Kerala Court February 1977 Judgments
K.V. Aboo Vs. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1977
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ134Ker
T. Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. The 2nd respondent in this original petition had filed an application before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kozhikode, stating that he was a workman employed by the petitioner herein and that he had received personal injury on 14.1.1973 by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. It is stated in the application that the cause of injury was that one Alavi the driver of lorry K.L.D. 9833 negligently started the lorry, as a result of which the 2nd respondent fell dawn when he was trying to load the vehicle and sustained injury on his face resulting in disfigurement of the face. According to the petitioner, he was not the employer of the 2nd respondent. Though he was initially the owner of the said lorry ho is alleged to have sold the vehicle to one N.P. Aboo Backer on 10.9.1972 as per an agreement executed on that day. The petitioner contended that he never employed the 2nd respondent and, therefore, he was not a workman under th...
Tag this Judgment!Food Inspector, Municipal Council Vs. Secretary, Ksheeravyavasaya Co-o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ532
S.K. Kader, J.1. These two appeals have come up before us, the former being referred by Khalid, J. on the ground that there is a seeming conflict of opinion between the decisions in Food Inspector v. Ittyavirah 1972 Ker LT 942 : 1973 Cri' LJ 842 and Food Inspector v- Karuna-karan (1973 Ker LT 595) and the latter by one of us, as the point involved in both the cases was the same. Both these appeals arising under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act, are directed against orders of acquittal. Criminal Appeal No. 339/75 is filed by the Food Inspector, Municipal Council, Alwaye, challenging the order of acquittal of respondents 1 and 2, who were accused 1 and 2 respectively before the trial court. The first respondent is the Kshee- jravyavasaya Co-operative Society represented by its Secretary and te second respondent is a salesman under the Society. In the afternoon of March 28, 1974 the Food1 Inspector (P. W. 1) purchased 660 raili. of ...
Tag this Judgment!Edeyillon Kunhambu Nair and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ107
ORDERKumari P. Janaki Amma, J.1. The petitioners were arrested on 15-12-1975 Under Section 107 read with S. III of the Cr.PC and brought before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasaragod along with a report counter-signed by the Asst. Superintendent of Police, Kasaragod to the effect that the counter-petitioners are likely to commit breach of the peace and are likely to do wrongful acts that may probably occasion a breach of the peace. A preliminary order Under Section 107(1) read with S. Ill of the C.P.C. was issued to the petitioners calling upon them to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs. 2000/- each with two sureties for like sums for keeping the peace for a period of one year. Before the enquiry against the petitioners commenced on 6-11-1976 the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasaragod issued another order Under Section 116(3) of the Cr.PC Directing the petitioners to execute a bond with two solvent sureties for Rs. 10,000/- each for keeping the peace pen...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank Vs. the Africana Co. (Private) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Ker103
George Vadakkel, J.1. One Mathew without delivery of goods for shipment obtained from D. W. 2 four bills of lading. He endorsed two of them to the appellant-Bank in A. S. No. 192 of 1971 for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/-, and the remaining two, to the appellant-Bank in the connected appeal for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/-. The banks advanced the amounts in good faith and unaware of non-delivery of goods to the carrier by their customer, the pretended shipper. D. W. 2 who signed the bills of lading, at the material time was the office manager of a Company doing business as agent of a shipping company. The question for consideration is as to whether the shipping company and the agent-company are liable on the four bills of lading, either for the price of the goods as prayed for in A. S. 192 of 1971 or for the amount advanced by the bank as sought for in the other case; are the companies estopped from proving the falsity of the bills of lading, as contended on behalf of the Banks.2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kochummini Chettiar and Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-08-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1872
ORDERP. Janaki Amma, J.1. The petitioner was prosecuted for offences punishable Under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. for driving a lorry, KLV 6062 in a rash and negligent manner. He was convicted for the offences. A sentence of fine was imposed on the petitioner under the two heads. The driving licence of the petitioner was cancelled for a period of six months. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Trivandrum along with a petition to condone delay Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appeal was filed on 2-7-76, On the same day, it was made over to the Asst. Sessions Judge, Attingal. Notice to the State was ordered and the application was directed to be taken along with the appeal. The petitioner had also filed Crl. M. P. 353 of 1976 for suspension of the sentence. Since fine had already been paid, the court directed suspension of the order of cancellation of the driving licence till the disposal of the appeal. When ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. C. Ravindran and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-1977
