Kerala Court June 1978 Judgments
Mariyumma Vs. Mohammed Ibrahim
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Ker231
Subbamonian Poti, J. 1. This revision is against an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kodungalloor in a petition under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. for the award of maintenance moved by a divorced woman and her 3 children. The Magistrate found that the children are eligible to get maintenance at the rate of Rs. 45/-, Rs. 35/-and Rs. 30/- per mensem respectively while the first petitioner the divorcee was not entitled to any maintenance. This was so found because, according to the court below, adultery on the part of the first petitioner had been proved by the evidence in the case and that disentitled her to the award of any maintenance. This revision comes up before the Full Bench because a single Judge of this Court directed reference to the Full Bench in view of the important questions arising for decision in the case.2. The revision is by all the petitioners in the court below. The first petitioner claims that she too must be found entitled to maintenance u...
Tag this Judgment!Gwalior Rayons Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd., Mavoor and anr. Vs. Governme ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-26-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Ker56
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. TheGwalior Rayons Silk ., Mavoor -- a Private Limited Company -- and one of its shareholders, are the two petitioners in this writ petition. They challenge the recent Gwalior Rayons (Rayon Pulp Division) Taking over of Management Ordinance, 1978 (Ordinance no. 14 of 1978) promulgated by the Governor. The Company is registered under the Companies Act with its Registered Office at Nagda in Madhya Pradesh. Besides its factories at Nagda and Gwalior in Madhya Pradesh, the Company has two factories in Kerala State at Mavoor, near Calicut, and also its factories in Harihar (Karnataka) and Bhiwani (Haryana). The factories at Mavoor are engaged in the manufacture of rayon grade pulp from Bamboo and various other hard and soft woods, and staple fibre from the dissolving pulp. Apart from these two divisions, there is a paper division engaged in the manufacture of various types of paper. The Rayon Pulp Division went into production in 1963. The impugned Ordinance in effec...
Tag this Judgment!Fr. Augustine Kandathil Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-26-1978
Reported in: [1978]48CompCas742(Ker)
Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. This application is filed for relief under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act. The applicant was a director in Chundak-kal Plantations (Private) Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act. He became a director in 1971. For .failure to file the annual return for the year 1974, the Registrar of Companies filed a complaint against him and four others as C.C. No. 249 of 1975 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krnakulam. He pleaded guilty and the court pronounced judgment in the case on June 29, 1976, convicting and sentencing him to pay a fine and also directing him to file with the Registrar the annual return within a period of two months thereof. Since he failed to file the return, the Registrar by his letter dated October 6, 1976, marked exhibit A, reminded him of the court's order to file the return within two months and intimated him that the Registrar will be constrained to invoke the penal provisions under Section 614A(2) of the Act, On receiving th...
Tag this Judgment!Antiquarts Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR172(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. These two references in respect of the assessment year 1969-70 are at the instance of the assessee. I.T.R. No. 7 of 1976 is against the order cancelling the registration under Section 186(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and I.T.R. No 8 of 1976 is against the order refusing to reopen the best of judgment assessment. 2. In I.T.R. No. 7 of 1976, the question of law referred at the instance of the assessee is :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the cancellation of registration of the assessee-firm under Section 186(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1969-70 is justified in law ?' 3. In I.T.R. No. 8 of 1976 the question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal sustaining the order passed under Section 146 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1969-70 is justified and valid in law ?'4. The facts and the circumstances leading to the assessment and cancellation of the registration ...
Tag this Judgment!Josekutty Lukose Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1978
Reported in: [1978]42STC238(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. This tax revision is preferred by the assessee against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum. The assessment year is 1968-69. The order complained of was one under Section 19(2) of the Sales Tax Act, reopening the assessment and imposing a penalty on the assessee. On 6th June, 1970 and 8th July, 1970, the intelligence wing of the sales tax department inspected the place of business of the assessee and recovered some account books and vouchers. On the basis of these, it was calculated that a turnover of Rs. 48,859.70 had been suppressed in the books of account of the assessee. Proceedings were initiated against the assessee who agreed to compound the offence depart-mentally on payment of Rs. 500 as compounding fee. It was thereafter that the Sales Tax Officer initiated proceedings under Section 19 of the General Sales Tax Act and assessed the escaped turnover under Section 19(1). A notice was further issued to the assessee proposing to i...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Y.N.S. Hobbs
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR20(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, J. 1. This reference was once heard and disposed of by our judgment dated 11th November, 1977. The question of law referred was answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The asses-see applied by C.M.P. No. 2468 of 1978 for rehearing on the ground that he had not been served with notice of the reference at the time, when thecase was heard on the earlier occasion. We allowed the application and directed that the matter be reheard. The reference has accordingly come on before us for re-hearing. 2. The question of law sent up by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, for our determination is: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that Rs. 23,689 which represents the difference between 4,585 and 4,352 (converted into rupees) which was considered as income by the U.K. income-tax authorities for the U.K. assessment year 1964-65, was not the income of the assessee under the I...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. A.P. Abdul Khader
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ295
P. Subramonian Poti, J.1. The respondent was running a hotel and tea shop at Vythiri, On 1-7-1977 at about 4 P. M. the Food Inspector Kalpetta circle inspected the respondent's hotel and demanded 675 Ml of boiled milk from the respondent for the purpose of sampling. This was taken out from 10 litres of boiled milk stored in a brass vessel for the purpose of preparing tea. The sample so taken was sent for analysis and on the certificate of the Public Analyst that the sample was adulterated with 47 per cent of added water the complaint was laid before the Magistrate. According to the accused the milk purchased from him was kept for the purpose of preparing tea and therefore no sample ought to have been taken from it. The learned Magistrate found that the sample was kept in the tea shop for the purpose of manufacturing tea and not for sale as such milk, that it was primary food and as such the sample ought not to have been taken under Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Prevention of Foo...
Tag this Judgment!K.T. Thomas, Etc., Etc. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-1978
Reported in: (1979)IILLJ290Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. These writ petitions challenge the vires of Section 1(5) of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951, and the notification issued thereunder. The Plantations Labour Act is an Act passed by Parliament to provide for the welfare of labour, and to regulate the conditions of work, in plantations. Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 1 are as follows:1. Short title, extent, commencement and application.-(4) It applies to the following plantations, that is to say,-(a) to any land used or intended to be used for growing tea, coffee, rubber or cinchona which admeasures 10.117 hectares or more and in which thirty or more persons are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months:(b) to any land used or intended to be used for growing any other plant, which admeasures 10.117 hectares or more and in which thirty or more persons are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months, if, after obtaining the approval of the Central Governme...
Tag this Judgment!G.S. Rajakumar Vs. Dr. Subramoniam Poti and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-15-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ738
ORDERP. Subramonian Poti, J.1. The petition is one under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to call for records in C. C. 41 of 1978 of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kottarakkara and to quash the above said proceedings. The case of the petitioner here who is the accused in the said Criminal case is that on the averments made in the complaint no offence against the petitioner has been made out and the complaint has been filed only with a view to harass the petitioner and not to seek any genuine relief. The petitioner in this case is a graduate in medicine, registered as a Medical Practitioner. So is the case with the first respondent in this petition who is the complainant before the Magistrate. A private hospital in the name 'Devi Mission Hospital' was established at Nilamel and that according to the petitioner was by himself and with his own investment. But the case of the first respondent in his complaint is that it was established with funds contributed by him too ...
Tag this Judgment!E.P. Eapen Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC452(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. These writ petitions attack the vires of Rule 6 framed under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. The rule, as it stood at the relevant time, namely, the period with which these two writ petitions are concerned, was as follows :6. The sale of any of the goods mentioned in items (i) to (ix) in Section 3, Sub-section (2), shall be subject to the tax specified in that sub-section at the stage of sale by the person who in the State is the first dealer in such goods, who is not exempt from taxation under Section 3(3):Provided that in respect of the tobacco in stock with a dealer at the close of business on the 11th day of December, 1950, the dealer shall, for the purpose of the levy of sales tax under item (ix) in Sub-section (2) of Section 3 and notwithstanding anything to the contrary be deemed to be a first dealer if he has an assessable turnover.The validity of the rule has been attacked by counsel for the petitioner on two broad grounds : first, that it is violativ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »