate to levy the sales tax on the petitioners. The Amendment Act has been passed because of Abu v. State of Kerala 1960 K.L.J. 457 wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that the aforesaid notification due to non-compliance with the provisions of Section 24 of the General Sales Tax Act, which section provided how the rules are to be framed under the Act, would not justify the last purchaser of the commodities mentioned in the notification being made liable to sales tax, even though the notification be mentioned in Rule 4(2) under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2005]142STC435(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. Whether the sale of goods effected in duty-free shops (for short, 'DFS') in the international airports is exempt from payment of sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act') by virtue of Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution of India and the provisions of Sections 2(ab) and 5 (1) and (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'the CST Act') is the main question involved in this writ petition.2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Surya Samudra, Beach Garden, Pulinkudi, Mullar P.O., Thiruvananthapuram. The object of the company, it is stated, is to set up Duty-free Shops (DFS) at various international air ports in India and to import, export buy and sell, various goods which could be sold at the DFS (underlining mine). It carries on business of selling goods at the DFS allotted to it and located at the departure and arrival halls at Thiruvananthapuram Internationa...
Tag this Judgment!