Kerala Court September 1977 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
T.P. Viswanathan Nair Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-29-1977
Reported in: (1978)IILLJ258Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. The appellant was a clerk under the Kerala State Electricity Board and the president of the trade union, representing the workers of the Idikki Project. In connection with a strike in February, 1969 and certain disturbances consequent on the same, a criminal case under Sections 129B, 147, 149, 307, 332, etc., of the I.P.C. was charged against him and others; but following the report of a District Judge as Commission of Enquiry, the case was withdrawn. Shortly thereafter proceedings were instituted against the appellant under the Kerala State Electricity Board (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1969 and the Vigilence Officer of the Board was appointed Special Officer to hold the enquiry under Regulation 16 of the Regulations. The Officer informed the Board that the enquiry may be held by some authority empowered to summon witnesses. By Ext. P9 G.O., the Government (1st respondent) referred the case to the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner and ...
Ozhukal Ouseph Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Nor ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-29-1977
Reported in: [1978]113ITR894(Ker)
GOPALAN NAMBIYAR C.J. - These two references by the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and sales Tax, North zone, Kozhikode, are in respect of the same assessee for two different assessment years 1968-1969 and 1969-70. The question of law referred for our determination are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Deputy Commissioner was correct in holding that the firm was not entitled for registration under section 27 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 and(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Deputy Commissioner was competent to exercise his suo motu powers of revision to set aside the finding of the officer that the requirements of section 27 have been satisfied by the applicant ?'The assessee applied for registration of a firm constituted by the deed of partnership dated September 15, 1966. The accounting period for the year during which the partnership was constituted was to run out on June 30, 1967...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Marikar Motors Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-1977
Reported in: [1978]111ITR36(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. The assessee, M/s. Marikar Motors Ltd., Trivandrum, is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. In respect of the assessment years 1964-65, 1966-67 and 1967-68 it was assessed to income-tax. The orders of assessment were carried up in appeal and in further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In respect of the latter two years, viz., 1966-67 and 1967-68, the orders of the Appellate Tribunal were passed after April 1, 1971, viz., on November 30, 1971. (The significance of the date April 1, 1971, will presently appear). But, for the assessment year 1964-65, with which we are concerned in this reference, the order of the Tribunal was passed on August 22, 1970. After the Tribunal passed the said order, the Surtax Officer, acting under the provisions of Section 14 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, read with Section 13 thereof, proceeded to take action by way of recomputation of the assessment and amendment of the assessment order. Sect...
Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. E.S.i.C.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-1977
Reported in: (1978)IILLJ182Ker
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The order of the Employees' Insurance Court, Calicut, in E.I.C. No. 49 of 1971 is challenged in this appeal. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the employees in the sales office of the appellant are liable to be covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called ' the Act ').2. The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. It has a factory at Tatapuram, Ernakulam, among other places in India. In the Tatapuram factory it manufactures mainly soaps and hair oils. It has a sales office at M. G. Road, Ernakulam, which, according to the appellant, is an establishment distinct and different from the factory at Tatapuram and it is controlled by the Head Office at Bombay. The sales office is concerned with distributing and marketing the various products manufactured by the appellant in its factory at Tatapuram as well as in its other factories. Apart from the products manufactured by the factories belongi...
Asst. Personnel Officer, Southern Railway Vs. K.T. Antony
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-1977
Reported in: (1978)IILLJ254Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. The learned Judge, against whose judgment this Writ Appeal is preferred, quashed Ext. P3 order terminating the services of the Writ Petitioner (respondent in this Writ Appeal) who was a casual labourer in the service of the Southern Railway. The termination was sought to be justified with respect to Rule 149 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. 1, which is as fellows :149. Termination of service and periods of notice.-(1) Temporary railway servants - When a person without a lien on a permanent post under Government is appointed to hold a temporary post or to officiate in a permanent post, he is entitled to no notice of the termination of his service if such termination is due to the expiry of the sanction to the post which he holds or the expiry of the officiating vacancy, or to his compulsory retirement due to mental or physical incapacity or to his removal or dismissal as a disciplinary measure after compliance with the provisions of Clause (2)...
Narayana Iyer Kulathu Iyer Vs. Manakkadu Devaswom and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Ker1
ORDERKu. P. Janaki Amma, J.1. The petitioner in both the cases is the same. He is the appellant in E.S.A. Nos. 4 and 5 of 1976 on the file of this Court. The said appeals were dismissed by a common judgment on 29-11-1976. Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner decided to file an appeal to a Division Bench after obtaining leave under Section 5 of the High Court Act. He obtained copies of the judgments and decrees on 18-2-1977. In the meanwhile, the Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act, 1976 came into farce on 1-2-1977 and Section 100A was introduced into the Code. He was instructed by his counsel thatby virtue of the above provision read with Section 100A of the Amendment Act, no further appeal was maintainable against the decision in second appeal. The petitioner, therefore, did not move for obtaining leave to file appeals against the decision. But subsequently, this Court held in Raghavan Pillai v Sainaba Beev (1977 Ker. L.T. 417) that the ban under Section 110A of the Act has no ret...
Lakshmana Kunjhan Vs. C.R. Sulochana and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ522
ORDERP. Janaki Amma, J.1. The petitioner is the accused in P. E. 5 of 1977 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class, Kozhikode. The proceedings against him were initiated on a private complaint. The gist of the complaint is as follows: The complainant is a resident of Purak-kadi amsom in South Wynad. At 2 P. lion 28-8-1975, two constables of the Ba-theri Police Station came to her residence and took her to the police station. There were two officers of the Crime Branch. She was kept in the lock-up. At 11-30 P. M. she was removed to the Batheri Rest House. Two officers of the Crime Branch questioned her about the whereabouts of Damodaran Master and Madhu Master, the study classes conducted by them and also their different activities- She was herself ignorant about those things. On her failure to give proper replies, one of the officers of the Criminal Branch beat 'her on her face and different parts of the body. She was later on removed to the lock-up of the Batheri Po...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. CochIn Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-20-1977
Reported in: [1977]110ITR243(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. These references are by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, which has sent up certain questions of law for determination and opinion by this court. The question of law referred under Section 256(1) 'of the Income-tax Act by the Tribunal in I.T.Rs. Nos. 51 and 52 of 1975 is as follows :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theAppellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the provisions of Section 28(iii) are not applicable to the facts of the case '2. The question arises in respect of the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73.The Tribunal declined to refer the second question of law. Reference ofthe said question was sought to be compelled on an application made to thiscourt under Section 256(2) of the Act. This court compelled the referenceand accordingly I.T.Rs. Nos. 78 and 79 of 1977 are before this court inrespect of the said question, reference of which was declined by theTribunal and was compelled by this court....
George Oommen Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-20-1977
Reported in: [1977]110ITR546(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. The Agricultural Income-tax AppellateTribunal, Trivandrum, has referred the following question of law for theopinion of this court, viz.:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the wealth-tax paid by the assessee on his agricultural lands is an allowable deduction under Clause (n)(ii) or any other Clause of Section 5 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 '2. The question arises with respect to the assessment to agricultural income-tax of the assessee for the year 1973-74. The assessee claimed deduction in respect of an amount of Rs. 6,573 paid as wealth-tax in respect of the property from which agricultural income was derived. The claim for deduction of the amount was disallowed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer whose order was confirmed on appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The relevant portion of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order reads as follows :' 1. Wealth-tax.--The appellant would claim deducti...
District Collector and 2 ors. Vs. Makkottathil Kunhi Ayisia Umma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-20-1977
Reported in: [1978]41STC455(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. The appeal is by the sales tax department of the State (the Collector, the Tahsildar and the Sales Tax Officer), against the decision of a learned Judge who allowed O.P. No. 127 of 1973, setting aside exhibit P2 attachment proceedings and exhibit P5 order rejecting the writ petitioner's claim that the attached properties were hers and quashing the said two orders.2. One V.C. Mahammad Haji, the husband of the writ petitioner, died on 17th October, 1963. On 30th April, 1962, he had submitted the return of his turnover under the Sales Tax Act, in respect of his business. As the return itself disclosed that sales tax was due from him, a demand notice was issued on 24th June, 1963, calling upon Mahammad Haji to pay a sum of above Rs. 6,000 by way of sales tax. Mahammad Haji paid up a sum of about Rs. 2,200 under several chalans. These facts are disclosed in paragraph 2 of the counter-affidavit. It was thereafter that he died on 17th October, 1963. On 10th May, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »