Kerala Court June 1982 Judgments
Moosa Abdul Rahiman and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-29-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2087
K. Bhaskaran, J.1. The appellants who were accused 1 and 2 before the Sessions Court have come up to this Court with this Criminal Appeal challenging the correctness of their conviction and sentence by the learned Sessions Judge,2. From para 3 of the judgment under appeal it is seen that the charge was amended by the Court below adding after the words 'Al Abdul Rahiman again stabbed him two or three times' and before the words 'with a dangerous weapon like knife,' the following words, 'with the dagger on his back and that A2 Hanefa also stabbed Koyamon two or three limes on his back.'3. The second appellant had before the learned Sessions Judge filed an application dated 3-11-1980 purported to be under Section 216 of the Cr. P.C. praying for permission to resummon or recall the witnesses examined in the Sessions Court before the charge was amended as mentioned above. This application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 10-11-1980, the operative portion of whic...
Tag this Judgment!Kooran Kuriappu Kunjipalu Vs. Kooran Chakku Pappu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Ker361
P. Subramohian Poti, Ag. C.J.1. Our learned brother Sukumaran, J. referred this case to a Division Bench as an important question of a recurring nature was said to arise in the revision and therefore an authoritative decision of this Court was considered desirable by the learned Judge. The question is whether a compromise decree in a suit for money could be reopened for amending the decree under Section 8 (2) of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 11 of 1970. There is another controversy and that is whether the debt in this case is a debt falling within the purview of Act 11 of 1970.2. When the decree-holder filed an application for execution of the decree passed against the judgment-debtor, he filed I. A. No. 412 of 1981 seeking amendment of the decree under Section 8 (2) of Act 11 of 1970. This provision enables a person to apply for such amendment of a decree for repayment of any debt if the judgment-debtor is an agriculturist. Such amendment is to be made so as to apply the...
Tag this Judgment!S. Murugappa Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1982
Reported in: [1992]197ITR586(Ker)
P. Subramonian Poti, Actg., C.J. 1. In these references which arise in respect of the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, we are called upon to answer the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is not entitled to depreciation in respect of the assets shown in the books of account of the partnership as the assets of the partnership ?' 2. The assessee is an individual. Till the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee was carrying on a business in tile works. For the assessment year 1973-74 for which the corresponding previous year was that commencing on 1-1 1147 (Malayalam era), corresponding to August 17, 1971, the assessee was a partner of a firm constituted by taking in the assessee's son in the business as a partner. The business in the tile factory was run by that partnership firm in the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974 75. The partnership dee...
Tag this Judgment!G.K. Nayar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1982
Reported in: (1983)ILLJ461Ker
U.L. Bhat, J.1. Petitioners, 36 in number, in these 3 petitions are personnel of the Customs Marine Organisation (for short C.M.O.), a temporary organisation created by the Central Government tinder Ext.P1 notification dated 2nd August 1974 for conducting anti-smuggling operations. The Central Government acquired 20 new crafts from Norway and distributed the same among the six custom collectorates including Cochin. The Coast Guard Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act') was enacted to constitute the Coast Guard to ensure the security of the maritime zones of India with a view to protect the maritime and other national interests in such zones. These interests have been detailed in Section 14 of the Act. It provides, inter alia, for measures to assist the Customs and other authorities in anti-smuggling operations. Since that is the purpose for constitution of the C.M.O., the Central Government decided to merge C.M.O., as well as certain other organisations with the Coast Guard, as per presidenti...
Tag this Judgment!Chacko Geevarghese Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Ker333
ORDERSukumaran, J. 1. The two revision petitions are connected and have been filed by the same contractor, who had undertaken to carry out certain works relating to the Kallada Irrigation Project.2. The revision petitioner had entered into, with the Government, an agreement for the execution of work on 13-4-1973. Disputes which arose in the course of the execution of the work had been referred to the Chief Engineer-Arbitrator in the manner enjoined by the provisions of the contract. He made an award on 26-11-1975. Pursuant thereto, an application, O. P. (Arbitration) No. 38 of 1975 was made under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. That application was allowed and a judgment and decree in terms of the award were passed on 9-7-1976. These revision petitions concern only claims 9 and 10 referred to in the award. The operative portion of the award in respect of those claims reads :'Claims-- (IX) and (X): The respondent shall release to the claimant the security deposit of Rs. 20,000/- (Rup...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Damodaran Unni Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Ker358
Balagangadharan Nair, J. 1. The order covers only the maintainability of the appeal in this Court, an objection that was raised by the learned Government Pleader in the course of the hearing. The plaintiff who is the appellant purchased a power tiller under hire purchase on a loan of Rs. 9,822.47 granted by the State Government to be repaid in ten half-yearly instalments. To secure the loan the plaintiff executed a simple mortgage. The instalments fell into arrears and when coercive steps were started for realising the money the plaintiff brought the suit (A) to declare as void the hire-purchase agreement being viliated by mistake of fact or alternatively to cancel it being vitiated by misrepresentation, (B) to rescind the hire-purchase agreement as the Government had committed breach thereof, (C) to allow the plaintiff, as a consequence, to realise Rs. 5,038-77 as consideration that had failed or as compensation with future interest, (D) to declare as a consequence that the mortgage i...
Tag this Judgment!C.K. Abdul Khader and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer, B-ward and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1982
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(Ker)297; [1983]141ITR159(Ker)
U.L. Bhat, J. 1. The petitioner is a firm doing business in pepper. The firm filed income-tax returns under the I.T. Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') for the assessment year 1975-76. After a few adjournments, the case stood posted to December 13, 1976, in regard to which a notice was sent to the petitioner, received by him on December 8, 1976. He and his auditor did not put in appearance. The first respondent, ITO, made a best of judgment assessment under Section 144 of the Act and also refused registration to the firm, as seen from Ex. P-l order. Two revisions were filed before the 2nd respondent, Commissioner of Income-tax. Under Ex. P-3 order, the revision petition challenging the refusal to register the name of the firm was dismissed. Under Ex. P-2 order, the best of judgment assessment made was partly modified and the case sent back for passing a fresh order. Thereafter, the first respondent passed a fresh order, Ex. P-4, fixing the tax liability of the petitioner.2. According to t...
Tag this Judgment!Kesavan Namboodiri Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1982
Reported in: 1982(II)KLT219
U.L. Bhatt, J.1. The question which arises for consideration in this petition is whether the second respondent. Director of Public Instruction has jurisdiction to completely wipe out the enquiry conducted by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Ernakulam into the charges framed against the petitioner, an Asst. Educational officer working in Trichur District and direct a de now enquiry and that too by another officer deputy director of Education, Trichur. That he has no jurisdiction to do so is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court in K.R. Deb v. Collector, Central Excise, Shillong 1971-I L.L.J. 427. In that case, the Supreme Court had to consider the effect of Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 and after doing so, came to the following conclusion :13. It seems to us that Rule 15, on the face of it, really provides for one inquiry |but it may be possible if in a particular case there has been no proper enquiry because some...
Tag this Judgment!The Western India Plywood Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-1982
Reported in: 1984(2)ECC3; 1982(10)ELT447(Ker)
U.L. Bhat, J.1. Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and engaged in the manufacture of plywood any hardboard falling under item 16B of Schedule I to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act'). Plywood and hardboard had been made excisable by introducing this item with effect from the mid-night of 23/24-4-1962. At the stroke of mid-night, the petitioner had stocks of hardboard, said to be untrimmed, already manufactured. Petitioner was asked to pay excise duty on this stock before clearing it. It was paid under protest. Petitioner subsequently applied for the refund of the excise duty so paid on the ground that the stock of hardboard had been manufactured before the crucial time, that is, the mid-night in question, though it was sold and cleared later on. The amount involved in the claim is Rs. 55,427.69 being the excise duty paid on stock amounting to 2,01,809.36 square metres. The third respondent, Asst. Collector of Central Excise, Kozhikode ...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Thomas Vs. CochIn Refineries Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-15-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Ker248; [1985]58CompCas48(Ker); (1982)IILLJ233Ker
ORDERU.L. Bhat, J. 1. Aggrieved by the rejection of the lowest tender submitted by the petitioner and acceptance of the next higher tender submitted by the third respondent tor the construction work of a building complex for the first respondent-Cochin Refineries Ltd., petitioner has filed this Original Petition under Article 226 of IN the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the decision of first respondent awarding the work to third respondent and it writ of mandamus directing first respondent to consider Ext. P-4 representation and to award the contract to petitioner. Third respondent and the Secretary of first respondent have sworn to counter affodavits.2. The facts emerging from the pleadings and documents produced in the case can be summarised as follows; As per Ext. Rule 6 tender notification dated 1-3-1982, first respondent -Cochin Refineries Limited, a Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, invited sealed item-rate tenders from experienced...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »