Kerala Court July 1981 Judgments
Muthayyan Vs. Manager, Kadalur Estate
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-1981
Reported in: (1982)ILLJ23Ker
Khalid, J.1. Is a school teacher a workman? Such a question two decades ago would have astonished many and irritated some. But today nobody will feel either surprise or astonishment at such a question. This is the metamorphosis that has been brought in the outlook of man in the relationship between employer and employee by the Bangalore Water Supply case That case has opened up new vistas in industrial relations which could not have been thought of even when the Industrial Disputes Act was passed The question posed in this petition is a sequel to some observations in the above judgment.2. The petitioner was a teacher in the primary school at Kadalur Estate from 7-1-1959. He was dismissed from service with effect from 12-10-1970 His case was that he was a 'workman' as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the Act). He was employed in the estate and was included in the check roll of the estate. The Government referred the dispute raised by the petitioner for adjudication as p...
Tag this Judgment!M. Rajan Vs. Food Inspector, Palghat Municipality and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ170
ORDERP. Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J.1. The accused in a case taken to file On the complaint of the Food Inspector, Palghat Municipality charging the accused with an offence punishable Under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is the revision petitioner and he challenges the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palghat convicting him and sentencing him to Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, as confirmed in appeal by the Court of Sessions, Palghat. The case against the petitioner is that on 25-2-1978 at about 9.15 A.M. the petitioner sold 750 ML of cow's milk which on analysis was found to be adulterated. Ext. P6 is the report of the Public Analyst. At the instance of the petitioner the sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis and Ext. P13 is the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory. This report shows that the sample does not conform ...
Tag this Judgment!Nachimuthu and ors. Vs. the Taluk Land Board, Chittur and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-09-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ker200
ORDERU.L. Bhat, J.1. In a ceiling case against the common 4th respondent, he set up tenancies in favour of four different persons, who now figure as revision petitioners in these two revision petitions. On notice being issued to them, they appeared before the Taluk Land Board and set up tenancies in themselves. The Taluk Land Board went into the question of the tenancies so set up and rejected them. Thereupon the declarant as well - as the alleged tenants filed C.R.P. No. 1987 of 1977 before this Court challenging the conclusion arrived at by the Land Board. This Court declined to interfere with the fielding of the Land Board rejecting the tenancies, but directed a remand of the case on a few other points in which only the declarant was interested. This Court also gave an opportunity to the declarant to re-exercise his right of option in regard to the identity of the lands required to be surrendered. After remand, the Taluk Land Board issued notice only to the declarant but not to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Madathil Thattantavita Khalid Vs. Palott Moothammantakath Sainabi and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ker230
Kochu Thommen, J.1. A. S. Nos. 257 of 1975, 302 of 1978 and 303 of 1978 arise from O. S. Nos. 57 of 1971, 152 of 1971 and 153 of 1971 respectively on the file of the Sub. Judge, Kozhikode. The suits were jointly tried.2. The main question which arose in 'the suits was as to the validity of Exts, B2 and B3 deeds of gift dated 4-4-1953 executed by late Hussain Sahib (hereinafter referred to as the donor) respectively in favour of his wife's sisters, Sai-nabi and Kadeeja, who figure as defendants 2 and 3 in O. S. No. 57/1971 (hereinafter referred to as the donees). The parties shall be referred to in the order in which they appear in O. S. No. 57 of 1971. It was contended by the plaintiff that being the donor's brother's son andheir, he was entitled to 3/4 share of the plaint schedule properties together with mesne profits. Accordingly O. S. No. 57/ 1971 was instituted by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of his 3/4 share. The plaintiff is the 2nd defendant in both O. S....
Tag this Judgment!Kunnummal Chovvaru Vs. A.K. Janaki and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ker169
ORDERU.L. Bhat, J.1. The first respondent herein filed an application before the Land Tribunal under Section 72-B of Kerala Act 1 of 1964 for purchase of the landlord's right in the tenancy holding. In the application, the revision petitioner has been shown as the landlord. He did not put in appearance and after the usual enquiry the Land Tribunal allowed the application. The revision petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The appellate authority was not satisfied that there were any valid grounds to condone the delay and accordingly dismissed the petition as well as the appeal. Hence the revision.2. The order of the Land Tribunal is dated 17-10-1973. The revision petitioner applied for copies on 9-10-1976 and obtained copies on 25-10-1976. He filed the appeal on 9-12-1976. The appeal, it is clear, was hopelessly barred by time. The only ground on which the revision petit...
Tag this Judgment!P.C. Joseph and Sons Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-1981
Reported in: [1981]48STC563(Ker)
P. Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J.1. The revision petitioner is a firm of timber dealers. 'They purchase logs of timber and sell timber as well as sawn timber and scantling. For the year 1974-76 they were assessed to tax on their turnover. Prior to assessment a dispute arose in regard to two items. Logs of timber purchased by the assessee were being sawn in the premises of the seller since there is a saw mill also there and according to the assessee besides the value of the timber sawing charges are also paid. The assessee purchases logs and sells such logs to customers some of whom may require the service of sawing. Whether the turnover of timber must include such sawing charges also was the main question. Such charges, as seen from the bills, came to a sum of Rs. 33,629.80. The assessing authority issued a pre-assessment notice proposing to tax sawing charges shown in the bill also as part of the turnover. The other claim concerned the purchase tax leviable on the purchases of timber by t...
Tag this Judgment!Kunhikannan Vs. Adjutant General and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ306
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is for quashing Ext, p 3 order dated 3-8-1977 passed by the first respondent, Adjutant General Personnel Services Directorate, (PS. IC) Army Headquarters, New Delhi directing the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jammu to inform the petitioner who at the lime of the filing of the writ petition was an ex-serviceman that his appeal petition was rejected. Alternatively it is prayed that there might be a direction, to the first, respondent, Adjutant General to furnish the petitioner a copy of the grounds of rejection, if any, of his petition Ext. P 2. There is a further prayer that the first respondent might be asked to consider his appeal petition Exhibit P 2 afresh and pass fresh orders. Exhibit P 1 is the finding of the Court-Martial held on 9-2-76 whereunder the petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and dismissal from service. Exhibit P 2 is the copy of the memorandum of appeal presented by the petitioner to ...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Anandan and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ker242
ORDERK.K. Narendran, J.1. The main point that arises for consideration in this case is whether the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh can be denied the privilege of using Government. School buildings for accommodating delegates of their conference as long as their activities are not banned and when other organisations are allowed the same privilege. The 1st petitioner is the Secretary of the Kerala Pradesh Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the 2nd petitioner is the Tellicherry Taluk Karyavah of the Sangh. The petitioners' case is: The Sangh is a non-political cultural organisation devoted mainly to the fundamental task of reforming and reorganising the people of India. The Sangh was formed in 1925. The membership of the Sangh is open to all irrespective of their caste, creed or community. The volunteers of the Sangh had performed yeo-man service during the floods in Andhra, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh and recently in some parts of Kerala also. The Sangh has not been indulging in any kind of objecti...
Tag this Judgment!Radha's Fancy Piece Goods Merchants Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-1981
Reported in: [1981]48STC361(Ker)
George Vadakkel, J.1. The question raised in these cases preferred by the same assessee is whether embroidered cotton sarees are cotton fabrics falling within entry 7 in the Third Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter, the Act).2. The assessments relate to 1974-75 and 1975-76. The Tribunal found that the assessee had effecfed sale of embroidery sarees purchased as such and also sarees got embroidered by him. The Tribunal held that the embroidery saree sold by the assessee is a different commodity and will not fall under entry 7 in the Third Schedule to the Act. The Third Schedule enumerates goods exempt from tax under Section 9 of the Act. There is no dispute that but for the embroidery on the sarees, they are cotton fabrics falling under entry 7 in the Third Schedule to the Act.3. Entry 7 in the Third Schedule to the Act reads:7. Cotton fabrics, woollen fabrics and rayon or artificial silk fabrics as defined in items Nos. 19, 21 and 22 respectively of the Fir...
Tag this Judgment!Peter Joseph Vs. Appellate Authority (L.R.), Ernakulam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-02-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ker251
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J.1. By its judgment dated 3-8-1979 made in L.R.A.S. No. 1005 of 1977, a true copy of which is Ext. P-2, the 1st respondent, Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Ernakulam, set aside the order dated 16-8-1976 made in O.A. No. 218 of 1973 by the 2nd respondent, the special Tahsildar (L.R.), Ramankari, hereinafter referred to as the Land Tribunal, a true copy of which is Ext. P-1, and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal. The writ petition is for quashing Ext. P-2 judgment.2. Here the short facts are: The pre-decessor-in-interest of the petitioner made an application under Section 80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969 (the Act) for purchase of his kudikidappu in the land belonging to the 3rd respondent. The order allowing the purchase of 10 cents of land including his hut thereon passed on that application was set aside by the Appellate Authority and the matter remanded to the Land Tribunal. Thereafter rema...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »