Kerala Court August 1965 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commonwealth Trust Limited, Calicut Vs. State of Kerala, Represented b ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-25-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker148; [1966(12)FLR445]
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. This O. P. prays for the issue of (a) A writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 1st respondent the State Government to reconsider the question of making a reference for adjudication of the issue relating to recovery of damages caused by the illegal strike, from the 5th and 6th respondents and pass orders according to law.(b) Any other appropriate writ or direction which this Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case'2. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the English Companies Act and carries on business in Tiles and Handlooms. The dispute which is the subject-matter of this petition relates to the handloom factories of the petitioner The 5th and 6th respondents are the workers represented by their Unions3. It is unnecessary to detail the prolonged and abortive attempts at Conciliation of the disputes between the petitioner Company and its workers It is enough to stale that on 23-6-1964, the workers com...
Sales Tax Officer Vs. K.V. Moosa Koya and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-25-1965
Reported in: [1966]18STC464(Ker)
M.S. Menon, C.J.1. These appeals raise a common question and were heard together. The question relates to the assessability to tax of the inter-State sales of copra effected by the respondents under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.2. The tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, can be levied only in the same manner as the tax on the sales of copra under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. It is common ground that the notifica tion dated the 1st April, 1958, under Section 5 (vii) of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, does not enter the picture in view of the decisions of this Court in Karim v. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal 1962 K.L.T. 725 and Poulose Bros. v. State of Kerala 1962 K.L.T. 974. The sole question for determination, therefore, is whether there is a liability to tax under Section 3 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125.3. We entertain no doubt that there is such a liability. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 provides that subject to the provisions of the Act every dealer shall pay for ea...
K.P. Padmanabhan Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker110
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this writ petition the peti-tioner seeks to have the order passed by the State Government, Ex. P-3 on 5th of February 1904 placing the petitioner under suspension pending fresh disciplinary proceedings contemplated in be taken against him. quashed. Ex. P-4 dated, 28th of February 1964 is only a consequential order passed by the District Registrar, Kozhikode, passed on the basis of the Government Order Ex. P-3. Therefore, the validity of Ex. P-4. depends upon the view to be expressed by this court regarding the validity of Ex. P-3 order and so Kx. P-4 need not be considered separately.2. The main allack that is levelled against the proceedings sought to be initialed as contemplated in Ex. P-3 is that for the same offence for which fresh action is contemplated under Ex. P-3 the petitioner was once punished by way of disciplinary action dismissing him from service, as will be seen from the order Ex. P-1. That order us well as the initiation of the disciplin...
Caltex (India) Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Quilon and or ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-1965
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ416Ker
ORDERK.K. Mathew, J.1. This is an application for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ quashing the award passed by the Labour Court, Quilon, in Industrial Dispute No. 48 of 1903. The dispute referred to the Court was: 'Is the dismissal of the worker M. C, Antony legal and proper: If so and if not to what relief he is entitled2. The dispute was between the management of Caltex (India) Ltd., Ernakulam and their workmen represented by the Petroleum Worker's Union. Ernakulam. Under the Standing Orders of the company, theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the employer's property is a ground for taking disciplinary action against a worker. (See 29 (e) of the Standig Orders). At the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that it is proved beyond doubt that M. C. Antony has stolen a 9 litre tin from the company's empty tin godown on October 15, 19G2. and painted it himself unauthorisedly with the company's paint during lunch time on that day. He was the...
Mohammed Vs. Collector of Calicut and Others.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-1965
Reported in: [1967]66ITR113(Ker)
The petitioner Prays :'(a) to call up and quash by a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction or order the certificate issued under section 41(3) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act by the 2nd respondent for the recovery of arrears of tax from the petitioner and to quash the said certificate, and(b) to issue any other writ or direction or order, which the court deems fit and proper.'According to the petitioner the certificate was issued to recover the tax, surcharge and penalty due from him for the assessment years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63. The assessment for the year 1960-61 was made on June 12, 1964, and notices were issued to the petitioner (exhibits P-1(a) and P-1(b)), demanding a sum of Rs. 395 as tax and Rs. 19.75 as surcharge to be paid on or before June 30, 1961. The demand not having been complied with, there were successive imposition of penalties evidence by exhibits P-2 to P-4. The assessment for the year 1961-62 was made on October 11, 1961, and for the ...
Workmen of Standard Furniture Company, Ltd. Vs. District Labour Office ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-11-1965
Reported in: (1966)ILLJ236Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. The petitioner in this original petition prays for the issue of a 'writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing respondent 1 not to give effect to Ex. P. 11 settlement.' Respondent 1 is the District Labour Officer and Conciliation Officer, Trichur. Exhibit P. 11 settlement was in respect of certain disputes between the management and the workmen of the Standard Furniture Company, Ltd., Chalakudi, of which respondent 2 is the manager, Kallai branch, and respondent 3 is the manager of the Chalakudi branch. Respondents 4 to 8 are some of the workmen who were also instrumental in bringing about the settlement, Ex. P. 11. The conciliation proceedings started with the issuance of the notice, Ex. P. 2, dated 20 May 1964. It had a somewhat protracted course, and eventually the range of difference was narrowed down to two points, which it is unnecessary to specify. It is the admitted case that for the purposes of ironing out the differe...
Mrs. Hazel Arnone Vs. George Thomas Robert Arnone and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker34
M.S. Menon, C.J.1. The petitioner is the wife of the first respondent She seeks a dissolution of her marriage under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. 2. Under Section 10 a wife can present a petition praying that her marriage should be dissolved on the ground that, since the solemnization thereof, her husband Las been guilty of adultery coupled with desertion, without reasonable excuse for two years or upwards. The petition is based on that ground, and has been allowed by the District Court of Kozhi-kode, subject to confirmation by this Court of the decree for dissolution as required by Section 17 of the Act.3. No witness has been examined in this ease. The only evidence in support of the petition is Ext. A-t, an affidavit of the petitioner dated 21-3-1964.4. Section 47 of the Act provides that the statements contained in every petition under the Act shall be verified by the petitioner or some other competent person in manner required by law for the verification of plaints, a...
E.J. Mathew Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-1965
Reported in: [1966]17STC25(Ker)
M.S. Menon, C.J.1. The petitioner has been assessed to additional sales tax under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, in respect of the sales of tobacco effected by him in 1953-54The relevant portion of that section read as follows:-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act-(a) every dealer shall pay for each year a tax on his total turnover for such year; and(b) the tax shall be calculated at the rate of three pies for every Indian rupee in such turnover.(2) Subject as aforesaid, the sale of any of the goods mentioned below shall be subject to a tax at the rate specified in respect thereof, at such single point in the series of sales by successive dealers as may be prescribed; and the tax shall be paid by the dealer concerned on his turnover in each year relating to such goods, and shall be in addition to the tax to which he is liable under Sub-section (1) on his total turnover for the year : Description Rate of tax for every Indian rupee in theof the good...
State of Kerala Vs. Antony D'Cruz
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-1965
Reported in: (1966)ILLJ373Ker
P. Govinda Menon, J.1. These four appeals by the State arise out of the judgment of the Second Additional Sessions Judge of Trivandrum in Criminal Appeals Nos. 80, 87, 88 and 89 of 1963 acquitting the respondents-accused who were found guilty and convicted under Rule 41(5) of the Defence of India Rules read with Rule 35(6)(i) and (o) and dealing with them under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. Accused 2 and 4 did not file any appeal. It is against the other accused who were acquitted by the Sessions Judge that the State has filed these different appeals. These appeals were argued together and could conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The facts that led up to the prosecution may be briefly stated as follows.3. The Trivandrum Port and Headload Workers' Labour Contract Co-operative Society No. 4245 (hereinafter referred to as the principal society), is the authorized clearing contractors of the Government of India, Food Ministry. Another society, the Trivand...
Madhavan Pillai Somanatha Pillai and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-04-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker212; 1966CriLJ728
Raman Nayar, J.1. The question were called upon to answer and the hare facts necessary for the purpose appear from the order of the reference made by the Division Bench.'The appellants in Criminal Appeal 173 of 1964 have been convicted of the offence of robbery of a bus K L. K 2036 after ii had been attached and was in the custody of the Amin, Pw. 1, under an attachment warrant issued by the Subordinate Judge's Court. Kot-tayam. The main question for decision in this ca.se would he whether non-compliance of the provisions in Order 38 Rule 5 has the effect of making the order ultra vires and void and the con.se-quent attachment a nullity and whether in passing such an order there is total lark of jurisdiction. As the decisions are not uniform and as the question involved is of considerable importance, we refer the above said question for decision to a Full Bench.'Presumably the Division Bench is of the view that if the order of attachment was void there could be no actual possession, wh...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›