Kerala Court December 1968 Judgments
South India Corporation (Agencies) Private Ltd., Madras Vs. State Trad ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Ker138
ORDERV.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Amendments of pleadings should be allowed liberally since permission to amend is the rule and refusal the exception, the guiding principle being promotion of justice. Even so, is there no limit to this liberality? This question is highlighted in the present revision petition where the counsel for the petitioner -- and, of course, for the respondent too -- have pressed before me arguments of learned length, relying on rulings large in number and weighty in authority; at the end of all of which, I am persuaded neither to reverse the discretionary order rejecting the amendment nor to agree that the discretion has been erroneously exercised by the lower Court.2. A suit was filed as early as 1962 by the State Trading Corporation of India (plaintiff) against the South India Corporation (Agencies) Private Ltd. (2nd defendant) and another, a Shipping Company incorporated in Liberia--West Africa--for compensation for short landed reels of newsprint. The 2nd defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle Vs. Phipson and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-1968
Reported in: [1968]24STC542(Ker)
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. This appeal arises out of a petition filed by the respondent M/s. Phipson & Co. Ltd., Ernakulam, who is a registered dealer, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash exhibits P3 and P4 assessing them to sales tax for the years 1962-63 and 1963-64. Exhibits P3 and P4 were passed after overruling the claim of the assessee for exemption from tax of the turnover relating to the sales of two brands of beer, namely, U.B. Light Lager Beer and U.B. Sun Lager Beer manufactured by the United Breweries Ltd., Bangalore. The assessment for 1962-63 was under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, while the assessment for 1963-64 was under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Wines and liquors other than toddy are included in the First Schedule to both these Acts. It is agreed between the parties that beer is included in the term 'liquors' in Schedule I of the Acts.2. Under Section 5(vii) of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, the sal...
Tag this Judgment!S. Gopalan Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-16-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Ker70; (1970)ILLJ110Ker
Isaac, J.1. This is an appeal by the petitioner in O. P. No. 2505 of 1965 from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court.2. The appellant, while he was working as a Block Development Officer at Mavelikara, was placed under suspension by an order of the State Government dated 20-11-1957 pending investigation into two cases of misappropriation of money detected in his office. The case was investigated by the police, and the appellant and his Head Clerk were prosecuted for misappropriation of Government money. Both of them were convicted by the Special Judge who tried them; but the appellant's conviction was set aside by this Court in appeal by judgment dated 16-8-1960. Thereafter the appellant moved the Government for reinstating him in service? but the Government did not accede to his request. On the other hand, they started proceeding against the appellant under the Kerala Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1960 on charges of misappropriation of money ...
Tag this Judgment!Kathayee Cotton Mills (Private), Ltd., Alwaye (Represented by Its Chie ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-16-1968
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ77Ker
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. The petitioner is a private limited company owning an establishment engaged in textile industry at Alwaye. The petitioner's establishment came under the coverage of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the scheme with effect from 31 January 1956. On the ground that the petitioner had defaulted in payment of contribution and administrative charges for the periods February 1963 to March 1964, May, August and November 1965 and February 1966, the Regional Provident Fund commissioner issued a notice dated 22 September 1966 to the petitioner-company calling upon them to show cause within ten days of receipt thereof why damages at the rate up to 25 per cent of the total arrears should not be recommended to the Government of Kerala to be imposed on the petitioner in exercise of the powers vested in the Government under Section 14B of the Act. It was further stated in the aforesaid notice that any explanation given by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Board of Revenue (Taxes) and anr. Vs. Parasurama Ayyar (S.)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-16-1968
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ520Ker
M.U. Isaac, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Original Petition No. 3358 of 1966, by the Board of Revenue (Taxes), Kerala State, and the State of Kerala who were respondents in that case. The original petition was filed by the respondents in this appeal to quash an order, Ex. P. 18, dated 6 August 1963, passed by appellant 1 imposing penalty on the respondent under Rule 11(1) (iii) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, and an order, Ex. P. 20, dated 30 May 1965, passed by appellant 2 dismissing the respondent's appeal from Ex. P. 18. The learned single Judge quashed the aforesaid orders on the ground that the respondent was not given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the punishment proposed to be imposed on him as per notice, Ex. P. 14, dated 25 September 1963, and direct that the respondent's explanation should be obtained afresh after giving him a reasonable opportunity, in case di...
