Kerala Court May 1982 Judgments
P.S. Abdulla Vs. the Director, Forest Research Institute, Peechi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-31-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ker162
ORDERSukumaran, J. 1. These revision petitions raise the same question. They arise in proceedings initiated under the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred 'to as 'the Act'). The question concerns the exercise of the power of a civil court under Section 28 of the Act.2. P.S. Abdulla is a P. W. D. contractor. He tendered for the works in the Forest Institute, peechi. His ten-ders were accepted. The works were therefore entrusted with him. Agreements in the stipulated forms were executed. Five agreements were thus executed for five distinct works -- those relating to the library, vehicle shed and stores, economics and statistics block, pathology and entomology block and administration block. The agreements contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration in the event of disputes between the contracting parties. The Chief Engineer (Arbitration) is the named sole arbitrator.3. Though 'final payments' had been received in respect of the works, the contractor contended that su...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Sheth Brothers
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-27-1982
Reported in: [1983]52STC41(Ker)
Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J. 1. The question raised in the case is covered directly by the decision in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ernakulam v. Sheth Brothers (T.R.C. No. 118 of 1981) [1983] 52 STC 40. Pepper, merely because it is garbled, and exported as such, does not become another commercial commodity. It continues to be pepper. The learned counsel, Sri Dharmadan, has nevertheless attempted to argue that because entry 58 of the First Schedule has been amended with effect from 1st April, 1978, by Act 21 of 1978, garbled pepper and ungarbled pepper should be considered as different commercial commodities. Merely because in the schedule pepper is itemised under two heads, garbled and ungarbled, it need not be that these are two different commodities. May be to make it clear that garbled pepper as well as ungarbled pepper will fall within the same clause this amendment was made. Whatever it be, as a matter of fact, ungarbled pepper and garbled pepper cannot be two different commerc...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Pillai Thankappan Pillai Vs. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Ker350
Balagangadharan Nair, J. 1. The original petition comes before us on a reference made by a learned Judge for deciding whether Section 5, Limitation Act 1963 is applicable to an application under Section 20, Kerala Land Acquisition Act. 2. The relevant facts which lie in a narrow compass can be shortly stated. 1.20 acres of land with the buildings therein of which the petitioner was the owner was acquired by the State for widening the road from the Girls High School Junction to the Civil Station, Quilon. The 1st respondent who is the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, passed the relative award on 24-3-1976. The petitioner was served with notice of the award on 25-3-1976. On 10-5-1976 the petitioner who was dissatisfied with the compensation filed an application dated 9-5-1976 of which Ext. P-2 is a copy before the 1st respondent under Section 20 (1), L. A. Act requesting him to make a reference to the Civil Court. On 16-6-1976 the 1st respondent sent him a reply Ext. P-3 rejecting the...
Tag this Judgment!D.i.G. of Police Vs. Sankaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-25-1982
Reported in: 1982(II)KLT309
Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J.1. The respondents in the appeal faced a criminal prosecution and finally they were acquitted. On the same set of facts which led to the criminal prosecution they were again charged in disciplinary proceedings. They objected to this, But the proceedings were continued. Thereupon they challenged the proceedings in this Court. The learned single Judge whose judgment is under challenge in this appeal relied on Rule (10)(b) of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) to find that the proceedings cannot be continued. It is useful to set down the rule here:10. Departmental Inquiry regarding matters before a Court:(a) x x x(b) If the question of departmental action arises against the conduct of an Officer, who has already been tried in a Criminal Court on the facts which form the basis of the charge against him the following rules shall be observed :(i) If on a full consideration of the same fa...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. V. Sebastian and ors. Vs. City Hospital P. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-24-1982
Reported in: [1985]57CompCas453(Ker)
Menon, J.1. This is a petition against oppression and mismanagement under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. The four petitioners are members of the City Hospital Private Ltd. incorporated in 1971. The first respondent is the company and respondents Nos. 2 to 7 are some of the directors including the chairman and the managing director. The authorised capital was originally Rs. 5 lakhs. It was raised to Rs. 10 lakhs (1,000 equity shares of Rs. 1,000 each) in March, 1976. A decision was taken in 1977 to issue some preference shares also. Paid-up capital is now Rs. 10,28,000. The petitioners hold 166 fully paid-up equity shares. The eighth respondent was impleaded subsequently in Application No. 482 of 1981. The Central Govt. has not made any representations in pursuance of notice under Section 400.2. The company was formed with the object of establishing hospitals and clinics. The City Hospital at Ernakulam belongs to it. Dr. V.K. Thomas, Dr. T.M. Paul, Dr. Roselin Sebastia...
Tag this Judgment!K.C. Mathew Vs. Election Commissioner of India and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-17-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Ker265
ORDERK. Sukumaran, J.1. Kerala State goes to polls, for the eighth time, on 19th May, 1982. The Election Commission appears to have announced on 8-4-1982 its decision to hold the elections in this State. The election process commenced with the Governor's notification issued in that behalf on 12-4-1982. Parur -- referred to by the Election Commission as '70 Parur L. A. Constituency' --is one among the Constituencies in which the electorate will exercise their franchise. Shri Sivan Pillai is one of the candidates contesting from that Constituency. He belongs to the Communist Party of India. Another candidate is Shri A. C. Jose, described by the petitioner as belonging to the Indian National Congress (Antony Group)'.2. The petition states in para 4 'The United Democratic Front which has sponsored the candidature of Shri A. C. Jose consists of the Indian National Congress (I) which is the ruling party at the Centre apart from other political parties in the State '3. The Election Commission...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›