Kerala Court February 1967 Judgments
Kalarikkal Narayana Panicker Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-1967
Reported in: 1968CriLJ410
ORDERM. Madhavan Nair, J.1. The accused in this case has been convicted, by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, of theft, at 5 a.m. on July 8, 1966, from the compound of P.W. 1's residence of 10 coconut saplings (3 months old). According to the prosecution he was found red handed by P.W. 1 and his friend, P.W. 2 on their way to the mosque for the morning prayer, was chased: for about 15 yards and taken in a car to the Police Station, Wandoor, about 3 Miles give away where they reached by about 11 a.m. and gave the first information. The accused pleaded that he purchased the coconut saplings from Edakkara and was taking them for delivery to his uncle at Wandoor when on his way P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 met him and suspecting the coconut saplings in his hand to be stolen property dragged him to the Police Station at about 3.30 p.m..The Sub Magistrate, Manjeri, committed him to the Sessions. The Assistant Sessions Judge who tried him did not believe his defence, found him guilty, convicted h...
Tag this Judgment!Malabar Tile Works, Feroke, Kerala, a Partnership Firm and ors. Vs. Un ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ker143; (1967)IILLJ816Ker
Isaac, J.1. This Original Petition has been filed by twelve employers, who are mainly engaged in the manufacture and sale of roofing tiles, bricks and allied goods, for a declaration that the Payment of Bonus Ordinance, 1965, which was promulgated by the President of India on the 29th May, 1965, is unconstitutional, and for a writ in the nature of a mandamus restraining respondents 1, 2 and 3 from enforcing the provisions of the Ordinance against the petitioners. Respondents 1, 2 and 3 are the Union of India, the State of Kerala and the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut respectively. The remaining respondents are the Trade Unions representing the workers employed in the petitioners' factories. This Ordinance was replaced by the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which came into force on the 25th September, 1965. Accordingly the petitioners sought for some consequential amendments in the Original Petition; and it was allowed. The constitutional validity of the A...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Menon Vs. the Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1967
Reported in: [1967]20STC498(Ker)
M.U. Isaac, J.1. The petitioner is an engineering contractor. In respect of works contracts, which he executed during the years 1950-51 to 1959-60 both inclusive, he was assessed to sales tax under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125 (Act 11 of 1125) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Exhibits P-2 series are true copies of the orders of assessment made by the 1st respondent, the Sales Tax Officer, Second Circle, Ernakulam, in respect of the above-said years. The taxes assessed under these orders were duly paid by the petitioner ; and the total amount which he has paid by way of sales tax and surcharge is shown in exhibit P-l, a statement which he has appended to this original petition. The correctness of these facts is not questioned in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State. The Supreme Court in South India Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. Secretary, Board of Revenue, Trivandrum [1964] 15 S.T.C. 74, held that the provisions contained in the Act, in so far as they authorised levy of...
Tag this Judgment!Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (by Manager of Its Agents, Harrisons and Cr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-1967
Reported in: (1968)ILLJ49Ker
M.U. Isaac, J.1. This original petition has been filed by an employer to quash an order, Ex. P. 1, dated 4 January 1966, passed by respondent 1 in this case, who is the Industrial tribunal at Calicut. During the pendency of an Industrial dispute before respondent 1, an enquiry was instituted by the petitioner against respondent 2 in accordance with the standing orders applicable to him, in regard to a matter, not connected with the dispute. As a result of the enquiry, respondent 2 was found guilty of riotous conduct and disobedience of orders ; and he was dismissed from service. As required by the proviso to Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, an application was made by the petitioner before respondent 1 for his approval of the action of dismissal of respondent 2. This application was dismissed by respondent 1 as per Ex. P. 1, the order impugned in this case.2. Respondent 1 has stated two reasons for refusing the approval sought for. The first reason is that respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Varma (R.) Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-1967
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ218Ker
K.K. Mathew, J.1. Petitioner was appointed a storekeeper-physician in the Ayurvedic College, Tripunithura, on 20 July 1961. No qualifications had been prescribed for that post at that time. Petitioner continued to hold the post till October 1964. By a notification published in the gazette dated 5 June 1962 the Kerala Public Service Commission called for applications for appointment to the post of storekeeper-physician in the Ayurvedic College, Tripunithura. Petitioner also applied and appeared before the Commission f r interview. The result of the selection was published in the gazette dated 30 April 1963. Petitioner was ranked second in the list. Respondent 4 was not in the list because he was not an applicant for the post. One O. Moideen Ahamed obtained the first rank and he was appointed to the post. He joined duty in the college, as storekeeper-physician on 23 March 1963 and the petitioner was transferred to the Ayuivedic College Hospital, Tripunithura, where the petitioner was pos...
Tag this Judgment!Chengarath Velu Vs. Executive Officer, Erumayur Panchayat, Post Erumay ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ker41
1. The sole question for determination in this petition is whether a person who is engaged in agricultural operations is liable to profession tax under Section 69 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960. It is common ground that he will be liable to taxation under that section only if he can be considered to be a person who 'exercises a profession, art or calling'.2. The question is important, and the petition has been referred to a Division Bench for decision. The order of reference -- by Nambiyar J. -- reads as follows:'The question raised in this O. P. is whether the pursuit of agriculture can be said to be the exercise of a profession, art or calling or the transaction of business within the meaning of Section 69(1)(ii)(a) of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960. The petitioner's counsel relied on the decision reported in (1966) 1 Mad LJ 84=(AIR 1966 Mad 262) and contended that the pursuit of agriculture will not fall within any of these categories. The learned Government Pleader relied on t...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskaran Pillai (N.) Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-08-1967
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ642Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiar, J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitions were teachers in Government schools, who were placed under suspension by orders dated 29 March 1955, pending disposal of Calendar Case No. 16 of 1955 on the file of the First-class Magistrate's Court, Alwaye. The two petitioners herein were the accused in the said case. On 28 January 1867, the case ended in acquittal of the accused by giving them the benefit of the doubt. They applied for reinstatement, which was ordered by proceedings of the Director of Public Instruction dated 8 March 1960, a copy of which has been produced as Ex. P. 1 in Original Petition No. 2254 of 1965. By the said proceedings, it was ordered that as the petitioner (in Original Petition No. 2254 of 1965) had not been honourably acquitted, he may be given subsistence allowance from the date of his suspension till the date of his rejoining at certain rates shown in the order. A similar order was passed in the case of the petitioner in Original Petit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›