Kerala Court July 1978 Judgments
G. Ravindran Nair Vs. Chairman, CochIn Port Trust
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-1978
Reported in: (1979)ILLJ94Ker
V. Khalid, J.1. The petitioner who was an employee of the Cochin Port Trust since 1967 was kept under suspension from 28-2-1975 by the second respondent, the disciplinary authority who is the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, Central Accounts Department, Cochin Port Trust as per Ext. P1. The petitioner is a shroff in the Administration Section. Sri C.K. Ramankutty Menon, the 3rd respondent is a Senior Deputy Chief Accountant No. 1, Central Accounts Department, Cochin Port Trust. On 3-3-1975, the second respondent gave a first information statement Ext. P2 against the petitioner before the police.2. On 28-7-1975 disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under eight articles of charges for alleged misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 28,676.79. The criminal case and the disciplinary proceedings proceeded simultaneously. The third respondent was appointed as enquiry officer in the disciplinary proceedings. On 9-6-1977 the second respondent issued show-cause no...
Tag this Judgment!Malayalam Plantations Ltd. and 3 ors. Vs. Additional Sales Tax Officer ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-1978
Reported in: [1980]45STC79(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. These writ petitions attack the constitutional validity of the Madras General Sales Tax (Revival and Special Provisions) Act, 1971 (Kerala Act 14 of 1971), and the proceedings initiated in pursuance of its provisions. The position may be understood with respect to the facts in 0. P. Nos. 2391 and 3243 of 1973, which were the two writ petitions argued, the others being left to abide the fate of these writ petitions.2. In O.P. No. 2391 of 1973, the petitioner, the Malayalam Plantations Limited, Cochin, is a company incorporated in England having its registered office in London. M/s. Harrisons and Crosfield Limited are the secretaries and agents of the company. It owns tea and rubber estates. By exhibit P1 order dated 23rd March, 1960, it was assessed to sales tax under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, in respect of the assessment year 1957-58. By the decision of this Court in Malayalam Plantations Limited v. State of Kerala [1963] 14 S.T.C. 969, it was held ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Madhavan Thampi and ors. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-1978
Reported in: (1978)IILLJ467Ker
V. Khalid, J.1. These writ petitions involve an identical question of law and are, therefore, being disposed of by a common judgment. O.P.No. 4280 of 1975 is by Sri Madhavan Thampy. O.P. No. 4281 of 1975 is by his wife, Saraswathi Amma. O.P. Nos. 4061 and 4315 of 1975 are by his daughters, by name Suriakumari and Kalamalini respectively. O.P. No. 4284 of 1975 is by his son, P. Komala Kumar. I shall refer to the facts of the case in O.P. No. 4061 of 1975 and the counter-affidavit filed therein since the pleadings in that petition cover other cases also.2. Sri Madhavan Thampy was the proprietor of ' P. Madhavan Thampy, Vessel Merchant, Chalai, Trivandrum'. This shop was started in or about 1944 at Chalai as a vessels shop. Subsequently he started a factory for the manufacture of metal utensils under the name and style of Komilavilas Metal Industries. Originally, vessels were sold only from the shop at Chalai. They began to be sold from the factory as well later. In subsequent years he st...
Tag this Judgment!Kavitha Movie House Vs. P.M. Mary and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-1978
Reported in: (1979)ILLJ10Ker
K. Bhaskaran, J.1. The legal battle in this writ petition is between two unequals, the management of the Kavitha Movie House (the petitioner) on the one hand, and a sweeper (woman) employee (the first respondent) on the other; and they have remained locked up in dispute for wellnigh nine years by now. Accepting the finding in Ext. P7 domestic enquiry report, the petitioner passed Ext. P10 order dismissing the first respondent from service. On appeal by the first respondent under Section 18(2) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the second respondent, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Ernakulam, (the Appellate Authority) in and by Ext. P15 order held that the misconduct alleged against the first respondent was not proved either in a proper domestic enquiry or before him, and in the result, ordered the petitioner to pay the respondent a sum of Rs. 2,916 as backwages, and a sum of Rs. 324 as compensation in lieu of reinsta...
Tag this Judgment!State Insurance Department, State Insurance Officer, Trivandrum Vs. So ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Ker15
Narendran, J. 1. A question of some Importance arises for consideration in this appeal filed by the State Insurance Department, the 2nd defendant in O. S. No. 156 of 1971, a suit for damages on the file of the Sub Court, Kottayam. The question is whether a person who accompanies the goods of his employer carried in a goods vehicle will be a person carried by the goods vehicle 'by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment' and whether the liability in respect of his death or bodily injury caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place will be covered by the insurance of the vehicle against third party risks.2. On 18-12-1970 the Peroor Co-operative Society engaged the lorry, K.L.Q. 2516, owned and operated by the 1st defendant A. V. George, for transporting provisions from the Food Corporation Sub Depot, Athirampuzha to Peroor. Mani the husband of the 1st plaintiff and the father of plaintiffs 2 to 6, an employee of the society, was put in charge of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR626(Ker)
Gopalan Nambyar, C.J.1. The assessee is a limited company, the shares of which are owned by the Government of Kerala. For expansion of the capacity of the company, financial assistance was promised by the Government of India and by the Government of Kerala. In the budget for the year 1969-70, the Government of Kerala provided for Rs. 10.5 lakhs under '96 Capital Outlay' and another Rs. 10.5 lakhs under 'Q. Loans and Advances'.2. In this reference, we are concerned with the Rs. 10.5 lakhs given under '96 Capital Outlay'. On February 5, 1970, the company approached the Government for disbursement of the money. By G.O. dated March 26, 1970, the Government sanctioned the amount. The condition in the G.O. was that the company should pay interest at 7 1/2% per annum to the Government from the date of drawal of the amount towards share capital till the date of allotment of shares to the Government. Similarly, in the budget for the year 1970-71, provision was made for financial assistance for ...
Tag this Judgment!E. Balanandan and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ187
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. The constitutionality of the Public Property (Prevention of Destruction and Loss) Ordinance, 1978 (Ordinance No. 15 of 1978) promulagat-ed by the Governor of Kerala is assailed in this writ petition by the two petitioners, the first of them, the president of the Kerala State Electricity Board Workers Association, a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, and the second, an employee of the Board. The Union had called a general strike to enforce its demands made to the Board. This was followed by a strike of the employees. It is the petitioners' case that the Ordinance is part of the repressive measures taken against the strike and the strikers.2. The Ordinance is short, and consists only of two Sections. For the sake of convenience, the Sections may be reproduced:1. Short title and commencement,(1) This Ordinance may be called the Public Property (Prevention of Destruction and Loss) Ordinance, 1978.(2) It shall come into force at once.2. Punishme...
Tag this Judgment!Sudarsan Trading Company Vs. V. Sankar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-11-1978
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas296(Ker)
T. Chandrasekhara Menon, J. 1. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 56/72 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Payyannur. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,215 alleged to be the balance principal and interest due on a promissory note.2. Appellant-plaintiff is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. The 1st respondent joined a kuri conducted by the plaintiff-company at Payyannur branch. On the 6th instalment, the 1st defendant bid the kuri and received the price amount on August 13, 1969. At that time as security for future subscriptions to the kuri, the defendants executed a surety and security proposal Form on June 30, 1969 as per Ext. A-1. On August 13, 1969 a pronote, Ex. A-2, for Rs. 4,400 was executed as security for the future instalments due from the 1st defendant to the company. The 2nd defendant stood as surety. According to the plaintiff after the execution of the promissory note the 1st defendant had made payments of Rs. 750 which is inclusive of th...
Tag this Judgment!Ouseph Vs. Lona
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Ker14
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The only question which arises in this appeal is as regards the date on which the period of limitation begins to run for the execution of a decree. The decree was passed on 28-6-1961. It was subsequently amended on 24-7-1962. The execution petition was filed on 23-2-1974. If the period began to run from the date of the original decree, the execution petition was filed out of time, that is, more than 12 years. On the other hand, if the crucial date is the date of the amendment of the decree, that is, 24-7-1962, the execution proceedings was begun within time.2. The relevant provision of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the present Act') is Article 136 which reads as follows :Descriptionof application.Periodof limitation.Time from which period begins to run.'136.For the execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) or order of any civil Court.TwelveYears.Whenthe decree or order becomes enforceable........'In the ...
Tag this Judgment!Velappan and ors. Vs. Sahasranamam and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-1978
Reported in: AIR1980Ker12
ORDERK.K. Narendran, J. 1. The question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether, from an order dismissing an Application to set aside a sale for default, the default being not taking fresh steps to some of the respondents, an appeal will lie. The petitioners in F. A. No. 840 of 1975 filed in E. P. No. 459 of 1974 of the Munsif's Court, Palghat are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition. The application to set aside the sale filed by the petitioners under Order XXI Rule 90 of the C. P. C. was dismissed by the execution court for not taking fresh steps to some of the respondents. From the above order of dismissal for default the petitioners filed an appeal before the District Court, Palghat which was ultimately disposed of by the Sub Court, Palghat. The learned Sub Judge dismissed the appeal holding that no appeal will lie against an order of dismissal for default of an application to set aside a sale under Order XXI Rule 90. It is the above judg...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »