Kerala Court December 1976 Judgments
A.K. Abraham and ors. Vs. the State of Kerala Represented by the Chief ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ker96
ORDERNew Delhi, the 27th June, 1975 G. Section R. 361 (E).-- In exercise of the Powers conferred by Clause (l) of Article 359 of the Constitution, the President hereby declares that the right of any person (including a foreigner) to move any court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Article 14, Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution and all proceedings pending in any court for the enforcement of the above mentioned rights shall remain suspended for the period during which the Proclamations of Emergency made under Clause (1) of Article 352 of the Constitution of the 3rd December, 1971 and on the 25th June, 1975 are both in force.This Order shall extend to the whole of the territory of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.This Order shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any Order made before the date of this Order under Clause (1) of Article 359 of the Constitution.'4. Before we proceed to deaf with the controversy, it is necessary to refer briefly to...
Tag this Judgment!A. K. Abraham and ors. Vs. the State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-1976
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Ker)77
ORDERNew Delhi, the27th June, 1975G.S.R. 361 (E). - In exercise of the Powers conferred by Cl. (1) of Article 359 of the Constitution, the President hereby declares that the right of any person (including a foreigner) to move any court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Article 14, Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution and all proceedings pending in any court for the enforcement of the above mentioned rights, shall remain suspended for the period during which the Proclamations of Emergency made under clause (1) of Article 352 of the Constitution of the 3rd December, 1971 and on the 25th June, 1975 are both in force.This Order shall extend to the whole of the territory of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.This Order shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any Order made before the date of this Order under cl. (1) of Article 359 of the Constitution.4. Before we proceed to deal with the controversy, it is necessary to refer briefly to the contentions...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Pattar Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-1976
Reported in: AIR1979Ker139
Gopalan Nambiyar, J. 1. The question that squarely arises in this revision petition is whether in determining the validity of the alienation in excess of the ceiling area effected after 15-9-1963 (date of publication of Land Reforms Bill, 1963), and before 1-1-1970 (date of coming into force of Act 36 of 1969), the ceiling is to be reckoned with respect to the provisions of the Amending Act 35 of 1969, or with respect to the prior law. In Joseph v. State of Kerala (1973 Ker LT 701): (AIR 1974 Ker 28) a Division Bench consisting of myself and Viswanatha Iyer, J. held that the validity of the alienations had to be judged with respect to the law as to ceiling area in force on the date of the transfers and not the law on the effectuation of the ceiling area by notification issued under Section 83 of the Act, viz., 1-1-1970. Viswanathha Iyer, J. who referred this case to a Division Bench recorded his view that although the learned Judge was a party to the decision in 1973 Ker LT 701: (AIR 1...
Tag this Judgment!Bakul Cashew Company and ors. Vs. the Sales Tax Officer (R) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-1976
Reported in: [1977]40STC178(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, Ag. C.J.1. The 46 petitioners in this writ petition are cashew processors owning and/or working cashew factories. Nearly 80 per cent of the raw nuts processed in their factories are imported from African countries and processed along with nuts of indigenous variety. Some of the petitioners are companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956, some are partnership firms and/or proprietary concerns. The petition prays to declare that the transactions of purchase of imported raw nuts through the Cashew Corporation of India are not liable to purchase tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and/or are exempt from the said tax under Article 286(1)(a) or (b) of the Constitution ; and a writ of certiorari quashing the assessment orders, the provisional assessment orders and orders in appeal for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75.2. In brief, the case of the petitioners as stated in the petition is as follows : Prior to 1st Sept...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Bakul Cashew and Co. and 45 ors. Vs. Sales Tax Officer.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-1976
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Ker)85
Gopalan Nambiyar Actg. C.J. - The 46 petitioners in this writ petition are cashew processors owing and/or working cashew factories. Nearly 80 percent of the raw nuts processed in their factories are imported from African countries and processed along with nuts of indigenous variety. Some of the petitioners are Companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956, some are partnership firms and/or proprietary concerns. The petition prays to declare that the transactions of purchase of imported raw nuts through the Cashew Corporation of India are not liable to purchase tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, and/or are exempt from the said tax under Article 286(1)(a) and/or (b) of the Constitution; and a writ of certiorari quashing the assessment orders, the provisional assessment orders and orders in appeal for the assessment years 1970-71. 1971-71, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75.2. In brief, the case of the petitioners as stated in the petition is as follows : Prior to 1-9-1970, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›