Kerala Court November 1981 Judgments
Poulose and anr. Vs. R.T.A., Trichur and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker142
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J. 1. Though these two writ petitions are seen to have been filed by different persons inasmuch as the notification dated 30-9-1981 inviting applications for the grant of temporary permit On the route Trichur-Peechi issued by the 1st respondent, R. T. A., Trichur (marked as Ext. P-1 under challenge in O. P. No. 5320 of 1981, is under challenge in O. P. No. 5790 of 1981 also, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. In O. P. No. 5790 of 1981 not only the notification dated 30-9-1981 issued by the 1st respondent R. T. A., marked as Ext. P-2 (marked as Ext. P-l in O. P. No. 5320 of 1981), but also Ext. P-3 notification dated 27-10-1981 issued by the 1st respondent inviting applications for the grant of temporary permits on the route Ayyanthole-Peechi and Ext. P-4 order of the 2nd respondent, the Secretary, R. T. A., Trichur, granting a temporary permit to each of respondents 3 and 4 for operating service on the route Peechi-Ayyanthole ...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Sheth Brothers
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-1981
Reported in: [1983]52STC40(Ker)
Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J. 1. In this revision, the State contends that when an exporter of pepper purchases pepper and after the process of garbling, exports such pepper, it is not a purchase in the course of 0such export despite Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act for the reason that the goods exported, according to the State, is not the same as goods purchased by the exporter. Section 5(3) of the Act reads :(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), the last sale or purchase of any goods preceding the sale or purchase occasioning the export of those goods out of the territory of India shall also be deemed to be in the course of such export, if such last sale or purchase took place after, and was for the purpose of complying with, the agreement or order for or in relation to such export.2. Any purchase occasioning the export of goods out of the territory of India shall be deemed to be in the course of such export by reason of Sub-section (3) of Section 5. The pu...
Tag this Judgment!Kurian Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-1981
Reported in: [1984]55CompCas536(Ker); 1982CriLJ780
Janaki Amma, J. 1. The revision petitioner was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam, in C. C. No. 56 of 1978, for offences punishable under Sections 409, 465, 471 and 477A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 409 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months under each of the other counts. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. He filed Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 1978 before the Sessions Judge, Kottayam. The Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction under Section, 409 and Section 477A of the IPC and reduced the sentence under Section 409 of the IPC to six months. The conviction and sentences under Sections 465 and 471 of the IPC were set aside. The revision petition is directed against the conviction and sentences under Sections 409 and 477A of the IPC. 2. The facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner was a permanent employee of the Central Bank of India, Kottayam branch. An extension counter had been...
Tag this Judgment!Taharali Abdu HussaIn Barbhaya Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker204
ORDERP.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the land acquisition proceedings evidenced by Exts. P1 to P4 in so far as it relates to the acquisition of 0.0440 hectare of land in T. S. No. 89/181 of Nellicode Village. Kozhikode Taluk, belonging to him, A notification under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette dated 15-7-1969. A notice under Rule 3 of the Land Acquisition Rules was served on the petitionar on 15-8-1969. Ext P1 is a copy of the no-tice served on him. According to the petitioner, he filed objections to the proposal for acquisition as contained in Ext. P. 1 notice.2. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 however submits that no object-tion to the proposal had been filed by the petitioner. There was an enquiry under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act on the objections received by the Land Acquisition Officer from other persons who were interested in the land ...
Tag this Judgment!ismail Match Works, Feroke and anr. Vs. the Divisional Forest Officer, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker145
ORDERT. Chandrasekhara Menon, J. 1. The petitioners have entered into contracts with the Government through the Divisional Forest Officer, Palghat, agreeing to fell and collect the timber allotted to them for 1980-81 and to purchase them at the rates fixed in the agreement. Regarding the agreement what was said in the agreement was:--'For supplies the value of soft wood will be realised at the rates specified in G.O.Ms. No. 462/80/AD dated 1-12-1980 for the species covered by the G.O. (subject to revision of Government) the revised rate proposed to Government in C.C.F.'s letter No. SP3-53934/78 dt. 21-10-78 and 5-1-79 or revised rate ordered by Govt. during the currency of the quota period, as specified in Appendix I...... 42, The purchaser is liable to pay higher rates for the timber supplied against the quota if so ordered by Govt. consequent to the revision of rates in accordance with the Kerala Forest Produce (Fixation of Selling Price) Act, 1978, revision of quota rates etc, 43. T...
Tag this Judgment!Savithri Amma Seethamma Vs. Velayudhan Bhargavan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker220
ORDERK. Sukumaran, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order Ext. p. 4 dated 9-10-1979 pass-ed by the Tribunal, the Tahsildar, constituted under the Kerala Debt Relief Act, 1977 (Act 17 of 1977), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', and the appellate order therefrom, Ext. P. 5 dated14-7-1980, whereunder the application filed claiming benefits of Section 4 of the Act stood dismissed.2. The facts are short and are as follows:-- The petitioner executed a mortgage for a sum of Rs. 300/- on 16-1-1959 in favour of the 1st respondent. A further loan was raised on the above security for Rs. 300 on 24-5-1965. The redemption of mortgage was sought by filing a suit O. S. No. 360 of 1976 on 20-3-76. The suit was decreed on 26-9-1977, Ext. P. 1 being the judgment and Ext. P. 2 the decree. Under Ext. P. 1 it was found by the civil court that the petitioner was a debtor under the Act on a consideration of issue No. 4, which related to the question whether the plaintiff was entilled to the benefits of...
Tag this Judgment!R.P. Ahammadkutty Haji Vs. Vattakandy Ahammadkutty Haji and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker146
ORDERP.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The dispute in regard to the right of management of a Mosque once settled' between the parties has escalated to this Court on the question of interpretation of the settlement itself. The Poonoor Madathumpoyli Mosque was being managed by a Committee consisting of 10 members. The Committee took a decision on 9-12-1975 to frame and adopt a constitution for the proper management of the Mosque. A constitution was accordingly adopted by the Committee and the same was registered under the Societies Registration Act as the rules and bye-laws for the management of the Mosque. As per a resolution of the Committee dated 23-1-1977 the existing Committee was dissolved and a new Committee of management was to be constituted as per the rules and bye-laws under the constitution adopted by the Committee. It is at this stage that the 3rd defendant filed a suit O. S. No. 45 of 1977 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Perambra for an in-junction restraining the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. George and Brothers
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-1981
Reported in: [1983]140ITR847(Ker)
George Vadakkel, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions to this court under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ; ' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 13,781 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1961-62? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having found that there is concealment of income in the original assessment proceedings, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that there could be no concealment in the reassessment proceedings and that the provision of law applicable is Section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and not Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in casting the burden of proof of concealment o...
Tag this Judgment!K. Krishnankutty Nair Vs. the State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-1981
Reported in: 1983CriLJ78
ORDERV. Khalid, J.1. The accused in C. C. No. 255 of 1977 before the Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Ernakulam, is the petitioner. On 14-11-1977 at about 12-30 p.m. when he was taking cow's milk to the Chottanikkara Milk Cooperative Society, the Food Inspector, the respondent herein purchased from him 675 ml. of milk for the purpose of sampling and analysis. On analysis the milk was found to be adulterated containing not less than 9% of added water. The petitioner was put on trial. He denied the charge. Prosecution examined one witness on its side and marked Exts. P1 to P8. The petitioner examined one witness on his side. After trial, the trial Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the offence with which he was charged and convicted him and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. l000/-. Aggrieved by this judgment, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Session Court, Ernakulam. The I Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, by h...
Tag this Judgment!Kunju Mohammed and anr. Vs. Court of Judicial 1st Class Magistrate and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ475
ORDERKu. P. Janaki Amma, J.1. The petitioners stood sureties for accused 11 and 30 in P. E. No. 9 of 1978 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate. Second Class, Paroor. They executed a bond agreeing to make good an amount of Rs. 1,500/- each in case of default of appearance of the accused in that case. The case was in due course committed for trial to the Court of Session, Ernakulam and was made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Parur. Summons to accused 11 and 30 were returned unserved. The two accused did not appear before the Assistant Sessions Judge. While so, the Court of the Second Class Magistrate, parur, was upgraded into a first class court. The Assistant Sessions Judge directed the Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Parur, to take steps for forfeiture of the surety bond. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, initiated separate proceedings in respect of the two accused and issued notices to the two sureties to show cause why an amount of Rs, 1,500/- should not be realised fr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »