Kerala Court October 1978 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.
Vijaya Oil Mills Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-05-1978
Reported in: [1980]45STC463(Ker)
P. Narayana Pillai, J.1.This is an appeal filed by an assessee from an order passed under Section 23(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (15 of 1963), for short, the Kerala Act, imposing a penalty of Rs. 20,386.24 for non-payment of tax in due time. The order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Alleppey. The correctness of it was challenged in revision before the Deputy Commissioner, Quilon. He set aside that order and remitted the proceeding to the Assistant Commissioner. The Board of Revenue took up the matter in revision suo motu. It restored the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The correctness of that is challenged here.2. The assessee is a firm dealing in copra and other declared goods. For the assessment year 1966-67 it paid Rs. 2,42,339.56 up to 20th April, 1967, towards sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act (74 of 1956), for short, the Central Act. For the same assessment year under the Kerala Act assessment was made by the department on 31st December, 1968, an...
Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway and ors. Vs. Pre ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-04-1978
Reported in: (1979)ILLJ253Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. The two writ petitions have been heard along with the writ appeal, as the question involved in them is the same as that raised in the writ appeal. Counsel who appeared for the appellant in the writ appeal and for the writ petitioners in the two writ petitions treated O.P. No. 1389 of 1976 as the main and representative writ petition with respect to which the facts may be detailed. We shall accordingly proceed to state the facts in O.P.No. 1389 of 1976.O. P. No. 1389 of 19762. This writ petition prays for a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P 8 order of the Labour Court, Quilon granting back-wages to the petitioners from the date of their termination to the date of their reinstatement on an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondents had moved a prior writ petition--O.P. No. 945 of 1970 in this Court and this Court had directed reinstatement of the respondents. The decision is reported in 1972-II L.L.J. 568. A copy of the...
Kunchali Rudrani Vs. Baby
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-04-1978
Reported in: (1979)ILLJ306Ker
George Vadakkel, J.1. The appellant is the mother of Anirudhan who on 6-3-1978 died of an accident that arose out of and in the course of his employment. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation apportioned under Section 8(5) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter mentioned as the Act) the compensation-amount of Rs, 6,000 deposited by the employer under Section 10A(2) of the Act, between the appellant, and the respondent, an infant now aged 7 allotting to the former Rs. 2,000 and to the latter, Rs. 4,000. The Commissioner found that the respondent-child is the illegitimate daughter born of Anirudhan to its mother, Mercy, a woman married to another one Joseph Peter who is alive. Mercy's claim that she is the widow, of Anirudhan was not accepted by the Commissioner since she failed to establish that her marriage to Joseph Peter does not subsist. The appellant contends that the Commissioner should have applied Section 112 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and found that the respo...
Malabar Motor Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. for Ex-servicemen Vs ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-03-1978
Reported in: (1979)IILLJ468Ker
K. Bhaskaran, J.1. This writ petition is directed against Ext. P2 award dated 20.10.1974 passed by the second respondent the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut, on a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and the first respondent on the other. The dispute referred to read as follows:Whether civilian employees in the Society are entitled to be confirmed. If not what are all the benefits due to them from the management.By the impugned award the second respondent held that the employees involved were entitled to be confirmed.2. The petitioner is a Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and is engaged in the business of Bus Transport. The Society is governed by the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder, and its own bye-laws which have been registered. It is averred that the Society has been formed mainly for the welfare of the Ex-Servicemen, and the membership of the Society is excl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›