Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Court: kerala Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 12 results (0.015 seconds)

Sep 17 2004 (HC)

Kerala Community Development Extension Officers Association Vs. State ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Sep-17-2004

Reported in : [2005(104)FLR275]; 2004(3)KLT940

..... on the ground that the department needs qualified young and energetic persons also to work as block development officers. such candidates are selected by the public service commission. there is rationale for allotting the next l/3rd to members belonging to other departments because the duties to be performed by the b.d.o's. in the development department are so .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 2004 (HC)

Leela Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jan-05-2004

Reported in : [2004(102)FLR207]; 2004(2)KLT220; (2004)IIILLJ106Ker

..... clause (2), the legislature has permitted the women to work 'in fish-curing or fish-canning factories'. if they may be permitted to work in one industry, there is no rationale for treating them differently in case of other jobs.17. clause (2) provides as under:'(2) the state government may make rules providing for the exemption from the restrictions set .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 09 2004 (HC)

Sulaikha Clay Mines Vs. Alpha Clays

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Aug-09-2004

Reported in : AIR2005Ker3; 2005(1)ARBLR237(Kerala); 2004(3)KLT192

j.b. koshy, j.1. for procedural violation, can an arbitral award be set aside under section 34 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') and whether court has power to remit back the award to the same arbitrator or any other arbitrator vis-a-vis or dehors the power under section 34(4) of the act are some of the important questions discussed in this judgment.2. appellant and first respondent in this case are partnership firms engaged in the business of mining of china clay. their mines are contiguously situated with a common boundary, running in the north-south direction. they have jointly secured an order for supply of china clay to m/s. english indian clays limited. since the appellant firm did not get sales-tax registration certificate, the two firms agreed that mining can be started from the respondent's firm. mining was started from first respondent's firm on 23.11.1995. 23.11.1995, appellant firm also got sales-tax registration and joined the despatch of clay. thereafter, some dispute arose between them and on 1.6.1996, the managing partner of both firms decided to refer the dispute for adjudication of shri k.k. abdul aziz, second respondent, who is to act as the sole arbitrator. the reference is as follows:'(i) a dispute has arisen between messrs. sulaikha clay mines (scm) and messrs alpha clays (ac) on the question of the quantum of saleable china clay to be compensated by ac from their mines to scm in lieu of the quantum of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 12 2004 (HC)

CochIn Refineries Officers Association and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uo ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Mar-12-2004

Reported in : (2004)192CTR(Ker)1

p.r. raman, j.1. in all these writ petitions, common question arises for consideration. hence, they are taken up together for hearing.2. o.p. 10569 of 2003 and o.p. 8425 of 2002 were taken as the leading cases for argument. in o.p. 10569 of 2002 petitioners are officers of the third respondent scheduled bank. respondents are (i) union of india, (2) the cbdt, and (3) the federal bank.3. the federal bank officers association itself filed an original petition before the karnataka high court, seeking for a declaration that r. 3(l)(ii) and r. 3(7)(i) notified by ext. p1 as unconstitutional and unenforceable. the said writ petition was dismissed by a common judgment dt. 17th feb., 2003. it is thereafter that the present writ petitions were filed challenging the validity of section 17(2)(vi) of the act which, according to the petitioners, was not a subject-matter of challenge in the earlier writ petition. petitioners seek for a declaration that section 17(2)(vi) of the it act, as inserted by finance act, 2001, is illegal and violative of arts. 19(1)(g) and 246 of the constitution of india, and a declaration that r. 3 of the it rules, 1962, as substituted by it (22nd amendment) rules, 2001, by the second respondent under its notification no. 940(e), dt. 25th sept., 2001 as illegal and unconstitutional being hit by the vice of excessive delegation of power besides being ultra vixes the rule-making power of the second respondent and to stay the operation of the aforesaid provisions.4. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 12 2004 (HC)

V.K. Prasad and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Mar-12-2004

Reported in : [2004]271ITR178(Ker)

p.r. raman, j. 1. in all these writ petitions, a common question arises for consideration. hence they are taken up together for hearing.2. o. p. no. 10569 of 2003 and o. p. no. 8425 of 2002 were taken as the leading cases for argument. in o. p. no. 10569 of 2002, the petitioners are officers of the third respondent scheduled bank. the respondents are (1) union of india, (2) the central board of direct taxes and (3) the federal bank.3. the federal bank officers association itself filed an original petition before the karnataka high court, seeking for a declaration that rule 3(l)(ii) and rule 3(7)(i) notified by exhibit pi as unconstitutional and uneforceable. the said writ petition was dismissed by a common judgment dated february 17, 2003. it is thereafter that the present writ petitions were filed challenging the validity of section 17(2)(vi) of the act which, according to the petitioners, was not a subject matter of challenge in the earlier writ petition. the petitioners seek for a declaration that section 17(2)(vi) of the income-tax act as inserted by the finance act 2001, is illegal and violative of articles 19(1)(g) and 246 of the constitution of india, and a declaration that rule 3 of the income-tax rules, 1962, as substituted by the income-tax (22nd amendment) rules, 2001 (see [2001] 251 itr 81) by the second respondent under its notification no. 940(e), dated september 25, 2001, as illegal and unconstitutional being hit by the vice of excessive delegation of power .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 12 2004 (HC)

