Kerala Court February 1983 Judgments
P.M. Unni Raja and ors. Vs. Principal, Medical College, Trivandrum and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Ker200
Khalid, J.1. A Division Bench of this Court while considering a series of writ petitions in which judgment waspronounced on 23rd December, 1981 detected various irregularities in the conduct of examination, preparation of mark-lists etc. During the hearing, some of the answer papers, chosen at randoms of the candidates selected for admission to the M. B. B. S. Degree were re-examined with the help of competent academicians. Re-examination made alarming disclosures. Such disclosures made the Court to alert the authorities far necessary follow-up action in the following words:'Certain element of deterrence is necessary in dealing with persons associated with malpractices whether it be the candidates, examiners or the University Staff. Having looked into files concerning such action by the University of of Kerala in the past, we arc afraid that persons concerned in such malpractices have been dealt with very softly. Whenever cases come to the notice of the University authorities or Govern...
Tag this Judgment!C.P.K. Trading Company Vs. Additional Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1983
Reported in: [1983]54STC222(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. Exhibits P3 and P4 which are impugned are orders of assessment made under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (the 'Act'), for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The petitioner had claimed exemption under Section 6A of the Act. The exemption was not granted for the reason that the petitioner failed to furnish the details under Rule 5A of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, 1957, made by the State Government (I shall call it the 'State Rules') under Section 13(3) and (4) of the Act. The contention of the petitioner-assessee is that the said rule made by the State Government has been superseded by Rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, made by the Central Government (I shall call it the 'Central Rules') under Section 13(1) in respect of transactions falling within Section 6A and accordingly insistence on' compliance with the provisions of Rule 5A of the State Government is unjustified.2. It has to be stated that the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Gokuldas Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Ker169
ORDERK.K. Narendran, J. 1. A point of some importance in the law of arbitration arises for consideration in this Civil Revision. The point is : Whether a court exercising powers under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 has power to issue an injunction by virtue of the powers it has under Section 41 of the Act and if so, what are the conditions to be satisfied? The petitioner is a railway contractor. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent, the Chief Engineer, Southern Railway unilaterally terminated two of his contracts on the ground that he did not execute the work properly and for alleged amounts due as compensation for breach of contract as per the agreement, payments due to him, under other contracts he is executing, are going to be appropriated. The petitioner's case is that the contracts could not be completed because of the defaults caused and the breach of contract committed by the Railway and not due to his fault. The petitioner filed an application under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Pushpadharan Vs. Food Corporation of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-1983
Reported in: (1984)ILLJ417Ker
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The four petitioners are Assistants Grade III in the general administration cadre and the godown cadre of the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) working in different stations of its Southern zone. They joined service in Category 4 of the Staff Regulations of the Corporation. The Staff Regulations were issued in 1971 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 45 of the Food Corporation of India Act, 1964 (Act 37 of 1964). Assistant Grade III falls under Category 3. Appointment to the post of Assistant Grade HI is by direct recruitment of graduates and also by promotion from among matriculate employees in Category 4, with three years experience. As per the amended regulations, eighty per cent of the total vacancies of Assistants Grade III are to be filled up by direct recruitment of graduates. The promotion quota for matriculate Category IV employees is only twenty percent. The petitioners are matriculate Category IV empl...
Tag this Judgment!Kunnoth Poovadan Lakshmi Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-1983
Reported in: [1984]147ITR24(Ker)
Kadee, J.1. These two original petitions relate to proceedings initiated for recovery of arrears of agrl. income-tax assessed on Kunhikanaran Vaidyar, now deceased, for four years commencing from 1966 to 1970. Kunhikanaran Vaidyar owned extensive items of immovable properties and had 3 wives and children born to them. Poovadan Suseela is his third wife and the petitioners herein are children born to her, the petitioner in O.P. No. 6217 of 1981-N being her son and the petitioner in O.P. No. 6806 of 1981-1 being her daughter.2. The point for determination in both the original petitions being the same, these original petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. It is said that Kunhikanaran Vaidyar died in 1978 and long before his death properties belonging to himself and his wives were partitioned as per registered document No. 275 of 1958, on January 17, 1958, at Sub-Registry Office, Kakkattil. As per this partition deed, properties described in F schedule were set apart to the ...
Tag this Judgment!A.S.P. Kurup Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Ker259
ORDERK.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner in the original Petition is a practising Advocate, and the Treasurer of the All Kerala Consumers' Resistance Movement. In this original petition he challenges the publication of advertisement similar to one in Ext. F2. Ext. P2 is a postal cord in which the following is printed;(Vernacular is omitted--Ed.)The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw and remove all such advertisements. The respondents to this Original Petition are Union of India, