Kerala Court July 1980 Judgments
Rev. Fr. Antony Nirappal and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-29-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ker199
ORDER1. These two petitions are for stay of operation of the judgments in the above Original Petitions and consequent penal actions by the respondents under Chapter V of the Kerala Education Rules against the schools involved in the Original Petitions for a period of three months. These applications are filed under Rule 150 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala. 2. The writ petitions were filed for a declaration that Ext. P-1 notification amending Rule 6 of Chapter V of the Kerala Education Rules, compelling the applicants to agree to appoint in the schools protected teachers retrenched from other Aided schools, to entitle them to get sanction to open new schools or to upgrade existing schools is violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution, and for other reliefs. By a common judgment dated 11-7-1980, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Poti J., and one of us declined to exercise its jurisdiction in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismissed the Origin...
Tag this Judgment!Parameswaran and ors. Vs. Kumara Pillai Raghavan Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Ker29
T. Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. I do not think that I should order notice in this appeal. According to me, the questions of law the appellants have raised are concluded by definite decisions on the matter. Though there is a view to the contrary taken obiter by a decision of Beaumont, C. J., in the Full Bench case in the Bombay High Court (Mukund Bapu v. Tanu Sakhu, AIR 1933 Bom 457 (FB)), the majority of the decisions in the matter are agreed on the principles.2. In execution of a decree for immovable property, the decree-holder-respondent filed an execution petition in the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. Pursuant to the order of delivery made in those proceedings, the Amin came to the plaint schedule properly for effecting delivery on 21-12-1976. The appellants and three others who were not parties to the decree obstructed to their dispossession. The Amin reported the matter to the court.3. Thereafter, the respondent-decree-holder filed E. A. No. 15 of 1977 praying for removal of obstructio...
Tag this Judgment!Ummachi Kannummal Mohammed Pathummal and ors. Vs. Subramonia Pillai an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ker216
Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The decree-holders are the appellants. Their application filed as E. P. No. 224 of 1973, dated 19-7-1973 to proceed with the execution taken by them earlier as K P. No. 73 of 1960 has been dismissed by the lower Court as barred by limitation. To understand the dispute between the parties it is necessary to state the various steps that had been taken in execution of this case. The trial Court passed a money decree on 12-2-1955. The appellate decree is dated 2-9-1957. On 1-6-1960 the decree-holder filed an execution petition which contained three prayers: -- (1) Warrant was prayed for against the second defendant (2) and (3). The properties of defendants 1 and 2 were required to be attached and sold for the realisation of the decree amount. On 1-12-1960 the decree-holder filed an attachment schedule mentioning the properties of the second defendant to be attached. The Court passed an order on 12-12-1960 to attach. The attachment was effected on 20-12-1960. When the ...
Tag this Judgment!Chalil Varkey Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ker194
Balakrishna Eradi, C.J.1. This matter has crane up before us for determination of the question regarding the maintainability of this appeal under Section 8-A of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act. 1971 (hereinafter called the Act).2. The appellant had filed O. A. No 77 of 1978 before the Forest Tribunal seeking a declaration that an extent of 2 acres of land scheduled to the application was not a private forest and had not therefore become vested in the Government under the provisions of the aforementioned Act. That application was finally disposed of by the Tribunal on 18th July, 1979 allowing the application and declaring that the property described therein had not become vested in the Government under the Act. Subsequently, on 4th Dec., 1979 the appellant herein filed a petition before the Tribunal purportedly under Section 152, C. P. C. praying for an amendment of the aforesaid final order passed by the Tribunal by effecting a correction in regard to the name o...
Tag this Judgment!Ratanlall Murarka and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer, a Ward and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-1980
Reported in: [1981]130ITR797(Ker)
Balagangadharan Nair, J.1. The issues raised by this original petition turns on the effect of Section 179, I.T. Act, 1961--for brevity ' the Act'. The relevant facts necessary for its disposal are the following : There was a public company by name the Shankar Paint and Oil Mills Ltd.--' the company ' for short--which was incorporated in 1945. This company was converted into a private company in 1959, and then reconverted into a public company, ten years later in 1969, During the assessment years 1959-60 to 1963-64, of which the case is concerned only with 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1963-64, the company's directors were the petitioner and two others. (The latter two resigned their offices in 1969). The petitioner died during the pendency of the original petition and is now represented by his legal representatives, additional petitioners Nos. 2 to 8. We will, however, confine our reference to the petitioner, who alone counts in these proceedings. The company was assessed to income-tax, surchar...
Tag this Judgment!Jayasree Chit Funds and Services (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-1980
Reported in: [1981]127ITR740(Ker)
Balakrishna Eradi, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal') has referred to this court the following two questions of law under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, for short 'the Act', pursuant to the direction issued by this court in O.P. No. 2656 of 1975 :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in their finding that under the specific written power given by the appellant to the chartered accountant representative the latter was legally competent to make an agreement with the Income-tax Officer so as to bind the appellant ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in their finding that the addition of Rs. 15,000 made to the appellant's income is correct and legal '2. The assessee is a private company carrying on business in chitties. In the return filed by it for the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee had claimed a deduction in respect o...
Tag this Judgment!Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. M.M. Mohammed Abdul Khader
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-1980
Reported in: 1980(6)ELT778(Ker)
ORDERV. Balakrishna Eradi, C.J.1. The short question that arises in this case is whether mill-made handkerchiefs are cotton fabrics falling within the scope of entry No. 19 of the First Schedule in the Central Excises and Salt Act sale of which be exempt from the levy of sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act by virtue of the exemption conferred by item 7 of the Third Schedule to the said Act. The Third Schedule of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act enumerates the categories of goods exempted from tax under Section 9. Item 7 thereof reads :'Cotton fabrics, woollen fabrics and rayon or artificial silk fabrics as defined in items No. 19, 21 and 22 respectively of the First Schedule to theCentral Excises and Salt Act, 1944.' Item 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 reads.Cotton fabrics-'Cotton fabrics' means all varieties of fabrics manufactured either wholly or partly from cotton and includes dhoties, sarees, chadders, bed- sheets, bed-spreads, coun...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) Vs. M.M. Mohammed Abdul Khader
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-1980
Reported in: [1980]46STC512(Ker)
V. Balakrishna Eradi, C.J.1. The short question that arises in this case is whether mill-made handkerchiefs are cotton fabrics falling within the scope of entry No. 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act sale of which would be exempt from the levy of sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act by virtue of the exemption conferred by item 7 of the Third Schedule to the said Act. The Third Schedule of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act enumerates the categories of goods exempted from tax under Section 9. Item 7 thereof reads :Cotton fabrics, woollen fabrics and rayon or artificial silk fabrics as defined in items Nos. 19, 21 and 22 respectively of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.Item 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, reads:Cotton fabrics-'Cotton fabrics' means all varieties of fabrics manufactured either wholly or partly from cotton and includes dhoties, sarees, chadders, bed-sheets, bedspreads, count...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. U.A. Sumathy and anr. Vs. Dig Vijay Chit Fund (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-01-1980
Reported in: [1983]53CompCas493(Ker)
M.P. Menon, J. 1. This is a petition filed by the two members of the Dig Vijay Chit Fund (P.) Ltd. under Section 237 of the Companies Act, 1956, for a declaration that the affairs of the company require investigation by an inspector appointed by the Central Govt.2. The main business of the company is in kuries and in money-lending. The first petitioner, along with six other shareholders, had earlier filed a petition for winding up it, but that was dismissed on the ground that they had other remedies, and that the prayer for winding-up was unreasonable in the circumstances disclosed. The present is a resort to one of the other remedies available.3. The allegations in the petition are broadly the following : The chief agent and the directors of the company are utilising their position to oppress the other shareholders. The chief agent and his relatives hold 72 shares and the directors control another 122. In April, 1972, the company fraudulently sold 64 shares, belonging to seven members...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›