Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1968)IILLJ233Ker
Raman Nayar, J. 1. By a series of orders beginning with G.O. (MS) No. 91/66/ Home dated 5-3-1966 and ending with G.O. (P) 376/ 66/ Fin. dated 12-8-1966, the State Government raised the age of superannuation of the members of the several State Public Services (excepting those of the Last Grade Service for whom the age was already 60) from 53 to 58. And. accordingly, rule 60 (a) of Part I the Kerala Service Rules (the K. S. R. for short-those are rules made under the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution) which specifies the age of superannuation and provides for compulsory retirement at that age, was amended on 18-1-1667 to read as follows:- '60(a). Except as otherwise provided in these rules the date of compulsory retirement of an officer other than in last grade service is the date on which he attains the age of 58 years. He may be retained after this date only with the sanction of Government on Public grounds which must be recorded in writing, but he must not be retained after t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1968]21STC420(Ker)
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. These revision cases arise out of proceedings assessing the petitioner to sales tax under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125 in respect of the years 1958-59, 1960-61 and 1961-62, The petitioners who are dealers in motor vehicles were the authorised dealers of Messrs. Premier Automobiles Ltd., Bombay in respect of Dodge Trucks for Kerala State during the years in question. It is the common case that the petitioners entered into contracts for the supply of motor vehicles fitted with bodies with the Kerala State Electricity Board and some other customers in the State in these years. The main contention of the petitioners which is common in all these cases is that the contracts with the Kerala State Electricity Board and the other customers were only for the sale of Dodge chassis and bodies were fitted up in the chassis by Messrs. Simpson and Co.. Madras and Sree Rama Vilas Motor Service (Private) Ltd., arranged by the petitioners on behalf of the several purchasers ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1968Ker139; 1968CriLJ627
Sadasivan, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition raises an important and interesting question; the question is whether the court is competent under the proviso to Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act--Act 37 of 1954--as amended by Act 49 of 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to award a sentence of fine alone of less than Rs. 1,000. The punishment is provided in Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16, which reads:-'(1) If any person--X X X X X X(f) Whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf gives to the vendor a false warranty on writing in respect of any article of food sold by him, he shall, in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of section 6, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to six years, and with a fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees: Provided that-- (i) if the offence is under Sub-section (i) of Clause (a) and is with r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1968Ker34; 1968CriLJ165
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner by the Inspecting Officer, Minicoy in C. C. No. 6 of 1965, in which the petitioner stood charged under Section 323 I. P. C. The case against him was that on 25-6-1966 at about 7 p.m. he caused hurt to a child aged 11/2 years who was being held in his arms by the complainant. The complainant was standing in front of his wife's house 'Oludugothi' in Rameedu Village. The child was in his arms. The accused approached him from behind and hit the child.When the complainant turned back and questioned the accused he shouted at him in a fit of temper and left the place. The child started crying on receipt of the fisting and within no time it developed fever. The Medical Officer of Minicoy Island was immediately summoned to the house and the child was got examined by him. As advised by the doctor, the child was immediately taken to the hospital for further treatment.The prosecu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1968CriLJ561
K. Sadasivan, J.1. The complainant in C.C. No. 27 of 1965 on the file of the District Magistrate (Judl.) Alleppey appeals against the acquittal of the accused who were hauled up before the court for offences under Section 409, Penal Code and Section 628 of the Indian Companies Act (1 of 1956). Accused No. 1 is the Managing Director and accused 2 and 8 the Directors of the Cochin Chemicals and Refineries Limited, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Company) a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 7 of 1913 and the Indian Companies Amendment Act 21 of 1986.The case of the complainant is that in the Directors' Report and balance-sheet and profit and loss account, of the Company for the year 1962 published by the accused on 7.3.1962 false particulars were made knowing them to be false, or omitted to state material facts knowing them to be material. The specific instance pointed out was that in the balance sheet the value of plant and machinery of Rs. 1,51,492/. was shown as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1968Ker182; [1968]68ITR863(Ker)
ORDERM.U. Isaac, J. 1. The petitioner is a business man engaged in motor lorry transport. In respect of the assessment year 1958-59, he made a return of his income to the Income-tax Officer, Kottayam who is the respondent in this case. His return showed the income from property as Rs. 465 and the income from business as Rs. 9,302 the total income being Rs. 9,767. The respondent rejected the petitioner's return, and made an assessment to the best of his judgment fixing the income as Rs. 715 from property Rs. 50,579 from business and Rupees 30,000 from other sources. He thus fixed the total income as Rs 81,294. The sum of Rs. 30,000 according to the order of assessment consisted of Rs 8,000 paid for purchase of a parkins Engine, Rs. 15,000 paid for the purchase of a new lorry and Rs. 7,000 invested on building. The petitioner filed an appeal from the order of assessment to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, TrivRndrum who allowed the appeal in part. The Appellate Assista...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1968]21STC252(Ker)
M.S. Menon, C.J. 1. These cases raise a common question, the validity of Section 3 of the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957. They were heard together and a common judgment will suffice.2. Section 3 of the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957, as it stands at present reads as follows : (1) The tax payable under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, shall, in the case of a dealer whose turnover exceeds thirty thousand rupees in a year, be increased by a surcharge at the rate of five per centum of the tax payable for that year and the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, shall, as the case may be, apply in relation to the said surcharge as they apply in relation to the tax payable under the said Act:Provided that where in respect of declared goods as defined in Clause (c) of Section 2 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the tax payableby such dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, together with the surcharge payable under this sub-section, exceeds two per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1967)IILLJ631Ker
M.U. Isaac, J.1. One P. A. Cherian was an assistant tea-maker In the employment of Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company, Ltd., who is the petitioner in this case. The petitioner found him Incompetent for this work; and he was, therefore, transferred to another estate of the petitioner as factory timekeeper, on the same salary and appropriate allowances with effect from 1 December 1961. The Estates Staffs Union of South India, Munnar, who is respondent 2 In this case, objected to the action taken by the petitioner, and raised a dispute. At Its instance, the State of Kerala, who is respondent 3, made a reference of the dispute under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for adjudication to the labour court, Quilon, who is respondent 1 in this case. This reference was filed as Industrial Dispute No. 21 of 1963; aid respondent 1, by Its award made on 8 October 1965 and published In Part I of the Kerala Gazette No. 49, dated 21 December 1965, held that the transfer of P. A. C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1968Ker121
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. I do not read Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act as meaning that a workman, who has actually been retrenched in contravention of the provisions of that section, must be deemed to be still in service so that he continues to earn wages notwithstanding the termination of his employment Indeed, by its very wording prohibiting retrenchment unless and until certain conditions are satisfied, the section contemplates that there can, in fact, be a retrenchment without the conditions having been satisfied. Such a retrenchment would be illegal, and therefore, invalid, but that is not to say that is non est. It would doubtless attract the penalty in Section 31(2) of the Act (which, of course it would not, if it were non est) and its unlawful nature would justify an order for reinstatement with continuity of service and the right to back wages by competent authority. As I understand it, the decision in Workman of Subong Tea Estats v. Subong Tea Estate, (1964) 1 L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1967)IILLJ647Ker
K. Sadasivan, J.1. These appeals are directed against the decision of the Industrial tribunal and Special First Glass Magistrate (for labour laws), Alleppey, in Calendar Cases Nos. 29, 30, 32, 51, 101, 109, 121,132 and 170 of 1965 on the file of his Court. The complainants in these oases are the Provident Fund Inspectors at Ernakulam and Alleppey (Calendar Cases Nos. 29. 30 and 32 of 1965 are by the Provident Fond Inspector, Ernakulam, and the rest by his counterpart at Alleppey) against one P.S. Mani, the lessee of Sree Krishna Talkies Alleppey, for the Infringement Of certain provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, and the scheme-framed thereunder (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act and the scheme) The pattern of the complaint is the same in all the oases and the main allegations are that the accused in his capacity as employer In respect of Sree Krishna Talkies, Alleppey, which la an establishment brought under coverage High Court, Kerala as a branch unit of Me...
Tag this Judgment!