Kerala Court August 1979 Judgments
Mammoo Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-30-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Ker18; 1980CriLJ75
Subramonian Poti, J. 1. Is the District Magistrate exercising powers under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 an 'inferior Criminal Court' and is the order of such District Magistrate re-visable by the Sessions Judge under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? This is the issue which calls for determination in these petitions. A learned single Judge before whom the matter came up referred the matter to the Division Bench in view of the importance of the question and on a reference by the Division Bench the matter is now before the Full Bench. 2. The petitioners in these petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seek to set aside the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Tellicherry in two Criminal Revision Petitions and seek directions from this Court to the Sessions Judge to entertain the petitions on his file and to dispose them on merits. 3. There was a proposal by the Kerala State Electricity Board to construct and lay a 110 K. V. doubl...
Tag this Judgment!E. Keshava Bhat Vs. K.S. Subraya Bhat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-29-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Ker40
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. These two cases were heard together as they raised certain questions in regard to the scope of Section 125 (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The questions raised which have occasioned the reference will be dealt with in the course of our discussion.A. S. A. No. 1 of 1977:The appeal is by the defendant in O. & No. 16 of 1972, Munsiff's Court, Kasaragod, a suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the appellant from trespassing on the plaintiff-respondent's property and from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. The plaint proceeded on the basis that the appellant was the plaintiff's agent and had no independent possession. Ext. A-l in the suit evidenced the contract claimed to be one of agency. The appellant's defence was that he was a tenant. The suit was filed on 19-1-1972, i.e. after the amendment of the Kerala Land Reforms Act I of 1964 by Act 35 of 1969. The appellant applied for purchase of the landlord's rights under Section 72-B of the Act on ...
Tag this Judgment!Kathirath Velu Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-27-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Ker25
Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. This case has been referred to a larger Full Bench as the correctness of the Full Bench decision in Vengalath Madathil Taxazhi Karnavan v. T. Kunhikrishnan (1977 Ker LT 180) has come up for consideration in this case. The simple facts are these: In 1952 the karnavan of the second respondent herein, executed a registered lease deed in favour of the petitioner and put him in possession of the property comprised in it. But this lease deed was in contravention of the provisions of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act and was held to be invalid and without bona fides in a suit filed by the second respondent and others for partition of this property and other properties of the tarwad. Following this the second respondent to whom the property was allotted in the final decree for partition applied for and took delivery of the property on 21-7-1966. After the passing of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act (Act 35 of 1969) the petitioner filed an application under Section 13...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Oil and Flour Mills Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-27-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Ker90
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. This appeal is brought by the plaintiff against the decree of the lower appellate court reversing the decree of the trial court which allowed the plaintiff's claim for compensation for the damage caused to the goods entrusted by him with the railway administration.2. Two consignments, each consisting of 330 tins of oil, were entrusted by the plaintiff with the railway out-agency at Alleppey for carriage to Kanpur. The consignments were carried under Exts. D8 and D9 railway receipts which were Issued by the out-agency at Alleppey, Exts. D10 and D11 are the relative forwarding notes. The goods were carried by or on behalf of the railway administration by boat from Alleppey to Cochin where they were unloaded from the boat and loaded into the railway wagon by the railway. The two consignments together constituted one single wagon-load. At Itarsi D. W. 1 who is the unloading foreman opened the wagon. He found that 163 tins were damaged and oil had leaked out of them. ...
Tag this Judgment!i. Gouri and ors. Vs. C.H. Ibrahim and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Ker94
ORDERT. Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. This revision petition arises out of a rejection of an application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs who aw petitioners here instituted a suit for partition of the plaint schedule property which is having an extent of 11 cents. The case is that the plaint schedule property was allotted to their paternal uncle, one Govindan, as per the decree in the partition suit, O. S. 17 of 1953. Govindan died in 1962 and the plaintiffs and their 3 brothers who are the legal heirs of the said Govindan got the property along with another item which is 26 cents in extent, and which also lies nearby. The plaintiffs' brothers assigned the present plaint item to one Mrs. Jane James holding themselves out as the exclusive owners in the property. The conveyance was not of any undivided interest of theirs in the properties obtained under the partition decree. Mrs. Jane James assigned the property to the defendants by document dated 20-2-1970. ...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) Vs. Marikar Motors (Ltd.)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC106(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar C.J.1. These tax revisions are by the State against the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum. For the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, the assessee was assessed to sales tax. Against the assessment orders the assessee who is a dealer in automobiles preferred appeals to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. The appeals were not accompanied by the deposit of the admitted tax due as required by Section 34 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, For that reason, the appeals were dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner. He took the view that the appeals are not entertainable as the tax had not been paid. For the assessee it was argued that the Government had permitted the assessee to pay the tax in instalments and, as such, the appeals are entertainable. This plea was found against by the Deputy Commissioner. Before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessee filed two petitions for condoning the delay in not having deposited the tax in time before ...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) V ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-1979
Reported in: [1979]44STC399(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. The question raised in this revision is whether arrow-root is liable to be assessed as 'vegetables' under entry 10 of the Third Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, or under Section 5A at a more onerous rate. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, differing from the concurrent conclusions of the Sales Tax Officer and the Deputy Commissioner, held that arrow-root is a vegetable and is liable to be assessed as such. The State has preferred this revision against the decision of the Tribunal.2. Entry 10 of the Third Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act reads:10. Vegetables (other than green ginger), whether roots, green fruits or leaves, used for human consumption including yam, potatoes, lime, sabola and tomatoes, except their manufactured products.By reason of the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, goods specified in the Third Schedule shall not be liable to pay tax subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed. Hence t...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. Vs. Parameswara Menon
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-09-1979
Reported in: (1980)IILLJ45Ker
Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. The 2nd respondent in O.P. No. 3157 of 1974 is the appellant in this appeal. That was a writ petition filed by the General Secretary, Dhanalakshmi Bank Employees' Union, Trichur - 1st respondent in this appeal - seeking to quash the order Ext. P4 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut, dismissing C.M.P, No. 41 of 1974 filed by him praying for an interim order restraining the appellant herein - The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. - from taking any farther proceedings pursuant to a circular issued by the Bank on 23rd May, 1974 and a newspaper advertisement published by the Bank on 30-5-1974 announcing its decision to conduct a test for promotion of personnel from the clerical cadre to the category of junior officers and for direct recruitment to the cadre of executive trainees. That petition was filed in I.D. No. 61 of 1974 instituted by the first respondent herein under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act. The complaint raised ...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Balakrishnan Nadar Vs. R. Velayudhan Nadar and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Ker161
ORDERT. Chandrasekhara Menon, J. 1. The only question that arises in this civil revision petition is whether a court has jurisdiction to pass an order on an interlocutory application --in this case two interlocutory applications filed for amendment of the plaint and for the appointment of a receiver -- because of the stay of the filing of the suit under Section 10 C, P. C. The court below held that the court has jurisdiction to pass order on such application. The petitioner who is the first defendant in the suit questions that decision. 2. Section 10 C. P. C. states that no Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties etc. The question here is whether it could be said that in passing on order on an interlocutory application, the court would be proceeding with the trial of the suit. 3. In Senaji Kapurchand v. Pannaji Devichand AIR 1922 Bom 276 a Division Be...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer, A-ward Vs. Travancore Rayons Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-04-1979
Reported in: [1980]122ITR425(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. These two writ appeals are by the ITO, A-Ward, Company Circle, Ernakulam, and the CIT and raise the same question. Broadly stated, the question is whether the power of rectification of the assessment under Rule 8 of the Tax Credit Certificate (Corporation Tax) Scheme, 1966, had been properly exercised or not That rule allows the rectification of the assessment to be made on the ground of a mistake apparent from the record.2. In the cases before us, the assessment years with which we are concerned are 1967-68 and 1968-69. The assessee is a company whose income is derived from the manufacture and sale of yarn, cellulose film and other commercial products. For the years in question it had made an application for the issue of a tax credit certificate under Section 280ZB of the I.T. Act. That section, in so far as it is material, reads :280ZB.--Tax credit certificate to certain manufacturing companies in certain cases.--(1) Where any company engaged in the manufact...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »