Kerala Court October 1982 Judgments
CochIn Port Trust Vs. Associated Cotton Traders Limited and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ker154
Bhat, J. 1. Defendant in O. S. No. 84 of 1970 on the file of the Sub Court, Cochin, the Cochin Port Trust, has filed this appeal against the decree and -judgment dated 15-6-1976 of the court granting a decree for Rs. 1.10,527.30 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and costs in favour of the second plaintiff.2. The first plaintiff imported 194 bales of American Cotton and the consignment reached the Cochin Port Trust by 12-5-1970. On that date, the goods were discharged into the custody of the appellant -- defendant, who is responsible to store the goods. The defendant acknowledged receipt of 188 bales and certified short-landing of 6 bales. Even the 188 bales were delivered to the first plaintiff charred by fire and damaged by sea water. The defendant alleged that fire broke out in the godown in which the goods were stored. The first plaintiff suffered a loss of Rs. 1,10.527.30 as a result of the damage. The insurer, second plaintiff purchased the goods from the first plaintiff a...
Tag this Judgment!Ghee Varghese Lukose Vs. Addl. Agrl. Income-tax Officer-ii and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1982
Reported in: [1983]143ITR404(Ker)
U.L. Bhat, J.1. The petitioner, an agriculturist, did not submit returns of agricultural income in any of the five financial years 1975 to 1980. The first respondent, the concerned Agrl. ITO, issued Ex. P-1 notice dated September 27, 1980, to the petitioner under Section 35(1) of the Agrl. T.T. Act, 1950 (for short ' the Act'), on the basis of escaped assessment and requested the petitioner to submit returns within 35 days. Exhibit P-l notice was served on him on November 6, 1980. The petitioner did not submit returns for the financial year 1975-76, but submitted returns for the years 1976 to 1979. The assessment order for the year 1979-80 mentions a return having been filed for that year. But the return is not seen in the concerned file. The first respondent found it not possible to act on the returns submitted to him for the years mentioned above. Notices issued under Section 18(2) of the Act did not elicit any response. He issued pre-assessment notices to the petitioner which were d...
Tag this Judgment!C. Unni Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ583
ORDERT. Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. A motor vehicle K. L. T, 8988 was seized on 10-1-1975 at Cheruvarakonam in Trivandrurn District in accordance with the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act as it was conveying 4 bags of wheat through the zonal area without any permit. Proceedings were initiated in pursuance of such seizure in accordance with that Act (hereinafter called the Act) and the Inter-Zonal Wheat and Wheat Products Order, 1973. Complying with the required formalities, the Collector held that violation of the Order has been established and consequently directed the confiscation of the vehicle under Section 6A of the Act. From the proceedings of the Collector, an appeal was filed to the District Court, Trivandrurn, as provided under Section 6C(1) of the Act by the petitioner, the owner of the vehicle. The appeal was dismissed. In the meanwhile prosecution had been initiated for the contravention of the order in respect of which the order of confiscation had been made agai...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Malayala Manorama and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-22-1982
Reported in: (1983)33CTR(Ker)277; [1983]143ITR29(Ker)
Chandrasekhara Menon, J. 1. In this case, the following question has been referred to this court on the application of the Revenue by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in the absence of a reserve account being created for the relevant previous year, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction for the development rebate ?'2. The assessee is a limited company. The concerned accounting year is calendar year 1974. During this year the assessee had installed certain machineries. It is not disputed that if the conditions in Section 34 of the I.T. Act are satisfied, the assessee would be entitled to development rebate. Section 33 of the Act provides for deduction of a sum by way of development rebate as specified in Clause (b) of the said section in respect of new ship, new machinery or plant (other than office appliances or road transport vehicles) which is owned by the assessee and is wholly used for the purpos...
Tag this Judgment!N.S. Jayanandan Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-21-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ker46
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for damages in tort for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff on account of the negligence of the 4th defendant, an employee of the Police Department under the 1st defendant, the State of Kerala, in driving a police jeep KLV 3065 on 10-3-1971 at about 2 p. m. at the road junction where the Vellayambalam-Thampanur road crosses the main road, the Vazhuthacaud-Thycaud road in Trivandrum City near the Women's College. The plaintiff was riding his motor cycle KLE 7945 with P. W. 5 at its pillion from North to South along the main road. As he reached the road junction, the 4th defendant driving the police jeep coming from the east crossed the main road at a high speed dashed against the motor cycle and knocked down the plaintiff and his companion rider P. W. 5. Both the plaintiff and P. W. 5 were thrown away from the vehicle they were riding and as a result of the accident the plaintiff sustained severe and serious injurie...
Tag this Judgment!Economic Transport Organisation Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ker44
M.P. Menon, J.1. The petitioner is a firm engaged in the business of transporting goods by road, and is a 'public carrier' as defined in Section 2 (23) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The head office of the firm is at Calcutta, but it has regional offices at Ernakulam, Alleppey, Cannanore, Trivandrum, Kozhikode and some other District headquarters of Kerala State. At Trichur and Palghat, it has only 'agency offices'. By Exts. P1 to P5 notices issued by the Regional Transport Officers of Ernakulam, Alleppey, Cannanore, Trivandrum and Kozhikode, the petitioner was required to take out 'agency licences' under Rule 225 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules; and the question is whether the notices are valid.2. Section 66-A of the Motor Vehicles Act reads:--'66-A. Agent or canvasser to obtain licence.-- (1) No person shall engage himself--(i) as an agent or canvasser, in the sale of tickets for travel by public service vehicles or in otherwise soliciting custom for such vehicles, or(ii) as an ...
Tag this Judgment!V.J. Thomas Vettom and K.M.J. Joseph and anr. Vs. Kuttanad Rubber Co. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-1982
Reported in: [1984]56CompCas284(Ker)
Khalid, J. 1. These two appeals are against the judgment of the learned company judge in C.P: No. 19 of 1974 and C.P. No. 8 of 1976 which were heard together, filed under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. In the first petition, the prayers were for removal of the present director and secretary from the management of the company, to restrain the company by an order of injunction from effecting sale of the 53 acres of land and to appoint at least two directors from the petitioner's group, while the prayers in the other petition, inter alia, were to remove the second and third respondents from the management of the company', to direct the second respondent to make good the loss illegally pocketed by him out of the sale proceeds of the 53 acres of estate and to appoint an administrator to look after the affairs of the company. The main allegations against the respondents were: (i) that 53 acres of rubber estate were sold without valid necessity, (2) dividends were not declar...
Tag this Judgment!Viswanathan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-1982
Reported in: (1983)IILLJ309Ker
Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J.1. Our learned brother Narenclran has referred this petition to a Division Bench when it came up for admission before him. This was perhaps because the learned Judge might have felt that this Original Petition is only a further attempt to see whether provisional employees appointed temporarily could continue without termination though this Court had in a Full Bench Decision in O.P. No. 3859/81 and connected cases (1982 KLT 829) laid down the guidelines for terminating their services. A large number of Original Petitions were filed in this Court by employees of the State Government, of Municipal Corporations, of public sector concerns and other to dies seeking the application of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act in the matter of termination of their services and also seeking appropriate reliefs in the light of application of the provisions of the Act. The matter was referred to a Full Bench and in a series of petitions,O.P. No. 3859/81 and connected...
Tag this Judgment!S.V. Purushothaman Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-15-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ker118
Sukumaran, J. 1. A former Judge of the Supreme Court, referred, about hree years back, in a manner characteristic of him, to the 'public inquiries iurisprudence' and the 'harvest, of Commission litigation' developing in this country. The jurisprudence indeed seems to develop and 'the commission litigation' appears to be on the increase. This writ petition deals with some face s, some unique facets, of such a litigation.2. The Government of Kerala have been taking steps for enacting the Kerala Public Men (Inquiries) Bill. It is so stated in the order of the Government, G. O. Ms. No. 386 dated 20-12-1969. Pending the enactment of such a Bill the Government considered it necessary to set up a machinery to inquire into allegations of misconduct against public men. The Government Order G.O.M.S. No. 386 was issued to provide for a machinery for such inquiry. That order is produced as Ext. P-1 in this writ petition. 'Public men' included among others a Minister of State including the Chief Mi...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. A.K. Sabhapathy Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ker24
Khalid, J. 1. This original petition comes before us on a reference by a learned Judge of this Court, since the question of law involved is important and the impact of the decision on it on the medical profession would be serious.2. The petitioner is a member of the Kerala Branch of the Indian Medical Association, the Convener of the I. M. A. Action Committee for Kerala and 'he Chairman of the Action Committee for Bihar DMS issue. It is in this representative capacity that he has approached this Court.3. The first respondent is the State of Kerala and the 2nd respondent, the Union of India. The 3rd respondent represents the Bihar D. M. S. holders' Association of Kerala and the 4th respondent is a Bihar D. M. S. Holder, awarded by the Bihar State Board of Homoeopathic Medicine. Respondents 5, 6 and 7 got themselves impleaded since they were vitally interested in the outcome of the original petition.4. By Ext, P-l dated 8th April, 1975 the Registrar of the Kerala University was informed ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »