Kerala Court December 1981 Judgments
R.K.V. Motors and Timbers (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Regional Transport Off ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker156
Sukumaran, J. 1. These three writ petitions were referred to a Full Bench for hearing and disposal, in view of the importance of the questions concerning certain provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 (Act 19 of 1976), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The writ petition O. P. No, 2080 of 1980 was also heard along with these petitions, but it was felt that that case can be dealt with and disposed of separately, in view of the special factual features in that case. Accordingly, O- P, No. 2080 of 1980 is being disposed of by a separate Judgment.2. Of the three petitions, two--O. P. Nos. 4987 and 4990 -- are by the same petitioner, Messrs. R.K.V. Motors and Timbers (P.) Ltd. O. P. No. 4290 has been filed by A. Chokkanathan. Before referring to the questions of law and dealing with them, the brief factual details at these cases may be adverted to.3. In O. P, No. 4987 of 1976 the petitioner had been operating a 1949 model vehicle, which due to its obviously obsolescen...
Tag this Judgment!Haridasan Pillai Vs. Appellate Authority and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-1981
Reported in: (1982)ILLJ266Ker
Narendran, J.1. A money-bee has come to Court challenging the decision of the Appellate Authority under Section 18(3) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960, for short the Shops Act, dismissing his appeal against the termination of his services as money-bee of the 3rd respondent-Bank, as not maintainable. The Ist respondent-Appellate Authority held that no appeal under Section 18(2) of the Shops Act will lie as the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the petitioner since he falls under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the provisions of the Shops Act will not apply to persons doing service in an establishment simply because their work mainly involves travelling and they are persons employed as canvassers and caretakers and their names do not appear in the muster rolls and hence no appeal by them is maintainable under Section 18 if their services are dispensed with.2. The petitioner is a money-bee appointed ...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Parvathy Ammal Vs. V. Sankara Menon
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker190
ORDERK.K. Narendran, J.1. The short point that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision is whether the tenant of a residential building can take shelter under the second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965, for short the Act, if, residing in the building, he conducts a trade or business there and is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived therefrom. The petitioner is the owner of a building let out to the respondent tenant. She filed a petition for eviction before the Rent Control Court, Palghat against the respondent under Section 11 (3) of the Act. The respondent's case in the counter filed before the Rent Control Court was that the building was let out to him for his residence and for conducting a cycle shop. The respondent also contended that the petitioner did not bona fide require the building for her use and at any rate he is protected by the second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act. The Rent Contro...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavan Nambiar and ors. Vs. Govindan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ683
ORDERKu. P. Janaki Amma, J.1. On 7-2-1981 the first respondent filed a complaint before the judicial Magistrate of First Class, Theli-paramba alleging that the five petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and committed criminal trespass, theft and other offences. The Magistrate, on receipt of the complaint, passed the following order: 'Forwarded to the S. I. of Police, Irikur. for investigation and for report Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Call on 23-2-1981'. Crime No. 8 of 1981 was registered on the basis of the complaint. The police, after investigation, referred the case as false. A report to that effect was presented before court on 13-4-1981. The Magistrate, on receipt of the report, posted the case for taking the sworn statement of the complainant. The sworn statement was recorded on 7-5-1981 and the case was being proceeded with as per the procedure in Chap. XV of Criminal P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The present petition filed Under Section 482 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Kandumuthan Vs. Krishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker313
Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. This case has been posted before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge who felt that the decision in Achuthan Nair v. Raman (1979 Ker LT 119) may require re-consideration. The simple facts are the following:The plaintiff on the basis of a gift deed Ext. A-1 claiming title to the plaint property filed a suit for recovery of the same with the building standing thereon on the allegation that the first defendant is in occupation of the building on a rental basis and that he has trespassed into the property and is taking the income. The first defendant denied the title of the plaintiff based on the gift deed. According to the defendant the donor had no right or title over the property. The property belonged to one Velayudhan and he gave the property to the defendant for the purpose of residence after putting up a house thereon. The allegation that the house has been let out to her was denied. There was also an alternative contention that in any event the def...
Tag this Judgment!P.T. Kamalakshi Amma Vs. M. Narayanan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker217
ORDER1. By an order passed on 1-2-1972 in proceedings under Section 22 read with Section 15 of Act I of 1964, the landlord was allowed to resume 50 cents of land from the tenant. The latter appealed, but did not succeed. When execution was taken out in E. P. No. 692/74, however, the tenant objected on the ground that Value of improvements was not deposited in time and that the resumption order had consequently become inoperative. The executing court over-ruled this objection, and hence the present revision by the tenant.2. The operative portion of the resumption order was in these terms:--'..... That the petitioners do pay a sum of Rs. 598.75 being the value of improvements effected by the respondent, on resumption..... And the petitioner will be entitled to apply for actual delivery of the property reserved on deposit of the value of improvements.'3. Since the petitioner's contention is mainly based on Sub-sections (2), (3) and (8) of Section 22 of the Act I shall extract them :--'(2)...
Tag this Judgment!Calicut Refrigeration Co. Vs. Collector of Customs and Central Excise ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-1981
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT106(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The question is whether Entry 29A of Schedule I to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, is attracted in respect of an Ice Cream Combination Cooler sold by the petitioner. By Ext. P3, the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (the 1st respondent) found that Entry 29A was attracted and the petitioner was therefore, liable for the duty payable as per that Entry. This order was confirmed in appeal by the 2nd respondent, the Central Board of Excise and Customs, by Ext. P5, and later in revision by the 3rd respondent, Secretary to the Government of India, by Ext. P7. These orders are challenged in the present proceedings.2. Entry 29 A reads as follows:_______________________________________________________________________________Item No. Tariff Description Rate of duty________________________________________________________________________________29 A. Refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances and machinery, all sorts, and parts thereof- (1) Refrigerators and ...
Tag this Judgment!Food Inspector Vs. Joy and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ676
Ku. P. Janaki Amma, J.1. The Food Inspector, Changanacherry Municipality is the appellant. Tho appeal is against the acquittal of the accused in respect of offences punishable Under Sections 7(1) and (4) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for short the Act, read with Rule 44-A (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.2. On 29-9-1977, PW 1, Food Inspector, visited the shop of the first accused and purchased 750 grams of peasdhall for the purpose of analysis, on paying the price thereof. The public analyst reported that the sample was adulterated and that it consisted of a mixture of lac-dhall, otherwise known as kesari dhall, to the extent of about 5 per cent and peasdhal to the extent of about 95 per cent,3. The complainant examined himself as PW-1 and the salesman of the shop, who is stated to have been present a the time of sampling, as PW-2. PW-2 turned hostile. The trial Court found from the mahazar evidencing the taking of the sample that of the...
Tag this Judgment!Jupiter Cashew Company Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-1981
Reported in: (1982)IILLJ373Ker
K.K. Naredran, J. 1. This appeal filed by the petitioner in O.P. No. 2339 80-J is directed against the judgment therein refusing to quash Ext. P3, an order of reference made by the Government of Kerala, the first respondent herein, under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act, for brevity. The third respondent herein while he was working in the Quilon Office of the petitioner was transferred to Murikkumpadom on 6 2-1978 where the petitioner has a branch office. According to the third respondent his transfer to Marikkumpadom was against he terms of his employment and the tansfer under the circumstances raised an industrial dispute which requires to be adjudicated by the Tribunal.2. The appellant contended that the third respondent was employed in a managerial capacity; that he was not a workman coming within the definition of that term under the Act; that this matter was, on an earlier occasion, fully considered by the Government and the reference...
Tag this Judgment!O.K. Sreedharan Nambiar Vs. Govt. of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker191
ORDERV. Khalid, J.1. The petitioner owns a property situated in R. S. No. 112/6 of Keezhalloor Village. There are 9 shop rooms in this property which are numbered as 129 to 129H of Keezhalloor Panchayat. There was a proposal to acquire part of this survey number for the purpose of constructing an approach road to the acqueduct at Keezhallur. The property proposed to be acquired was a small portion of the survey number on which was situated room No. 129-H. The petitioner came to know of this proposal and therefore filed a representation to the Executive Engineer, Pazhassi Project, on 13-9-1977, with copy to the Superintending Engineer, informing them that if only a portion of the building constructed in the survey number was acquired, that would have the effect of putting the remaining portion useless and requesting that the entire rooms be acquired. It is averred in the petition that this representation was brought to the notice of the Collector and the legality of the acquisition of a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »