Kerala Court April 1974 Judgments
Thomas Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-19-1974
Reported in: (1975)ILLJ15Ker
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. The prayers in this petition are:(a) declare Rule 13AA of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules to be illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional ;(b) issue a writ of mandamus compelling the State to forbear from giving effect to Ex. P 2, and(c) issue such other writs, orders and directions as or are deemed just and proper on the fact and circumstances of the case.2. This petition was filed on 15th March, 1972 and the order sought to be quashed, Ext. P2, is dated 13th January, 1972. During the pendency of this writ application an order Ext. P 6 was passed on the 11th January, 1974 extending the period granted by Ext. P 2 order to members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to pass the tests for promotion from the category of lower division clerks to that of upper division clerks from 13th January, 1974 'to cover a period during which two tests are held by the Public Service Commission and the results thereof published.' By an affidavit dated 27...
Tag this Judgment!Food Corporation of India Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-1974
Reported in: [1974]34STC189(Ker)
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. The common question that arises in these cases is whether the supply and distribution of fertilisers effected by the Food Corporation of India on behalf of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of India, to the State Government of Kerala or its nominees constitutes 'sale' so as to attract liability to sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A subsidiary question is also raised in T. R. C. No. 70 of 1973 and that concerns the legality of the levy of sales tax on the turnover relating' to the disposal by the Food Corporation of damaged foodgrains.2. Even as early as in 1944 a scheme for ensuring fair and equitable distribution of fertilisers had been formulated and brought into force by the Government of India by letter No. F. 42-12/43-P dated 13th March, 1944. Subsequently, by a notification dated 29th March, 1957, issued by the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by Sub-clause ...
Tag this Judgment!P.J. Thomas and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-1974
Reported in: (1975)ILLJ284Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court, dismissing O.P. 725 of 1971, on the ground of delay and laches. The two writ petitioners were employees under the Kottayam Orient Bank Ltd. They will be referred to in this judgment as petitioners. The Ist petitioner joined the Bank on 2-1-1954 and was an 'Agent' in one of the 'Branches' of the Bank, from 1-3-1955 to 16-6-1961. He is a graduate of the Madras University, was a J.C.O., and claims to be well-qualified for preferment and promotion. The 2nd petitioner, likewise, was 'Agent' from 1-2-1947 to 30-5-1960. He was transferred to the Central office of the Bank and was working there till 17-6-1971. He had studied upto B.A. class, although not taken the degree, and has experience in banking. In pursuance of Ext. P1 Scheme prepared by the Reserve Bank, under Section 45, Clause (4), Sub-clause (4) of the Banking Regulation Act 1942, and sanctioned by the Government of India, under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Ramachandran Nair and ors. Vs. Samy Pillai Gouri Pillai and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker39
Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. This appeal preferred with leave granted by Krishna Iyer J. of this Court, fas he then was) is against the decision of the learned Judge in Second Appeal No. 53 of 1968,and raises an Interesting question of adverse possession and limitation.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises, was for partition of two items of immovable properties. The legal representatives 01 the 2nd defendant, and the 3rd defendant, are the appellants before us. Item 1 was seven cents in Sy. No. 1479 of a total extent of 10 cents; item 2 was eight cents in Sy. No, 1478, of a total extent of eighteen cents. Both these Sy. Nos. of a total extent of twenty-eight cents, belonged to one Gouri Pillai By Exts. P-3 and P-4 sale-deeds dated 1-2-1108 and 15-9-1106, she conveyed three cents in Sy. No. 1479 and ten cents in Sy. No. 1478 to her brother Narayana Pillai. The remaining extent of the two survey numbers was sought to be partitioned in the suit. Gouri Pillai died in 1114 M. E., leaving as...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kottayam Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-1974
Reported in: [1974]96ITR181(Ker)
Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. The assessee is a co-operative society doing banking business. As part of its business activity the assessee was also conducting kuris--chit funds--since about the year 1959 or so. The income derived from the conduct of the chit funds was not being subjected to tax till 1969-70. For the assessment year 1969-70 the Income-tax Officer took the view that the assessee's income from the chit fund business did not fall within the scope of Section 80P(2)(a)(i)of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act '), and subjected to the said income to tax rejecting the assessee's claim for deduction under the aforesaid provision. The grounds which weighed with the Income-tax Officer for disallowing the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) were that the business of conducting the chit fund was not one intended for providing credit facilities but was only in the nature of a saving scheme and that there was no restriction that only members...
Tag this Judgment!Moiliakiriath Abbas Vs. Meeyanathu Kunhipathu and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-01-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker129
G. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. He sued for partition and separate possession of one-half of the plaint schedule property on the following facts. The property belonged to one Hassan and his wife Aisa. They made a gift of an undivided one-half share in the property to the defendant, their eldest daughter, as per registered gift deed dated 16-9-63. On the same day the remaining undivided half right was assigned to the plaintiff. At the time of the assignment the defendant was his wife. The marriage was conducted in 1962 and recently the plaintiff divorced the defendant and therefore he does not wish to keep the property joint any longer. They are in joint possession of the property. A registered notice was issued demanding partition. Instead of complying with that demand a reply notice has been issued making false allegations. In the reply it is stated that the document is not supported by consideration and that the property was given as 'Kasi' ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›