Reported in: [1977]107ITR547(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, Actg. C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has drawn up a statement of the case and sent up the following question for opinion of the High Court, under Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.'Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that at the time of reassessment under Section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act the assessee's claim for exemption in respect of agricultural land, which claim he should have made at the time of original assessment but omitted to make, is admissible ?'2. The assessee is one late Shri C. Koru. After his death, proceedings had been taken against his legal representatives by the Wealth-tax Officer. The deceased was a partner in a firm by name, C. C. Transport Co., which owned an agricultural property by name Mangundimala Estate. In the books of the firm there were the capital account of the assessee as well as the current account. The balance in the capital account and the current account were shown as th...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Noveen Chandran M. Soni, Partner Soni Hiralal and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ105
Kumari P. Janaki Amma, J.1. It is the primary duty of the charging officers and those who are to prosecute offenders to be conversant with the statutes and the ingredients of the offences for the contravention of which they are to take action. The present case is an instance of the consequences of the omission.2. The respondent is a partner of M/s. Soni Harilal and Company, a firm dealing in automooile tyres and tubes, On 17-4-1&74, a surprise inspection was made of the above concern by P. W. 4, the Central Zone Surprise Squad Supply Officer along with P. W. 1 and others. The inspection revealed that the firm was not issuing proper bills and vouchers to customers and that accounts were not properly maintained. Verification of stock revealed shortage in the case of some of the items and excess stock in the case of others than the number shown in the stock register. The respondent was prosecuted for offences punishable under Clauses 5 and 6 of the Kerala Automobile Tyres and Tubes (Decla...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala Vs. Dr. K. George Thomas.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-1977
Reported in: [1977]108ITR1024(Ker)
GOPALAN NAMBIYAR, ACTG. C.J. - The references under section 256 of the Income-tax Act raise a common question in regard to the assessability to tax and the penalty of the same assessee, common to all these cases. I.T.R. Case No. 22 of 1975 is in respect of the assessment year 1962-63; I.T. R. Case No. 23 of 1975 raise the question of the legality and correctness of the levy of penalty for the having submitted the return for the same assessment year, viz., 1962-63; ITR Case No. 24 of 1975 is in respect of the assessment for the year 1963-64; and ITR Case No. 25 of 1975 is in respect of the assessment for the assessment year 1969-70.The statement of facts sent up in I.T.R. Case No. 22 of 1975 may be taken as sufficient to indicate the point in controversy in the other cases also. The said statement reads as follows :'By this application presented under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala, Ernakulam, requires the Tribunal to refer to the High...
Tag this Judgment!M. George and ors. Vs. Raju M. Mathew
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Ker17
ORDER1. This revision petition is against the order of the Sub-Court, Pathanamthitta in Arbitration O.P. No. 1 of 1970. The petitioner and the cr. petitioner were partners of a firm called M. George & Brothers, Bankers, Kozhencherry. There was a notice of dissolution of the firm issued by the one to the other; in response to which the arbitration clause in the agreement was invoked and one of the partners appointed an arbitrator Mr. K.V. Joseph. As the other partner did not appoint his arbitrators, a petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, was filed to compel appointment of an arbitrator by the other partner or to have arbitration proceedings conducted by Mr K.V. Joseph as the sole arbitrator. That resulted in the appointment of an arbitrator on behalf of the other partner also. Asarbitration proceedings did not progress any further, I.A. No. 941 of 1971 was filed for appointment of a Receiver. The same was dismissed by order dated 18-7-1973. On 16-8-1973 I.A. No. 456 of 1973 ...
Tag this Judgment!Punnose Vs. Manager, P. and T. Motor Service
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-1977
Reported in: (1978)ILLJ88Ker
T. Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. A driver in the service of the P. and T. Motor Mail Service has approached this Court in a writ petition, wherein he has sought for orders for quashing the orders resulting in punishments to him-punishments being one of censure and also a direction to recover Rs. 250 being, the loss incurred by the department on account of the alleged misconduct of the petitioner in the matter of driving the vehicle. He also sought for an order directing the first respondent--Manager, P. and T. Motor Service, Ernakulam, to give the petitioner his due promotion over respondents 2 to 4 on the basis of his seniority and to give him all attendant benefits.2. It was strongly contended on behalf of the petitioner that, the two punishments as such--one of censure and another of recovery of Rs. 250--for the alleged damages caused by the petitioner could not be imposed by the authorities concerned; and also that in the matter of recovery of damages that had been ordered without any...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »