Kerala Court August 1981 Judgments
Venugopalan Vs. Tehsildar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-31-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1484
Kumari P. Janaki Amma, J.1. On 7-2-1979 the Tahsildar Trichur got information that the third revision petitioner herein had stocked 215 bags of cement in House No. 262 in Ward No. 1 of Ollukkara Pan-chayath, in violation of the Kerala Cement Distribution (Licensing and Regulation) Order 1974. He seized the cement and sealed the room wherein the bags were kept in exercise of the powers under clause 14(1)(e) of the said Order read with Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. A report was sent to the District Collector as regards the seizure of the cement. The District Collector issued a notice on 15-2-1979 calling upon the third petitioner to appear before him on 21-2-1979 and show cause with the connected documents and records, if any, why the unauthorised stock of cement seized should not be confiscated to Government.2. On 14-2-1979 petitioners 1 and 2 presented a petition before the District Collector claiming that the bags of cement seized from the premises of the third petition...
Tag this Judgment!Tharakan Iyyavu Francis Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-31-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ309
ORDERKumari P. Janaki Amma, J.1. This petition is filed Under Section 482 of the Criminal P.C. for quashing the complaint in C. C. No. 177 of 1981 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, Chavakkad.2. The respondent filed the complaint on the following allegations. The respondent and his family were residing as kudikidappukars in a property owned by the petitioners. The kudikidappu right has been declared by the Munsiff's Court, Wadakkancherry and the decision has been confirmed by the District Court. While so, the building where the respondent was living fell down in part and respondent was not in a position to live in that building. He shifted his residence temporarily to the house of one of his brothers. In front of his kudikidappu there is a water-channel constructed by the State Public Works Department. To facilitate access to his residence the respondent had put eight concrete slabs over the water channel. According to the respondent, on 19-3-1981 at about 8.00 p.m. ...
Tag this Judgment!We-build Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C. Kamaleswaran and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-28-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker206
George Vadakkel, J. 1. This revision arises from a suit for settlement of accounts. The plaintiff estimates that on settlement of accounts a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- would be due to him. Accordingly he has paid a court-fee of Rs. 12,480/- on the plaint One of the contentions raised by the 1st defendant is that the suit has not been properly valued and that the court-fee paid is insufficient. On this contest the lower court raised the following question as the 2nd issue in the case:--'whether proper or sufficient court-fee has been paid by the plaintiff in respect of the several reliefs sought for in the plaint ?'2. Though Section 12 (2) of the Kerala Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. 1959 provides that all questions arising from pleas advanced by the defendant relating to proper valuation of the suit and sufficiency of the court-fee paid on the plaint 'shall be heard and decided before evidence is recorded affecting such defendant, on the merits of the claim', the lower court did not do...
Tag this Judgment!Kottarathil Mavunni and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-26-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ468
ORDERP.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. Crl. R. P. No. 166 of 1981 is by the B party in M, C. No. 14/81 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Perinthalmanna. The revision is against a composite order dated 4-4-1981 under Sees. 145 (1) and 146 (1) of the Criminal P. C. 1973, as per which the Magistrate has stated that for the reason of credible information laid by the Circle inspector of Police, Malapuram through the Deputy Superintendent of Police Tirur, that there exists serious likelihood of breach of peace concerning the property in R. S. No. 196/lA of Cherukevu amsom and Village he is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for taking proceedings. The A and B parties were directed to attend the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at 11 A. M. on 9-4-1981 either in person or by pleader and put in written statements and documents in respect of their claims to prove actual possession of the subject of dispute and also to adduce evidence if any that the parties want to rely upon...
Tag this Judgment!Govindan Vs. Food Inspector and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-26-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ784
ORDERV. Khalid, J.1. The revision petitioner was the accused in C. C. No. 327 of 1976 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kunnamkulam, who was convicted Under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955(for short the Act) read with Rule 44(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a' fine of Rs, 500 with a default clause. The prosecution case was that on 25-5-1976 at 8 A. M. the Food Inspector of Kunnamkulam Municipality purchased 675 milli-litres of goat's milk from the petitioner. It was found on analysis to contain 34% of added water and that it did not conform to the standard prescribed for goat's milk under the Rules. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge of Tri-chur. In the course of the judgment the learned Judge found that there was no strict compliance with Section 13(2) of the Act. The prosecution filed ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Padmanabhan Vs. District Collector, Trivandrum
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-25-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker177
ORDERV. Khalid, J. 1. The petitioner was an assessee under the Travancore General Sales Tax Act. He was conducting a business in coir about 30 years back. Revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against him under the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, 1951, for the arrears of sales tax due for the years 1125, 1950-51 and 1951-52. 3 cents of land which belonged to him were sold in public auction in 1961 pursuant to revenue recovery proceedings. This did not satisfy the entire arrears due. Therefore, the petitioner was served with a notice, Ext. P1. dated 23-7-1980 under Section 65 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 informing him that he would be arrested in case the balance amount was not paid. Hence this petition to quash Ext. P1 and all further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P1. 2. It is not disputed that the arrears for which revenue recovery proceedings were taken were for the relevant years mentioned above and that the property was sold pursuant to the action taken und...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Panicker Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-21-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1793
ORDERP. Janaki Amma, J.1. The petitioners herein are respondents in M. P. No. 1 of 1980 before the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kasaragod, a proceeding initiated under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While the proceedings were pending the petitioners moved the District Magistrate. Cannanore, for a transfer of the case from the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kasaragod, to some other court. The ground mentioned for transfer was that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kasaragod, is the son-in-law of one Mammu Haji, who, according to the petitioners, is backing the 4th respondent (the petitioner in M. P. No. 1 of 19802_and is assisting him in the con- duct of the case. The District Magistrate dismissed the petition stating that Mammu Haji. the father-in-law of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not the counsel for the petitioner in the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and that he did not expect any miscarriage of justice merely because one of t...
Tag this Judgment!Chandramathi Vs. Pazhetti Balan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker68
Subramonian Poti, Ag. C. J.1. This appeal is by a wife challenging the decree for divorce granted by the Court below on a petition by the husband. Parties are Ezhavas. They were married on 2-9-1969 and two children have been born in the marriage. The wife was residing in the husband's house. After the two children were so born, the petitioner-husband is said to have undergone a bilateral vasectomy operation on 27-7-1976. According to the petitioner he thereby lost his capacity to procreate children. The operation was at the Primary Health Centre, Ollur and was done by P. W. 1 Doctor Easby. The wife became pregnant later. She was taken to her house on 17-11-1977. According to the petitioner, his wife attempted to commit suicide on 23-11-1977 and though it was unsuccessful she had to be admitted to the hospital. It is said that on examination she was found to have pregnancy, six weeks old and such pregnancy was terminated by the doctor to save her life. According to the petitioner he the...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) V ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1981
Reported in: [1982]49STC249(Ker)
P. Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J.1. This is a revision by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) against the order of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, holding that the exemption claimed by the assessee in regard to the turnover of prawns purchased for the purpose of sale occasioning export of such prawns out of India has to be allowed. Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act specifies that a sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of the export of the goods out of the territory of India only if the sale or purchase either occasions such export or is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods after the goods have crossed the customs frontiers of India. Sub-section (3) of the section provides that 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 co...
Tag this Judgment!Wealth-tax Officer, C-ward Vs. K. Madhavan Nambiar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-1981
Reported in: [1988]169ITR810(Ker)
P. Subramonian Pott, Actg. C.J.1. This appeal is by the Wealth-tax Officer, C-Ward, Cannanore, against the decision of a learned single judge, of this court quashing exhibit P-1 notice issued by the Wealth-tax Officer to the petitioner in the petition calling upon him to deliver a return under the Wealth-tax Act, since he had reason to believe that the net wealth chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1970-71 had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act and also questioning the proceedings for attachment consequent on such notice, exhibit P-1. The petitioner was a junior member of Kanakathidam tarwad, a Marumakkathayam tarward, which fell within the scope of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family (Abolition) Act, 30 of 1976. That Act came into force on December 1, 1976. By the provisions of the Act, the joint family ceased to exist and the properties of the joint family were held, after December 1, 1976, by the members of the family as tenants-in-common as if...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »