Kerala Court July 1981 Judgments
Bhaskaran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-22-1981
Reported in: (1982)ILLJ43Ker
Khalid, J.1. The petitioner entered service as a Work Superintendent on 8-10-1953. By Ext. P-1 order dated 14-11-1953 he was directed to join for duty before the Supervisor, Thalappilly. On 16-3-1955 by Ext. P2 order he was provisionally appointed as Tracer, Planning Division, Alwaye. On 30-4-1956 he was promoted as Draftsman on a temporary basis and posted to the Special Sub-Division, Veterinary College Construction, Trichur. On 29-8-56 he was appointed as Overseer, Chitoor section by the Executive Engineer as per Ext. P 4. His provisional appointment on the work establishment was regularised by the Public Service Commission as per Ext. P 5, dated 13-6-1957. The 2nd respondent, Chief Engineer thereafter promoted the petitioner as per Ext. P6 order dated 5-11-1960 as acting Junior Engineer and assigned him rank No. 40. The requisite, qualification for a Junior Engineer is seen in G.O. Ms. No. 1390 dated 20-11-1958, which is Ext. P7. In Ext. P8 seniority list, provisionally prepared as ...
Tag this Judgment!Robert Sebatian Vs. the State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1127
Subramonian Poti, Actg. C.J.1. These are two petitions we received from the same convict undergoing sentence of imprisonment in the Central Prison at Cannanore. The second petition followed the earlier one. The complaint in both the petitions is the same. Actually the seccond petition appears to be by way of reminder to this Court of the earlier petition. We have taken on file these petitions, numbered them and treated as petitions for issue of habeas corpus. We ordered notice on these petitions. The learned Advocate General appeared and placed the facts fairly before us. The petitioner was not represented by counsel. We requested Sri K. R. B- Kaimal to assist us in this case and present the case for the petitioner. We place on record our appreciation of the efforts of the learned Counsel in having elaborately gone into the matter and in presenting to us the case of the petitioner very effectively.2. Before coming to this Court the petitioner had made several approaches to the Governme...
Tag this Judgment!Season Rubbers and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-1981
Reported in: [1981]48STC256(Ker)
P. Subramoniam Poti, AG. C.J.1. A novel and interesting question arises in these cases. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in T. R. C. No. 88 of 1977 has spoken on this, but since another Division Bench of this Court doubted the correctness of that view these cases have been referred to a Full Bench. That is how the cases are now before us.2. Under the scheme of the Sales Tax Act single point tax is leviable under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act in respect of certain goods. The First Schedule to the Act specifies these goods, the point of levy and the rate of tax. Some items of goods are taxable at the last point of purchase in the State. The rate of tax prevalent at the time of purchase may not be the rate of tax at the time the goods are disposed of later, which disposal gives the character of last purchase to the purchase made earlier. If the rate of tax prevalent at the time of such disposal is different from the rate of tax prevailing at the ...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) Vs. International Fisheries Ltd ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-16-1981
Reported in: [1981]48STC409(Ker)
P. Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J.1. The same question arises in these two revisions. These revisions arise out of orders of assessment to sales tax for the years 1974-75 and 1970-71 respectively. The assessee is the same in both the cases. The assessee manufactures ice, consumes such ice for his own business and also effects sales of such ice. The water required for manufacture of ice is said to be sold to the assessee by the Cochin Corporation, though, according to the assessee, there is no sale but only a rendering of service. Sale of water by the Cochin Corporation is exempt under Section 10(1)(ii) in view of the notification exempting local authorities from being taxed on sales of water by local authorities. Therefore the sale of water, if there be a sale, to the assessee is not liable to be taxed. For that reason the assessee was sought to be taxed on the purchase turnover of water and that is the controversy in this revision. The assessee contended that such purchase turnover was not...
Tag this Judgment!R.A. Usmankutty Vs. State and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-16-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1669
ORDERKhalid, J.1. The petitioner was the accused in C. C. No. 61 of 1977 of the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alleppey. The case against him was that he sold to the 2nd respondent, the Food Inspector, Alleppey, on 28-12-1976 at about 10 A. M. a sample of coffee powder which on analysis of the public analyst was found to be adulterated for the reason that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed under the statute. The trial court found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. On appeal the conviction and sentence were confirmed. Hence this revision.2. The petitioner's counsel attempted to assail the judgment under revision on various grounds. A consideration of those grounds would? involve appreciation of evidence and reassessment of the same, I do not think it proper to enter into regions' of evidence which found favour with the courts below. In the absence of any illegality ...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeepan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1356
ORDERU.L. Bhat, J.1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the 'Code') to auash the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class, Erna-kulam in Crl. M. P. No. 850 of 1981 in connection with Crime No. 418 of 1981 of the Central Police Station. Ernakulam.2. A lady by name Razia Ueegum, aged about 22 years, was employed in the I.T.I. Kalamasseri and was staying in the hostel attached to that institution. It appears that on 15-5-1931 she and the petitioner herein entered into an agreement of marriage duly registered in the concerned Sub Registrar's Office, The second respondent herein, who is the father of the lady, filed a complaint before the Central Police Sation, Ernakulam. complaining that the lady is missing. He also appears to have told the police about the informa-Uon gathered by him on enquiries. He had certain suspicion. On receiving the complaint, a case was registered as Crime No, 418 of 1981 as girl missing...
Tag this Judgment!Mathen Eapen Vs. the Taluk Land Board, Kanjirappallay and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ker257
ORDERP.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. As per the order of the Taluk Land Board, Kanjirappally dated 29-6-1976 the petitioner was directed to surrender 18.10 acres as excess land in the possession of his family. Against this he filed C. R. P. No. 3729 of 1976 and this Court by order dated 13-3-1978 allowed the revision and remanded the case for fresh disposal in respect of three matters specifically referred to in the judgment. After remand a revised order is passed by the Taluk Land Board on 30-3-1979 as per which the petitioner is ordered to surrender 1035 acres as excess land in the possession of his family. It is against this that he has come up in revision. The first question directed to be considered by this Court in the earlier C. R. P. was relating to the petitioner's claim for exclusion of a total extent of 10 acres of land covered by two sale deeds of the years 1955 and 1961, In regard to sale deed No. 1214 of 1955 relating to 7.50 acres of land, the Taluk Land Board has accepted ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Rare Earths Ltd. Vs. Subaida Beevi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-1981
Reported in: (1981)IILLJ293Ker
George Vadakkel, J.1. The first respondent's husband, Subair Kunju, was a fitter in the employment of the Indian Rare Earths Ltd., Chavera, Quilon-the appellant in this appeal. At the material time he was residing in Adinad South, Carunagappallay-a place 7 or 8 kilometers away from the appellant-company's office and plant. To board a bus he had to walk 3 kilometers from his place to the bus-route, further, the company's office and plant were 2 kilometers away from the nearest bus-stop on the bus route. So he was using a bicycle for going to his work-place and for returning home therefrom. On 1-4-1977 at 2 P.M. as usual, he started from his residence to his workplace on his bicycle for the 4 P.M. shift but he never reached there. At about 2-30 p.m. he was at a place called Pettamukku on the National High Way on his way to his workplace. Then, a car dashed against him and he sustained serious personal injuries. He was first removed to the General Hospital, Quilon, and then, therefrom to ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Reny George and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1352
ORDERK.K. Narendran, J.1. This is an application to transfer a Sessions Case, popularly known as 'Karikkanvilla Murder Case', from the Additional Sessions Court, Mavelikkara to the Sessions Court, Alleppey. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, Alleppey but the same was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge Mavelikkara by the Sessions Judge, Alleppey. The application has been made under Sections 407 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the State represented by the Superintendent of Police, Alleppey, The stand taken in the application is that for the general convenience of the parties, witnesses and Ors. who have to attend the trial the case should be transferred to the Sessions Court. Alleppey. One of the reasons alleged is that there is not enough accommodation facilities at Mavelikkara and this will result in great inconvenience especially to the witnesses from outside the State numbering 59.2. Respondents 1, 3 and 4 have filed counter-affidavits. These accused h...
Tag this Judgment!Sivathanu Pillai Vs. Lakshmi Rajamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ker214
ORDERM.P. Menon, J.1. Sivathanu Pillai Krishna-moorthy Pillai, residing with Vakil Sivathanu Pillai of Nagercoil, is the revision petitioner; and he seems to be very tenacious.2. He was the first defendant in O. S. 531/58, a suit for redemption, decreed on 11-1-1962. It appears that when execution was taken out in E. P, 286/63, value of improvements was claimed. Assessment of the claim took time and the E. P. was dismissed for default on 25-3-1969. The respondent herein later filed E. P. 1109/74. She was not a party to the decree. Notice on the E. P, was served on the first defendant on 20-2-1975, The other parties were served later, and on 20-3-1976 the Court impleaded the respondent as additional 3rd plaintiff. On 17-6-1976 deposit of mortgage money and value of improvements was ordered, and the deposit was duly made. The 16th defendant claimed 'kudikidappu' and that claim was referred to the Land Tribunal under Section 125 of Act 1/64. The tribunal's findings became available by 3-1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »