Kerala Court September 1979 Judgments
Jayanti Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs. the Food Corporation of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Ker187
Balakrishna Eradi, Actg. C.J.1. This is a dispute between two statutory Corporations both of which are wholly owned by the Government of India and it is unfortunate that the matter should have been dragged to court and fought out in successive courts with all the attendant expenditure of public funds instead of its being discussed and settled at a high governmental level.2. The appeal arises out of a suit O. S. No. 95 of 1969 instituted in the sub Court of Cochin by the Food Corporation of India against the Jayanthi Shipping Company Ltd. which has subsequently been taken over and amalgamated with the Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. The suit is for recovery of an amount of Rs. 30,590.38 by way of damages for alleged short deiivery of goods which had been shipped at Bangkok for carriage to the Port of Cochin. The lower court upheld the claim except in respect of the amount representing proportionate insurance premium over the portion of the consignment not delivered and also the price...
Tag this Judgment!indo-marine Agencies (Kerala) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and 3 or ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC163(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The petitioner-company was assessed to sales tax under Section 35 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, for the year 1972-73, by exhibit P4 dated 13th March, 1975. A penalty was imposed upon it under exhibit P5 dated 13th August, 1975. A notice of demand was served on it by the third respondent, Deputy Tahsildar, Mattancherry, Cochin, under Section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. These orders are challenged by the petitioner.2. The counsel for the petitioner, Shri Chakkappan Kalliath, submits that exhibit P4 levying sales tax in respect of the sales in question is null and void, as such levy is barred under article 286 of the Constitution. Consequently, exhibit P5 imposing penalty upon the petitioner is also null and void. The counsel further submits that the notice issued under Section 7 by the third respondent, the Deputy Tahsildar, is invalid as he is not a competent officer to initiate proceedings for collection of revenue due and payable to the Collector ...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Koshy Vs. Chancellor, Calicut University and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-19-1979
Reported in: (1980)IILLJ98Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. The appeal is by the Registrar of the Calicut University against the dismissal of his writ petition to quash Ext. P13 order of suspension pending enquiry, passed against him by the Chancellor of the University, the Governor of Kerala; Ext, P14 communication of the gist of the Governor's order by the Vice-Chancellor; Ext. P15 memo serving the order of suspension and relieving the appellant from his duties as Registrar; and Ext. P16 circular of the Vice-Chancellor announcing that in pursuance of the Chancellor's proceedings, the appellant had been relieved. These were the orders and proceedings sought to be quashed. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the Chancellor had authority to pass Ext. P13 order and that the same was not vitiated by want of jurisdiction or the other illegalities alleged against it.2. The affairs of the Calicut University had been attracting public notice and criticism for some time past. In July, 1978, the State...
Tag this Judgment!Sorabji and Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Collector of Customs and Central ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-18-1979
Reported in: 1980(6)ELT57(Ker)
ORDERT. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The petitioner is a steamer agent, reprering its foreign principals, Messrs. V/O Sovfracht 2. 'Captain Hornblover' is a vessel operated by the petitioner's principals. She carried a bulk cargo of oil and discharged at Cochin 4144.478 metric tonnes. The Collector of Customs, the 1st respondent, by Ext. PI order dated 11-7-1969 found that there was a shortage of 101.321 metric tonnes of high speed diesel oil which ought to have been delivered at Cochin and that the petitioner representing its principals Was liable to pay a penalty of Rs. 62,353.29 under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962. This order was confirmed in appeal by the 2nd respondent by Ext. P2 order dated 15-4-1975, and, ject to a reduction of the penalty to Rs. 20,000/-, by the 3rd respondent by Ext. P4 order dated 18-11-1976. These orders are challenged by the petitioner.2. Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Pathrose Mathai, submits that the impugned orders are invalid in so far as the authoritie...
Tag this Judgment!G. Muthuswami Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-17-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ1021
ORDERV. Khalid, J.1. This is an application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is an employee in the Survey Department of the Kerala Government. He is residing in Parassala. This application relates to Crime No. 184 of 1979, registered by the 2nd respondent which has now been transferred to the file of the Crime Branch, to be investigated by him. This, it is alleged, is done on the orders of the Home Department. The apprehension of the petitioner is that an attempt is afoot to take him into custody, manhandle and humiliate him. All this is being done with the help of the 2nd respondent, Inspector of Police.2. I do not think it necessary to refer to the above allegations for a disposal of this petition. It is seen from the petition that crime No. 184 of 1979 is registered under Sections 427 and 447, I.P.C. Both these are bailable offences. Section 438, Cr.P.C. can be invoked only when a person is accused of a non-bailable offence. This pet...
Tag this Judgment!Mary Kurian Vs. T.T. Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-14-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Ker131
Subramonian Poti, J.1. The parties to this appeal are a wife and husband governed by the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The parties are Christiana. They were married on 22-6-1968. The marriage was solemnized at St. Thomas Catholic Church, Payippad in Changanacherry Taluk, Kerala State. According to the wife who is the petitioner in the petition for a decree of nullity of marriage there was no consummation of the marriage by sexual intercourse. The wife is said to have attempted her best to induce her husband to have such intercourse but at all times he had remained unresponsive. This is attributed to impotency of the husband. At the moment the husband and wife are both employed in the Persian Gulf countries. But of course they are not living together though at one time they resided together even there, According to the wife, even while they so resided together the marriage was not consummated.2. The plea that the respondent was impotent at the time of the marriage as also at the time of the...
Tag this Judgment!Kuruvilla Vs. Taluk Land Board and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-12-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Ker102
Subramonian Poti, J.1. This revision has come up before the Division Bench on a reference by our learned brother Justice M. P. Menon. Since the learned Judge felt that the view expressed in the decision of this Court in Vellappally Plantations Private Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1977 Ker LT 265, required further consideration reference was made to the Division Bench.2. The revision was against an order passed by the Taluk Land Board, Talappally on 30-10-1976. The said order was passed in proceedings taken against a firm 'Desamangalam Estate' for surrender of excess land. The firm is represented by its Managing Partner who has filed this appeal on behalf of the firm. The objection to the draft statement (dated 11-10-76) was filed by the Managing Partner on 13-10-1976. It is said that at that time the Managing Partner assumed that proceedings were taken against him not in regard to the firm as such but in regard to his share of the properties of the firm and therefore he assumed that he was...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›