Kerala Court December 1964 Judgments
M. Appukutty Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Spl. Circle I, Kozhikode
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Ker55; [1966]17STC380(Ker)
P. Govindan Nair, J. 1. The writ applicant is an assessee to sales-tax. For the year 1961-1962, monthly returns were submitted and tax was also paid by the petitioner in accordance with those returns. A consolidated return for the entire year showing the turnover correctly, it is claimed by the petitioner, was also sent. The respondent, the Sales-tax Officer then issued a notice dated 20-2-1963 in which it is stated. 'It is therefore proposed to reject your returns and the accounts produced in support of them and to complete the assessment to the best of my judgment.' The above communication is Ext. P1 and the objections of the petitioner to Ext. P1 is Ext. P2 dated 27-2-1963. On 5-7-1963, another communication, Ext. P4, was sent by the respondent stating that he proposes to complete the assessment for the year according to the best of his judgment by adding '10 per cent of the net taxable turnover as per the books of account as probable suppressions.' This too was objected to by the p...
Tag this Judgment!Appukuttan Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-1964
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ89Ker
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. The petitioner was acting as an upper division clerk in the Kerala Secretariat from 1 January 1957. He has been confirmed in the lower division by Ex. P. 12 In 1956. The petitioner was charged by Ex. P. 1 with violating Rule 64 of the Travancore-Cochin Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1950. Though the petitioner filed an explanation, an enquiry was ordered which was conducted by the tribunal for disciplinary proceedings. It appears that the tribunal reported that the charges levelled against the petitioner have not been established. So Ex. P. 3 order was passed in which it is said:Government accept the finding of the enquiry commissioner that the charge has not been proved, and have accordingly decided to drop further proceedings.2. However the Government proceeded to direct:From the observations made by the enquiry commissioner the Government consider that It ia desirable to transfer him outside the Secretariat. He is accordingly transferred permanently to th...
Tag this Judgment!N. Ramachandra Iyer Vs. Thomas Mathai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Ker65
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. In this case there was an inquiry as to means under Rule 40 of Order XXI of the Code after notice to the judgment-debtor under Rule 37 (1), and the concurrent finding of fact of the courts below is that the requirements of Cl. (b) of the proviso to Section 51 (the only requirement pleaded) for execution by detention in prison was not satisfied. The courts below were therefore, quite right in dismissing the appellant decree-holder's application for the arrest ant! detention of the respondent judgment-debtor, and the decree-holder's appeal from the dismissal on the score that the proviso applies only to detention and that the judgment-debtor should have been arrested though not detained is as misconceived as his reliance on the decisions in Londa Abhayee of Pithapuram v. Badam Suryanarayana, AIR 1048 Mad 9 (1), B. K. Pulliiramiah v. IIajee Ibrahim Essak and Sons, AIR 1959 Mys 94 and Madhusudan v. Trirnbals. AIR 1961 Bom 23 is misplaced. It is quite clear from secti...
Tag this Judgment!The Provident Fund Inspector, Ernakulam Vs. B. Paul Abrao
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker239; 1965CriLJ646; (1966)ILLJ495Ker
ORDER1. These four criminal appeals and the original petition were heard together. It is common ground that it the criminal appeals succeed, the original petition has to be dismissed; and if the criminal appeals fail, the original petition has to be allowed. 2. The Provident Fund Inspector, Ernakulam, is the appellant in the criminal appeals. He was the unsuccessful complainant before the Industrial Tribunal and Special First Class Magistrate, Calicut and Ernakularn, in calendar cases Nos. 30, 31, 32 and 38 of 1963. The accused in the calendar cases and the respondent in the criminal appeals--Bernard Paul Abrao --is the petitioner in the original petition. 3. The sole question for consideration is whether Bernard Paul Abrao comes within the ambit of a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour and Employment, notification No. G. S. R. 346 dated the 7th March 1982. The notification was published in the Gazette of India, dated the 17th March 1962 and reads as follo...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasekharan Nair, Trivandrum Vs. City Corporation of Trivandrum and a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-18-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Ker184; 1966CriLJ757
Raman Nayar, J.1. As I see it, theonly question in this case is whether Clause (1) of Rule 50(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules made by the Central Government under Section 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and, with it, the notification dated 11-1-1962 issued there under by the State Government, are ultra vires the Section. The rule says that no person shall manufacture, sell, stock, distribute or exhibit for sale the articles specified therein except under a licence. Clauses (a) to (k) specify various articles of food; but what the impugned clause, Clause (I), does, is to include within the prohibition 'any other article of food (xxxxx) which the State Government may by notification specify.' It was in pursuance of this authority that the State Government by its notification dated 11-1-1962, published in the Gazette of the 6th February 1962, specified a number of articles of food, tea being one of them, as articles which no person shall manufacture, s...
Tag this Judgment!K. Gopala Pillai and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Ker262
ORDERP. Govindan Nair, J. 1. These writ applications can be disposed of by a common judgment for the points raised are practically the same. These have been considered in a recent judgment of my learned brother Justice K.K. Mathew dated 16th November, 1964 in O.P. No. 1129 of 1963: (AIR 1965 Kerala 233)2. The writ applicant in O. P. No. 752 of 1963 is a Superintendent in the Government Secretariat, Trivandrum. He was promoted as Acting Superintendent on 26.2.1956 and was subsequently confirmed. The petitioner got a further promotion as Acting Assistant Secretary to Government from 12.12.1962. By an Order dated 23.3.1963 he has been reverted as Superintendent. This order is produced as Ext. P1 in O.P. 752 of 1963. The petitioner complains that while he was reverted, a number of others, junior to the petitioner in the Secretariat have nave been retained as Assistant Secretaries.3. It must be mentioned here that the petitioner was promoted as Acting Assistant Secretary only provisionally ...
Tag this Judgment!V.V. Krishna Iyer Sons Vs. New Era Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Palghat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker241
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. The petitioners herein are admittedly contributories of the company whose winding up they seek on the grounds mentioned in Clauses (e) and (f) of Section 433 of the Companies Act. They claim to he creditors as well, but that claim is denied.2. In the cause title the petitioners are thus described: 'V, V. Krishna Iyer Sons, a Hindu undivided family represented by its Manager, V. K. Rajagopal.' It is said that this joint family has for its members two brothers, V. K. Rajagopal and V. K. Ramachandran and their issue, V. K. Rajagopal, the elder, being the manager, V. K. Rajagopal and V, K. Ramachandran are the sons of V. V. Krishna Iyer and hence the family has, tor business purposes, adopted the name, V. V. Krishna Iyer Sons. There are, however, a number of documents marked in the case to which V. K. Rajagopal and V. K. Ramachandran are parties which describe there persons as partners of Messrs V. V. Krishna Iyer Sons. This I am told is a mistake born of ignorance o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›