Federal Bank Officers Association Vs. Union of India

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Mar-12-2004

Reported in : [2004]140TAXMAN173(Ker)

in all these writ petitions, common question arises for consideration. hence they are taken up together for hearing.2. o.p. 10569/2003 and o.p. 8425/2002 were taken as the leading cases for argument. in o.p. 10569/2002 petitioners are officers of the third respondent scheduled bank. respondents are (1) union of india, (2) the central board of direct taxes and (3) the federal bank.3. the federal bank officers association itself filed an original petition before the karnataka high court, seeking for a declaration that rule 3(1)(ii) and rule 3(7)(1) notified by ext. p1 as unconstitutional and uneforceable. the said writ petition was dismissed by a common judgment dated 17-2-2003. it is thereafter that the present writ petitions were filed challenging the validity of section 17(2)(vi) of the act which, according to the petitioners, was not a subject matter of challenge in the earlier writ petition. petitioners seek for a declaration that section 17(2)(vi) of the income tax act as inserted by finance act 2001 is illegal and violative of articles 19(1)(g) and 246 of the constitution of india, and a declaration that rule 3 of the income tax rules, 1962 as substituted by income tax (22nd amendment) rules, 2001 by the second respondent under its notification no. 940(e) dated 25-92001 as illegal and unconstitutional being hit by the vice of excessive delegation of power besides being ultra vires the rule making power of the second respondent and to stay the operation of the aforesaid .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 10 2004 (HC)

Flemingo (Dfs) Private Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Sep-10-2004

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 international airport. the goods sold in the dfs, it is stated, are the goods imported from foreign countries. it is the case of the petitioner that such sales at the arrival dfs falls under section 5(2) of the cst act, 1956, as the sales were in the course of import being effected by transfer of documents of title to the goods before the goods crossed the customs frontiers of india and the sale at the departure dfs are in the course of exports and therefore the taxation authorities in the state of kerala .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 06 2004 (HC)

Siraj Vs. High Court of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Aug-06-2004

Reported in : 2004(3)KLT1

k. thankappan, j. 1. questions involve in both the original petitions are identical and hence, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. by ext.p1 notification dated 28.3.2001 applications were invited for appointment to the post of munsiff-magistrate in the kerala judicial service in the pay scale of rs. 2,500-4,000/- (pre-revised). probable number of vacancies is 70. the petitioners submitted their applications for the above post. they belong to reserved categories namely, muslim (backward community) and hindu-kurava (scheduled caste) respectively. qualifications and method of recruitment are also prescribed in ext.p1. clause (6) of ext.p1 deals with reservation of appointment, which reads as follows:-'6. reservation of appointment:-- the rules relating to reservation of appointment for backward classes, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes contained in part ii of the kerala state and subordinate services rules, 1958 (rules 14 to 17) shall apply to appointment by direct recruitment.'clause 10 of ext.p1 deals with scheme of written and oral examinations, which reads as follows:-'10. scheme of written and oral examinations,-- (1) written examination -- the written examination shall consist of the following four papers carrying a maximum of 100 marks each. the time for each paper shall be two and a half hours.paper i code of civil procedure, limitation act,specific relief act, court fees and suitsvaluation act, kerala stamp act, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 15 2004 (HC)

Jacob Vs. Mohammed

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jan-15-2004

Reported in : 2004ACJ1200; 2004(1)KLT893

j.b. koshy, j. 1. can the motor accidents claims tribunal and the high court calculate compensation in a different method than that is provided under the second schedule, when claims are filed under section 163(a) of the motor vehicles act, 1988 (in short 'the act'). facts of the case are not disputed.2. a youngster at the age of 28 died in a motor vehicle accident on 27.5.1997 when a tempo van having reg. no. kl-10/b 1017 driven by the second respondent hit the motor cycle ridden by the deceased. the parents, brothers and sisters filed a claim for compensation under section 163(a) of the act against the owner, driver and the insurer of the tempo van alleging negligence on the part of the driver of the tempo van. the above was numbered as o.p.(mv) no. 544/97 on the file of the motor accidents claims tribunal, irinjalakuda. the owner and the driver (first and second respondents) did not appear before the tribunal and they were declared exparte. the insurance company obtained permission under section 170 of the act and contested the case questioning the quantum of compensation claimed. no oral evidence was adduced in the claim. exts. a1 to a10 documents were marked by the claimants. the tribunal awarded only a total compensation of rs. 67,500/- against the claim of rs. 4,60,500/-. hence, the claimants filed this appeal.3. according to the claimants, the deceased was the manager of anupama jewellery, thrissur. ext. a10 certificate was produced stating that at the time of death .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 15 2004 (HC)

Jacob and ors. Vs. K.T. Mohammed and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jan-15-2004

Reported in : II(2004)ACC243

j.b. koshy, j.1. can the motor accident claims tribunal and the high court calculate compensation in a different method than that is provided under the second schedule, when claims are filed under section 163(a) of the motor vehicles act, 1988 (in short 'the act'). facts of the case are not disputed.2. a youngster at the age of 28 died in a motor vehicle accident on 27.5.1997 when a tempo van having reg. no. kl-10/b1017 driven by the second respondent hit the motor cycle rid en by the deceased. the parents, brothers and sisters filed a claim for compensation under section 163(a) of the act against the owner, driver and the insurer of the tempo van alleging negligence on the part of the driver of the tempo van. the above was numbered as op. (mv) no. 544/97 on the file of the motor accident claims tribunal, (sic). the owner and the driver (first and second respondents) did not appear before the tribunal and they were declared ex parte. the insurance company obtained permission under section 170 of the act and contested the case questioning the quantum of compensation claimed. no oral evidence was adduced in the claim. exhibits a1 to a10 documents were marked by the claimants. the tribunal awarded only a total compensation of rs. 67,500/- against the claim of rs. 4,60,500/-. hence, the claimants filed this appeal.3. according to the claimants, the deceased was the manager of anupama jewellery, thrissur. exhibit a10 certificate was produced stating that at the time of death he .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //