Kerala Court July 1982 Judgments
Joseph Vs. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-1982
Reported in: 1982(II)KLT412
M.P. Menon, J.1. While working as Sub-post Master at Mattupetti the petitioner was charge sheeted on 12-12-1974 for alleged shortage of office cash. His explanation to the memo of charges was found unsatisfactory, and a departmental enquiry was ordered. During the enquiry the petitioner requested for the assistance of another employee, P. Balakrishnan by name, but that request was declined on the ground that he was already assisting two other employees. As similar request for the assistance of one D'Cruz was also turned down for the same reason. The enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty as per report dated 11-3-1979; and by Ext. P8 order 31-3-1979, he was dismissed, from service. His appeal to the Post Master General was also dismissed, as per Ext. P10. The Original Petition is directed against Exts. P8 and P10.2. The findings were concurrent, and even Mr. Radhakrishnan for the petitioner did not urge, with any amount of confidence, that they could be disturbed by this Court in t...
Tag this Judgment!Manoharan Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-1982
Reported in: (1983)ILLJ13Ker
M.P. Menon, J.1. Two trade unions and two workmen of the H.M.T. establishment at Kalamassery, are the petitioners herein, and the prayer is to quash Ext. P3 settlement and direct the conciliation officers of the State to initiate conciliation proceedings in respect of the charter of demands annexed to Ext. P2. The facts, as disclosed by the pleadings and the documents produced, are the following:2. On 2.11.1978, the management of H.M.T. entered into a long-term conciliation settlement with all the then existing eight trade unions of the establishment. That settlement is Ext. P1, and Clause (6) thereof provided:This settlement is without prejudice to the union's right to take up the issues of revision of minimum wages and the enhancement of the rate of neutralisation of D. A. beyond Rs. 1.30 per point with the Government of India and if the Government of India agrees to the improvement in the minimum wages and or the DA neutralisation rate, the management agrees to make necessary modifi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pushpaka Travels
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-1982
Reported in: [1985]152ITR717(Ker)
George Vadakkel, J. 1. This a reference at the instance of the Revenue. The assessee is a firm of five partners carrying on the business of passenger transport. The firm was constituted under a partnership deed dated September 15, 1971. For the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee filed the return on October 22, 1974, along with a declaration in Form No. 12. The ITO held that there is no satisfactory explanation for condoning the delay in furnishing the declaration in Form No. 12. Therefore, by annexure A order dated September 5, 1975, the ITO informed the assessee that continuation of registration is not granted to the assessee for the assessment year 1974-75. The assessee took up the said order in appeal before the AAC. By the said appeal (grounds of appeal is annexure B), the assessee prayed that 'the order refusing continuation of registration may be set aside and the appeal allowed'. The AAC by annexure C order took the view that there was no delay in filing the declaration in Fo...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Sebastian
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ416
ORDERS.K. Kader, J.1. The State has filed this revision petition seeking to revise an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cochin, discharging the accused-respondent in C. C. No 83 of 1979, after framing charges against him. The police after due investigation laid a charge-sheet against the respondent herein and two others alleging that they committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 477-A read, with Section 34 I.P.C. Copies of documents as contemplated under Section 207 Cr. P.C. were given to the accused persons. The Magistrate after due compliance of the provisions in Sees. 239 and 240 Cr. P.C. framed charges against the respondent under Sees. 406 and 477-A I.P.C. and discharged the other two accused. The charge was read over and explained to the respondent and thereafter the case was posted for hearing on 26-10-1979, on which day the respondent filed two petitions, one in English and another in Malayalam, praying that he may be discharged. The petition file...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Toshiba Anand Lamps Limited
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-02-1982
Reported in: (1983)34CTR(Ker)341; [1984]145ITR563(Ker)
Sukumaran, J.1. These references are at the instance of the Revenue. They pertain to the two assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. One question raised is common and one arises only for the assessment year 1973-74. The common question is:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in not excluding 'borrowed capital' from the computation of capital for purposes of Section 80J?'2. As regards this question, it is agreed that it has been already answered in respect of a similar question by the decision in Traco Cable Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1982]138ITR385(Ker) . It was held therein that amounts borrowed would have to be deducted for determining the capital employed for the purpose of Section 80J. In view of the above legal position, question No. 1 is answered by holding that the borrowed capital will have to be deducted from the computation of capital for the purpose of Section 80J. The question is, therefore, answered in the negative, in favour of t...
Tag this Judgment!A.V. Thomas and Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, a Ward and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-01-1982
Reported in: (1983)33CTR(Ker)72; [1982]138ITR275(Ker)
1. The facts that gave rise to this petition are simple. The petitioner was assessed for the year 1976-77 by Ex. P-1 dated March 31, 1977. On appeal, considerable reduction was obtained by him under Ex. P-2 order of the AAC dated November 4, 1977. On further appeal by the department, the Tribunal by Ex. P-4 order dated 3rd January, 1980, reversed the order of the AAC, thereby restoring Ex. P-l order.2. After Ex. P-l order the petitioner had fully paid the tax as computed by the ITO. On the decision of the AAC the petitioner received from the department the amount which was allowed. This is seen from Ex. P-3 dated 30th November, 1977, which is the order of refund. By Ex. P-5 dated 26th February, 1980, a demand was served on the petitioner calling upon him to pay back the amounts which remained due from him as per Ex. P-1. The question is whether the petitioner is liable to pay interest between 30th November 1977, when the amounts were refunded to him by the department and 26th February,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›