Kerala Court January 1975 Judgments
K.K. Kuruvila Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Ker15
ORDERV.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. These are petitions by two different petitioners who were given telephone connections by the telegraph authorities within a 'local area originally demarcated as included within a radius of five miles from the Telephone Exchange, and who, by reason of the reduction of the local area to one within a radius of five kilometres from the Telephone Exchange have been prejudicially affected in regard to the charges payable by them for the use of the telephones. This difference arises by reason of the fact that under the provisions of the statute, those within the 'local area' are liable to pay charges at more favourable rates than those outside the local area. As a result of this variation of local area the petitioners in these two cases ceased to be within the local area and therefore were liable to pay the telephone charges at the increased rates cm the ground of their being persons outside the local area.2. Section 7 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 in so far as i...
Tag this Judgment!Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. Vs. the Union of India and anr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Ker178
ORDERV.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J. 1. Messrs. Gwalior Rayon Silk . (Pulp Division), Mavoor, the petitioner in this writ petition, seeks to quash certain proceedings taken by the respondent under the provisions of the Central Emergency Risks (Factories/Goods) Insurance Acts. 1962 (Acts 62 and 63 of 1962); to declare Exts. P-1 and P-2 communications of the 2nd respondent addressed to the petitioner invalid; and to prohibit the respondents from proceeding with further investigations in pursuance of the Central Acts.2. As is seen noticed in the judicial decisions which have considered the position, the two Acts referred to earlier, were intended to ensure the smooth flow and even course of commercial and industrial activities during Proclamation of Emergency, made by the President of India on 26-10-1962 consequent on the Chinese invasion of this country in October. 1962. The Acts were modelled on the lines of the War Risks Insurance Act which was in force in Great Britain during the time of th...
Tag this Judgment!C.V. George and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-1975
Reported in: [1976]102ITR724(Ker)
Bhaskaran, J.1. The short, but important, question of law that falls for decision in this writ petition is whether the term 'assessee' occurring in Sub-section (1) of Section 222 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act 43 of 1961), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', in the context of the definition in Section 2(7), and other relevant provisions of the Act, would include the partners of the firm in a case where the assessment under Section 143(1) of the Act is in the name of that firm, and the certificate issued under Subsection (2) of Section 222 also is in the name of that firm.2. The facts relevant are few and are not in dispute. The petitioners are partners of a firm known by name 'Mutual Benefit Corporation, Calicut.' For the assessment years 1965-66 to 1971-72 there was arrears of income-tax from the firm to the tune of Rs. 70,763. Therefore, certificate for recovery under Section 222(2) of the Act was issued by the first respondent, Income-tax Officer, Asst. II, Calicut, on whose fil...
Tag this Judgment!C. Ramanunni Nair Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal Ernakulam and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Ker104
ORDERK.K. Narendran, J. 1. The question that arises for consideration in this Original Petition is whether a Regional Transport Authority can refuse a request to club together two suo motu applications for a stage carriage permit filed under Section 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in passing orders under Section 57(5) of the Act granting the permit, The petitioner in this Original Petition is a stage carriage operator operating services in the Palghat Malappuram and Trichur districts. He filed two applications under the first part of Section 57(2) of the Act before the 2nd respondent-Regional Transport Authority, Pal-ghat for two pucca stage carriage permits on the route Ponnani-Palghat and Thavanoor-Palghat. The above applications which were items Nos. 44 and 45 in the Agenda of the meeting of the 2nd respondent held on 27-2-1974 were rejected on the ground that an application has already been entertained. Against the above orders of the 2nd ...
Tag this Judgment!Dalmia International Limited Vs. Thomas and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-1975
Reported in: (1975)IILLJ526Ker
T. Chandrasekara Menon, J.1. The writ petition filed by a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, which is conducting a cashew nut factory at Kundara in Quilon District seeks to quash the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey directing the reinstatement of a dismissed employee, the first respondent in the O.P. The dismissal was consequent on the finding that the employee was guilty of alleged misconduct in a domestic enquiry conducted. Pending enquiry the first respondent had been suspended on 1st June, 1973. The petitioner had, accepting this finding of the enquiry officer dismissed the 1st respondent from service on 12th July, 1973, with effect from the date of his suspension.2. An Industrial Dispute I.D. 26 of 1970 between the petitioner and their workmen was pending at the time of dismissal before the second respondent, Tribunal. The issue in the dispute was the temporary closure of the factory and compensation to the workers, if any. On his dismissal the firs...
Tag this Judgment!Valliyil Sreedevi Amma Vs. Subhadra Devi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Ker19
Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Tirur dismissing a petition O. P. No. 511 of 1970 filed by the appellant herein under Section 22(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956) hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petition was dismissed by the Court below on the basis of a preliminary finding arrived at by it that an application under Section 22(2) of the Act for determination of the value of the share of a co-heir is not maintainable if such share has been already transferred by the co-heir to a stranger and that in such cases the remedy available to a party seeking to enforce the right conferred by Section 22(1) of the Act is only to institute a regular suit for specific performance.2. The properties described in the petition filed before the Court below, excepting a residential building situated thereon, belonged to one Jayapala Menon. In respect of the residential building the saiJ Jayapala Menon had only an u...
Tag this Judgment!Mani J. Meenattor, Advocate Vs. the Popular Bank Ltd., (In Liquidation ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-08-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Ker35
Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. This appeal has been filed by an advocate of this court who was appearing for the Official Liquidator in a proceeding under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 which was disposed of by the Company Judge. The proceeding in question was initiated on two applications filed by the Official Liquidator under Sections 542(1) and 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Section 45H of the Banking Regulation Act seeking to make the Directors of the Popular Bank Ltd. (in liquidation) liable for misfeasance. Those applications were originally allowed by the court with certain directions. On appeals filed by some of the Directors against the said decision of the learned single Judge the Division Bench allowed those appeals in part and remanded the matter to the learned single Judge for determining the individual liability of the Directors in the light of the directions contained in the appellate judgment. The subject-matter of the present appeal relates to the claim of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaran Vs. Dy. Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-03-1975
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ171Ker
T. Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. The petitioner worked as a clerk and then as am accountant under the second respondent Co-operative Credit Society (the Society for short). The Society originally registered under the Madras Cooperative Societies Act, 1932 is now under the relevant provision of the Kerala Co operative Societies Act, 1969 hereinafter called the Act) deemed to be registered under the Act. He had joined the service of the Society on 14.12.1957 as a clerk and then promoted as accountant on 28.3.1960. He was promoted as Treasurer of the Society on the basis of his seniority on 25.7.1966. The petitioner has got a case that his promotion was made reluctantly by the Board of Directors of the Society who were really forced to do so when he objected strongly when a junior of his one P. Narayanan Nair was sought to be promoted to that post. The allegation is that this made the Directors ill-disposed towards him.2. The petitioner's contentions in the O.P. are that as a result of the i...
Tag this Judgment!K.E. Appukutty Vs. Executive Officer, Madai Panchayat and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-02-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Ker80
ORDERT. Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. An exhibitor of cinematographic films who is having his theatre within the Madai Panchayat has filed this Original Petition wherein he prays for quashing the permission granted to the fourth respondent to construct a temporary cinema theatre in R. S. 78/1 of Pudiyangadi desom, within the Madai Panchayat and also for quashing the licence granted to the 4th respondent on 30-10-1974 with the further prayer for a direction in the nature of mandamus to the first respondent not to grant or renew licence to the 4th respondent for his temporary cinema theatre and also for an injunction directing the fourth respondent not to exhibit cinema shows in the 'Star Talkies' Pudiyangadi desom, Madai Panchayat and also for directing the first respondent not to renew licence granted to the 4th respondent to exhibit cinema shows in the said theatre till final disposal of the Original Petition.2. The 4th respondent appears to have filed an application for permission to co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›