Kerala Court September 1975 Judgments
General Secretary, Mcdowell Employees Association Vs. Mcdowell and Co. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-25-1975
Reported in: (1977)ILLJ46Ker
K.K. Narendran, J.1. The petitioner in this original petition is the General Secretary of the McDowell Employees Association, Varanad. Tie grievance of the petitioner Is against Ext. P3 order by which the 2nd respondent-Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey refused to review its order dated 11-4-1974 discharging the witnesses produced by the union and adjourning the case for the examination of the manager of the 1st respondent-management for marking the documents already produced by the 1st respondent. The question that arises for consideration In this original petition is whether in a case where the workmen contend in the claim statement that the domestic enquiry held was not legal and valid can the Industrial Tribunal deny the workmen the opportunity to lead evidence in support of that contention and whether Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act) empowers the Tribunal to do so.2. The McDowell & Co., Ltd., Varanad, Sherthalai, the 1st respondent to this original...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskaran Nair Vs. Management, Premier Tyres Limited and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-1975
Reported in: (1976)IILLJ101Ker
T. Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. The award of the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut, in Industrial Dispute No. 30 of 1972, dismissing the complaint of the petitioner under Section 33(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, questioning the order of the Management transferring him from the company's factory to the company's sales division, is under attack in this original petition.2. The petitioner was working as Supervisor (Garden, House Keeping and Seraps) in the Premier Tyres Ltd., Kalamassery. He was placed under suspension pending enquiry for alleged misconduct. The misconduct alleged were, wilful disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders of superiors, striking work, inciting others in striking work in contravention of law, initiating, conducting and participating in strike against law and conducting and attending meeting in the premises of the factory without the permission of the management on 8-12-1969. An enquiry was conducted in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner by o...
Tag this Judgment!Paul Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-19-1975
Reported in: [1976]37STC330(Ker)
T. Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. In both these cases the question that has been raised for consideration of the court is whether under Section 23(2)(b) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (shortly stated the Act) an Executive Magistrate will have jurisdiction to proceed with the recovery of the tax on application made to him. Section 23(2) may be usefully extracted below :(2) Any tax assessed or any other amount due under this Act from a dealer or other person may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, be recovered....(b) on application to any Magistrate, by such Magistrate, as if it were a fine imposed by him.2. The contentions that are taken up by the petitioners in these cases are that the Executive Magistrate has no jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of tax as if it were a fine imposed by him for the simple reason that he has no power to impose a fine on the petitioners. It is contended that after the advent of the new Criminal Procedure Code ...
Tag this Judgment!Paul Vs. Sales Tax Officer.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-19-1975
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Ker)31
T. Chandrasekhara Menon - In both these cases the question that has been raised for consideration of the court is whether under S. 23 (2) (b) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (shortly stated the Act) an Executive Magistrate will have jurisdiction to proceed with the recovery of the tax on application made to him S. 23(2) may be usefully extracted below :'(2) Any tax assessed or any other amount due under this Act from a dealer or other person may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, be recovered -(a) x x x x(b) On application to any Magistrate, by such Magistrate, as if it were a fine imposed by him.'2. The contentions that are taken up by petitioners in these cases are that Executive Magistrate has no jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of tax as if it were a fine imposed by him for the simple reason that he has no power to impose a fine on the petitioners. It is contended that after the advent of the new Criminal Procedure Code a clear li...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Pillai Balkrishna Pillai Vs. P. Vasudevan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-17-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Ker133
Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. The revision petitioner is the judgment debtor in O. S. No. 192 of 1967. The property of the revision petitioner was sold in Court auction on 24-11-1969. On 2-1-1970 he filed an application to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity and fraud. The Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 1970 (Act 11 of 1970) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force on 14-7-1970. The application for setting aside the sale was dismissed on 23-8-1971. The same day the revision petitioner filed E. A. No. 537 of 1971 under Section 20, Sub-section (8) of the Act to set aside the sale depositing the amounts due for two instalments. The execution Court overruling the objection of the decree holder that the explication is not maintainable since the first instalment due under the Act had not been deposited by the judgment-debtor as required by Section 20 (8) within the time stipulated in Section 4(3) of the Act and that such a deposit was a condition precedent...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Agrl. Income-tax Vs. Vellimala Estate
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-17-1975
Reported in: [1977]110ITR372(Ker)
Govindan Nair, C.J.1. The question referred by the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1967-68 under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, is in these terms : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 4,322.36 incurred for payment of gratuity and arrears of bonus to the employees who retired from service during the year is an allowable deduction in computing the agricultural income of the assessee '2. The relevant facts have been stated in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the statement of the case which are in these terms : '2. The Vellimala Estate is a firm and an assessee borne on the files of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Kottarakara. For the year ended October 31, 1966, relevant for the assessment year 1967-68, it filed returns declaring a net income of Rs. 1,57,600. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer did not accept the accounts and other records produced in suppor...