Tag this Judgment!Abraham John Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-1968
Reported in: 1969CriLJ1577
P. Narayana Pillai, J.1. The appellant is the 4th accused in S. G. Nos. 49 and 59 of 1967 on the file of the Court of Session, Kottayam Altogether there were 7 accused persons in the case. The charge against them was under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 502, 324, 453 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They were convicted under Section 148, I.P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge who tried the case and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. All of them except accused 8 and 5 were also convicted under Section 147, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for sis months. Accused 1, 2, 4 and 6 were convicted under Section 148, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for eight months. Accused 1, 2 and 6 were convicted under Section 324, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for eight months. The 7th accused was convicted under Section 823, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for sis months. Accused 1, 2, 6 and 7 were convicted under S...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph D. Kunnappalli Vs. Superintendent of Post Offices and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-1968
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ457Ker
K. Sadasivan, J.1. The appellant in this writ appeal was an extra-departmental messenger in the Posts and Telegraphs Department at the Kanjirappalli. He was a member of the All India Postal Employees Union, postmen, class IV, and the organizing secretary for Kottayam Postal Division. In his capacity as an office-bearer of the union, he used to make representations to the Government for securing Improved living conditions for himself and his fellow-workers by raising their pay-scales. His efforts did not product the desired result. So he thought of publishing an article in the newspaper in furtherance of his cause. Accordingly, he published a letter in the editor's column of Malaya in Manorama dated 11 February 1955 under the option [words in Malayalam] in which he draw a plot are of the extra-departmental staff attached to the Posts and Telegraphs offices as persons undergoing abject misery on account of the appallingly low pay drawn by them. It was also stated by him in the article th...
Tag this Judgment!Rao (U.S.R.), Shore Officer, New India Fisheries Ltd. Vs. Vljaya Kumar ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-1968
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ285Ker
K.K. Mathew, J.1. This is an application to quash Ex. P. 6 order passed by the it due trial tribunal, Calicut, allowing a complaint filed under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the issue of an appropriate writ or order.2. Respondent 1 was employed as an accountant under the management in question from the year 1963 on wards. His services were terminated with effect from 30 September 1964, on the ground that he committed irregularities in keeping the accounts, which it wan his duty to keep properly. Respondent 1, it is said, was concerned in the industrial dispute in Industrial Dispute No. 102 of 1964 pending before the industrial tribunal, Callout. The termination of the services of respondent 1 by the management was daring the pendency of the dispute and the permission of the tribunal was not sought for the action of the management nor was respondent 1 paid one month's wages as provided in Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. There was, therefore, a con...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph FranklIn Vs. Madura Company (Private) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-1968
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ116Ker
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner seeks to quash the enter Ex P, 3 and the award Ex. P. 4 paused by the labour court, Quilon, allowing the application put is by responded 1 company (hereinafter referred to as the management) under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Acts, 1947, seeking Its approval for the dismissal of the petitioner from the service of respondent 1 with effect from 29 July 1963, and dismissing the complaint put is by the petitioner under Section 33A challenging the action taken against him by the management.2. The petitioner was employed as a clerk in the coir yarn factory of respondent 1 at Palluruthy. Twoseparate charges of misconduct were levelled against him in respect of with two separate enquires were conducted by the management. The petitioner was found guilty of both the charges which formed the subject matter of the two enquiries and on the basis of the said conclusion of guilt he was dismissed from service witheffect fro...
Tag this Judgment!Perumal Goundan (R) Vs. Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-1968
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ270Ker
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. The petitioner was in the service of the Southern Railway as a second fireman attached to the loco-shad in Mettupalayam station. He was removed from service by the order Ex. P. 5 dated 30 June 1965 passed by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Olavakkot on his having been found guilty of the charge of absenting from duty unauthorizedly from the afternoon of 8 September 1964 onwards. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Superintendent, Olavakkot, but the appeal petition was reject-ed by the latter authority by his proceedings dated 22 October 1965 evidenced by Ex. P. 7. A further representation was made by the petitioner before the same authority in the nature of a review application, but that was also rejected as per Ex. P. 9 order dated 14 March 1966. The petitioner has thereupon come up to this Court seeking to quash the aforesaid orders evidenced by Exs. P. 5, P. 7 and P. 9.2. The main contention advanced before me by the learned Counsel for ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›