Kerala Court November 1976 Judgments
Travancore Rayons Ltd. Vs. Travancore Rayons Employees' Union
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-1976
Reported in: (1978)ILLJ84Ker
Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is directed against the award Ext. P 1 rendered by the Labour Court, Quilon in an industrial dispute (I.D. No. 71/69) that had arisen between the Travancore Rayons Ltd-the writ petitioner-and the union representing the employees of the company (first respondent). The said dispute concerns the termination of the services of an employee by name V. Sankaran Nair who was working in the spinning department of the petitioner-company. The said employee was absent from duty without permission continuously for a long time commencing from 28th April, 1968. On the 12th of August, 1968 he applied for a month's leave on the ground of illness without producing any medical certificate. The period of absence from 28.4-1968 to 11-8-1968 was not covered by that application for leave. By a memo dated 16th August, 1968 Sankaran Nair was directed by the company to appear before the company's Medical Officer for a medical examination. But he did no...
Tag this Judgment!Raghavan Vs. R.T.O.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-1976
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Ker)288
K. K. Narendran, J. - Questions of some importance in the matter of payment of tax at the compounded rates under S. 4 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers and Goods) Act, 1963, for short the Act, arise for consideration in this original petition. The questions are : (1) Even though there was originally an endorsement in the certificate of registration regarding the composition fee payable, a further endorsement was made by the Regional Transport Officer. By the endorsement the operator was also directed to pay the arrears of composition fee for four months immediately. On the day next to the date on which the further endorsement was made, composition fee payable for the period covered by the endorsement was paid by the operator. Can the operator be considered as a defaulter in the payment of the composition fee and assessed under S. 7 of the Act; and (2) Tax was enhanced and because of that a fresh endorsement had to be made in the certificate of registration. But the o...
Tag this Judgment!Manjeri Public Conveyance, Manjeri P.O. Vs. Secretary, Regional Transp ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ker64
K.K. Narendran, J.In Ramanumni Nair v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, 1975 Ker LT 204 - (AIR 1975 Ker 104) I said that there is nothing in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which prohibits the clubbing of two suo motu applications for a permit and giving them a common disposal, It was also pointed out that in that case the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was in the wrong in not giving a direction to the Regional Transport Authority to club the suo motu applications of the petitioner and the 5th respondent. The question that arises for consideration in this original petition is whether a suo motu application or a belated application can be clubbed with an application made in time in response to a notification under Section 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short the Act. A question whether the Regional Transport Authority can summarily reject an application for a permit, even if belated, in the absence of any limit fixed under Section 47 (3) or Section 55 (2) of the Act als...
Tag this Judgment!E. P. Eapen Vs. Income-tax Officer, b Ward, Trivandraum, and Others.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-1976
Reported in: [1978]112ITR829(Ker)
BHASKARAN J. - The writ petitioner was one of the partners of the firm, 'Trivandrum Tobacco Corporation', which was dissolved on October 26, 1953, and was on of the partners of the firm, 'Trivandrum Tobacco combines', which discontinued its business in the year 1960. The 1st respondent is the Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Trivandrum; the 2nd respondent, the Tax Recovery Officer, Quilon; and the 3rd respondent, the Sales Tax Officer, First Circle, Mattancherry. This petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India is for quashing exhibit P-1 notice of the 1st respondent dated July 12, 1976, exhibit P-2 order dated July 13, 1976, of the 3rd respondent and the prohibitory order No. T. R. 358/69 dated July 8, 1976, issued by the 2nd respondent, referred to therein, and exhibit P-4 prohibitory order of the 2nd respondent dated July 29, 1976. There is also a prayer for the issue of writ of mandamus to compel the 3rd respondent to effect the refund in obedience of exhibit P-1A order of t...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Michael and ors. Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-1976
Reported in: [1978]48CompCas686(Ker)
Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. These petitions were heard together and are considered and disposed of by this common order as the question involved in all these cases is the same, namely, the legality of the decision of the respondent-bank in refusing registration of the transfers of shares of the banking company ,to the respective petitioners. The reason given for refusal is the same in all the cases. The facts in B.C.P. No. 2/75 are stated hereunder and the facts in the other cases are not mentioned since it will be practically a duplication of the facts in B.C.P. No. 2/75 with only minor changes in the number of shares transferred to the respective petitioners therein. The authorised share capital of the respondent-banking company is Rs. 50,00,000 divided into 50,000 equity shares of Rs. 100 each. The issued and subscribed share capital of the company is Rs. 36,47,700 consisting of 36,477 equity shares of Rs. 100 each on which Rs. 50 per share has been called up. The 2nd respondent held 210 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›