Kerala Court November 1964 Judgments
Nelliyil Kunhali Haji Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Ker14
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. These writ applications raise a common question about the validity of the Kerala Buildings Tax Act, 1961. Act 19 of 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) The validity of the Act has been questioned mainly on two grounds, firstly, it is argued that entry 49 of List II to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India pursuant to which it is claimed the Act has been passed, does not enable the State Legislature to pass such a law Secondly it is urged that in any view of of the matter, the Act is discriminatory and is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution.2. Before examining these contentions, il is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions in the statute. The preamble of the Act states:'Whereas it is expedient to provide for the levy of a tax on buildings;' and Section 2, (Definitions), defines 'building', in Sub-section (d) thereof as : ' 'building' means a house, out-house garage, or anv other structure, or part thereof, whether of masonry, b...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Thankam Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker233
K.K. Mathew, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed as a Superintendent in the Secretariat, Travancore-Cochin State, in 1951. She was promoted as Assistant Secretary by Ext. P.1 order dated 19-6-1961. Her promotion as Assistant Secretary under Ext. P1 was on a provisional basis under the General Rule 31 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958. Subsequently the cases of the petitioner and other persons who were provisionally promoted to the entire of Assistant Secretary were considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee, and they made certain recommendations to the Government. The Government, after a consideration of the recommendations of the Committee, reverted the petitioner and a few others who were found unsuitable for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Secretary by Ext. P 2 order dated 23-3-1963.2. The petitioner contends that the Government have promoted 27 Superintendents as Assistant Secretaries on the basis of the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Krishnan Thambi Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-1964
Reported in: (1966)ILLJ235Ker
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. The writ applicant was provisionally appointed in Government service as an insurance medical officer under the Employees' State Insurance Scheme. But by Ex. P. 1 order dated 18 May 1963 the petitioner has been dismissed from service and it is stated in Ex. P. 1 that the petitioner Should be debarred from future employment under Government.2. The reasons for this dismissal are also stated in the order, Ex. P. 1, the main ground being that the petitioner has been convicted in a criminal offence involving moral turpitude. The action is said to have been taken under Rule 18(i) and with Rule 11(viii) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. This order was passed without issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioner and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. And naturally this is challenged by counsel on behalf of the petitioner as being unsupportable. The reply to this is based on the proviso to Article 311 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Govinda Pillai Vs. V.G.N. Padmanabha Pillai and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker123; 1965CriLJ446
Raman Nayar, J.1. The accused persons in these cases are grocers who were admittedly stocking what Is known as Kesari dal for the purposes of their trade. Their case that they were in possession of the dal for sale, not for human consumption or use, but, only as fodder, was uncontroverted; and we must therefore proceed on the basis that that was so, whether in fact, it was so or not. The question is whether such possession is prohibited by Rule 44-A of the rules made under Section 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 and is therefore an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a) thereof. The accused in the appeal have been acquitted on the finding that it is not, and the complainant, a Food Inspector, has appealed with leave granted under Sub-section (3) of Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code; the accused In the revision petitions have been convicted on the finding that it Is, and they have come up in revision.2. On behalf of the accused it is urged:(1) that, proper...
Tag this Judgment!Ouseph Skaria of Naduvilaparambil and ors. Vs. Cherian Joseph of Poopp ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker288
P.T. Raman Nayar, J. 1. The plaintiff in these three cases is the same person. So is the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant in each ease is a son of the 1st defendant, and the suits were brought to make the properties gifted by the 1st defendant, to these three sons available for satisfying a decree obtained by the plaintiff against the 1st defendant.2. In A. S. No. 374 of 1124 (from O. S. No. 103 of 1117 of the District Court, Alleppey) this court passed a preliminary decree directing the 1st defendant (who was the 1st defendant there as well) to account to the plaintiff (who was the 2nd plaintiff there) for the latter's share of the profits from about 130 acres of wet land (the Somathuram lands as they have been called) of which the 1st defendant was in sole possession and enjoyment but in a substantial share of which it found that the plaintiff had a leasehold right. This was on 17-11-1953. The accounting was to be from 1118 M. E. (1942-43 A. D.) till the date of the passing of the fi...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Narayana Transports Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-02-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC659(Ker)
M. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the vires of Sections 29, 30 and 31 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (XV of 1963) as being violative of Article 301 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a transport operator, transporting goods to distant places both inside and outside the State of Kerala. Under the aforesaid sections 'check-posts' have been established on highways at which lorries have to stop and the drivers are to show the authority bills-of-sale, delivery notes, way-bills or certificates of ownership of the goods they carry. These provisions, according to the petitioner, hamper the freedom of 'trade, commerce and intercourse throughout India' guaranteed by Article 301, and he is put to loss and hardship on account of the delay in the movement of lorries held up at such check-posts. It was also contended that such restrictions imposed on transport operators other than railways, are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Both ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›