Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1969)ILLJ56Ker
ORDERT.C. Raghavan, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted by the industrial tribunal and Special First Class Magistrate (for Labour Laws), Alleppey, under Section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act for failure to submit a return in form III prescribed by the Kerala Minimum Wages Rules and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25, The petitioner admitted before the lower Court that he did not submit the return, but claimed that he was not bound to do it; and the lower Court rejected the claim.2. The argument of the counsel of the petitioner is that under Rule 21(4)(iii) every employer is not bound to submit a return in form III and that only such employers who have made realizations under Clause (i) and deductions under Clause (ii) of Sub-rule (4) are bound to submit returns in form III. To appreciate this contention, I may point out that under the Kerala Minimum Wages Rules an employer is entitled to make some deductions from the wages of persons employed by him; and that Clause (i) of Sub-rule (4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1969Ker103
Balakrishna Ekadi, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been placed before a Full Bench pursuant to an order of reference made by one of us (Madha-van Nair, J.) since it was felt that the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Kurien v. Chacko, 1960 Ker LT 1248, required reconsideration.2. In the ruling above cited the Division Bench has expressed the view that the revisional powers of this court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked or exercised in respect of an order passed by a District Court in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on it under Section 20 (1) of the Keraia Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959. Section 20 (1) of the aforesaid Act of 1959 was identical in terms with Section 20 (1) of the current Act, namely the Keraia Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The correctness of this view is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition and has to be examined by us.3. Thus the question to be considered is whether ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1969Ker149
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. In the year 1110 M. E. (1934-35 A. D.) one Kochana, the predecessor of the present plaintiffs, mortgaged the property now in suit and other property to Peter, the predecessor of the present defendants. Kochana died two years later leaving as his heirs his two widows and 11 children. One of these children, Mohammed by name, died, according to the plaintiffs on 13-3-1946, and that case is no longer disputed by the defendants, Shortly thereafter, on 4-3-1947, the mortgagee, Peter, brought O. S. No. 681 of 1122 for the recovery of the money due under the mortgage by sale of the mortgaged property. He was then apparently unaware of Mohammed's death, and he brought the suit against the two widows and 11 children of the mortgagor, Kochana (and certain alienees of the mortgaged property) as if Mohammed was still alive. Ex. P-1, the summons issued to Mohammed was returned with the endorsement that Mohammed was dead. Yet, no steps were taken to bring his legal representati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1969)IILLJ216Ker
M.U. Isaac, J.1. The petitioner was working as a senior Hindi teacher from the year 1963 in an aided high school. During the years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66, there were two posts of senior Hindi teachers; and the petitioner was the junior among the two. The strength of the staff in this school for the year 1966-67 was fixed by respondent 1, the District Educational Officer, Irinjalakuda, by his order, Ex. P. 1, dated 15 July 1966. In this order, he fixed the number of posts of senior Hindi teacher as one and also created the post of a Junior Hindi teacher. The petitioner, being junior among the two senior Hindi teachers could, therefore, be appointed only as junior Hindi teacher during the above year. The manager filed an appeal before respondent 2, the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Trivandrum, against the order, Ex. P. 1, claiming that he was entitled to have two senior Hindi teachers in the school. This appeal was rejected by respondent 2 by his order, Ex. P. 3, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1969Ker176
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitions, assail the validity of Section 3(2) of the Produce Cess Act 1966,(Central Act 15 of 1966). The section reads:'3(1). x x x x x 3(2). There shall be levied and collected as a cess, for the purposes of this Act, on every produce specified in column 2 of the Second Schedule, a duty of excise at such rate, not exceeding the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column 3 thereof, as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify: Provided that until such rate is specified by the Central Government, the duty of excise shall be levied and collected at the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column 4 of the said Schedule.' The Act is entitled:'An Act to provide for the imposition of a cess on certain produce for the improvement and development of the methods of cultivation and marketing of produce and for matters connected therewith.'Column 2 of the Second Schedule lists cotton, co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1969Ker214
M.U. Isaac, J.1. These appeals arise out of O. S. No. 294 of 1960 on the file of the Munsifs Court Kaniirapally. S. A No. 1569 of 1964 is by the 12th defendant and the other appeal is by the 10th defendant. The plaintiffs are eight minors and the suit was instituted by one Madhavan Filial, who is an uncle of the 1st plaintiff, as next friend of the minors. Defendants 2 to 8 and the 1st plaintiff are the children of the 1st defendant. Tha next friend. Madhavan Pillai, and the 10th defendant are brothers of the 1st defendant Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the children of the 5th defendant; and plaintiffs 5 to 8 are the children of the 3rd defendant They belong to the Nayar community, and are governed by the Travancore Navar Act 2 of 1100. The main relief claimed in the suit is a declaration of the title and possession of the plaintiffs' tarwad for the two items of immovable properties described In the plaint schedule. Item No. 1 is a garden land in Sy. No. 404/1, 2 and 4 in Cheruvally Village, Ka...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1969]71ITR247(Ker)
By this writ petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks to quash exhibit P-6 evidencing the proceedings taken by the Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle, Ernakulam, in purported exercise of his powers under section 154(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amending an earlier order dated May 14, 1964, passed against the petitioner for the assessment year 1957-58 under section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, by rectifying a mistake stated to be apparent from the record.The petitioner is a private limited company whose business consists mainly of undertaking and executing works contracts. It was also running a cashewnut factory till October, 1956. For the assessment year 1957-58 it was assessed to income-tax on a total income of Rs. 99,125 as per the assessment order evidenced by exhibit P-1 dated December 31, 1957. Proceedings were thereafter initiated against the petitioner by the Income-tax Officer, Ernakulam, under section 23A of the Indian Income...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1969Ker222
Raghavan, J.1. The second appeal has been placed before a Division Bench by Madhavan Nair J. as our learned brother felt that the case involved a question of adverse possession fresh for this Court and as such, the expression of opinion by a Division Bench on the question was essential.2. We shall state the essential facts to bring out the question. The nine Hems of properties involved in this litigation belonged to a Mahomedan by name Pakkrammar. He died in 1916 leaving his widow and children (defendants 1 to 4--the appellants being defendants 2 to 4, the children) and his father Sooppi and mother Kunhoma, The parents together were entitled to a third of his estate and his wife and children were entitled to the rest. But, the wife and children took possession of all the properties. Kunhoma died; and Sooppi also died in 1920 leaving two sons, Pokker and Mammad, and four daughters, Avissa, Beeyumma, the fifth defendant and the sixth defendant The plaintiffs, who sued for partition and s...
Tag this Judgment!