Tag this Judgment!Aluminium Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-16-1975
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT27(Ker)
P. Subramanianpoti, J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company manufacturing cables of different sizes at its factory at Kundra. The cables so manufactured are liable to excise duty. Item 33B in the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is the relevant provisions for such duty. That entry prior to amendment by Finance Act, 1966 read :'Item 33B (i) Insulated copper wires and cables, whether sheathed or insheathed, any core of which, not being one specially designed as a pilot core, has a sectional area of less than 8.0645 a square millimetres and wires and cables of other metals and alloys of not more than equivalent conductivity - 15 % ad valorem,(ii) All others - 5% ad valorem.'This was amended by Finance Act, 1966, and as amended it reads : - 'Item 33B (i). Insulated wires and cables of copper, aluminium or other metals and alloys, whether sheathed or unsheathed, the conductor of any core of which, not being one specially designed as a pilot core has a section...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. Smt. P. Parukutti Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-11-1975
Reported in: [1976]105ITR79(Ker)
Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. Four questions have been referred to us by the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which read as follows :' 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the penalty under Section 41(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, has not been validly levied ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the issue of a notice is a condition precedent for the levy of penalty under Section 41(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the principles of natural justice are violated in view of the provisions in Section 41(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 ? 4. Is not the reasoning and conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal vitiated due to non-advertence of the crucial fact that there was no motion or application by the assessee in the instant case, under Section 40, to treat him as not in defa...
Tag this Judgment!P.T. Varghese Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-10-1975
Reported in: [1976]37STC171(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The assessee in all these tax revision cases is the same person. These cases arise from a common order of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, relating to the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67. The questions of law which arise for our consideration in all the three cases are identical. Therefore, we propose to dispose of these cases by a common judgment.2. The assessee has been conducting a press under the name and style of St. George Press at Irinjalakuda. He prints bill books, vouchers, receipt books, letter heads, question papers and notices as ordered by his clients. He uses his own paper for printing these materials.3. The assessee was assessed to sales tax by the Sales Tax Officer in respect of the above-mentioned periods in relation to the turnovers represented by the alleged sales of the said bill books, vouchers, etc. The assessment was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner subject to certain modifications. On furt...
Tag this Judgment!Asst. Security Officer, Railway Protection Force, Southern Railway, Ol ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-10-1975
Reported in: (1978)ILLJ117Ker
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. These appeals relate to the validity of the dismissal of two employees of the Southern Railway. Two important questions arise in these appeals. The first is whether the cause of action in whole or in part arises within the jurisdiction of this Court to sustain an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The second question is whether grounds have been made out justifying interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The officer who passed the order of dismissal Ext. P4 in Writ Appeal No. 108 of 1975 and Ext. P5 in Writ Appeal No. 109 of 1975 is the 1st appellant, the Assistant Security Officer, Railway Protection Force, Southern Railway, Olavakkot Division, Pothannur. Appeals had been taken from those orders and the 2nd appellant in these appeals passed the order Exts. R4 and P7 respectively in the two appeals dismissing them. There was a further motion before the 3rd appellant, the Chief Security Officer, Railway Protection Force...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »