Kerala Court May 1975 Judgments
M.J. Thomas, Prop., Current Book House, Trichur Vs. the District Colle ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-29-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Ker28
Govindan Nair, C. J.1. This is a petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari cancelling the auction conducted by the 1st respondent, the District Collector, Kozlikode, on the 19th March, 1975 of the arrack shops of Calicut taluk for the year 1975-76. There are incidental prayers for a direction requiring the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent, the Board of Revenue, and the 3rd respondent, the State of Kerala, to conduct a resale of the arrack shops in Calicut taluk and for the grant of such other consequential and incidental reliefs.2. The main points raised in the petition are that the solvency certificate produced before the 1st respondent by the petitioner, Ext. P-1, was wrongly and arbitrarily rejected by the 1st respondent and that the 1st respondent has arbitrarily and illegally excluded the petitioner from the auction that took place on the 19th March, 1975 of the arrack shops in Calicut taluk. It was suggested in paragraph 5 of the petition that the petitioner was ex...
Tag this Judgment!Lookose Jose Vs. Chandy Skariah and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-29-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Ker206
Gopalan Nambiyar, J. 1. We are satisfied that the learned Judge IN exceeded the limits for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution in interfering with the revisional order passed by the Government and evidenced by Ext. P-3. The 1st respondent who was the petitioner who filed the writ petition, which was allowed by the learned Judge, was an applicant for grant of a licence or authority in respect of a ration shop No. ARD 141, Vaikom Taluk. The appellant before us was another applicant for the said licence or authority. The choice ultimately resolved itself to one. between the appellant and the 1st respondent The appellant strongly urged that the 1st respondent was disentitled to the grant of licence as he had been guilty of impersonation, had been convicted by a criminal court, and that, on a prior occasion a licence granted to it had been cancelled on account of its irregularities or misconduct. These were considered in detail by Ext. P-1 order of the District Supply Officer...
Tag this Judgment!Paily Paily and anr. Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha (L.A ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Ker44
ORDER1. The petitioners in this Original Petition are owners of lands for the acquisition of which proceedings are initiated by Ext, P-2 notification dated 14-6-1973 by the 1st respondent--Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioners question Exts. P-2 and P-3 notifications of the 1st respondent. In Ext. P-2 notification the fact that the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Ernakulam has given a direction on 6-6-1973 under Section 19 (4) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) that Section 5 of the Act need not be complied with in view of the urgency of the acquisition in question is also stated. Ext. P-3 is the notice in Form 4 (a), Two questions that are raised are (1) whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case there is any justification in resorting to emergency acquisition by invoking Section 19 (4) of the Act and (2) in the absence of any consent by the State Government under Section 43 of the Act and without any agreement executed by the Malankar...
Tag this Judgment!The Sales Tax Officer, I Circle, Alleppey and anr Vs. Modern Plastic I ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-1975
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Ker)0108B
Gopalan Nambiyar, J. - We think the learned Judge was right in his view that there was nothing in Rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules 1957, to warrant an interpretation that the goods sought to be included in the Certificate of Registration must have been intended for use in an existing business. The learned Government Pleader sought to make out that this requirement was necessary, by linking section 7 of the Central Sales-tax Act, 1956 for short, the Act-with Rule 13 of the Registration and Turnover Rules and Form A prescribing for application for a Certificate of Registration under section 7, to section 8(3) of the Act. Section 7 imposes an obligation on every dealer liable to pay tax under the Act to apply within the prescribed time for registration under the Act. The time prescribed under Rule 5 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, is one month. On such registration the benefit of a concessional rate of assessment to a dea...
Tag this Judgment!T. Ramachandran Vs. V.K. Kuttan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-13-1975
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1531
ORDER1. This is a motion for Habeas Corpus for release of Beenakumari, stated to be the petitioner's wife, from the alleged unlawful detention by her parents, respondents Nos. 1 and 2. According to the petitioner he married Beenakumari on 14-4-1975 and Ext. A-1 agreement was executed and registered by them the same day. Ext. A-2 dated 18-4-1975 is an application filed by the 1st respondent before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum for initiating proceedings under Sections 97 and 98 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 1973 on the ground that the petitioner and his associates kidnapped Beenakumari, and Ext A-3 dated 21-4-1975 is Beenakumari's sworn statement before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum. Before the Chief Judicial Magistrate she stated that it was her desire to go with her parents for the time being and the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed Ext. A-4 order on the same day upholding her freedom to go with any person of her choice. Obviously she went with her parents. S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›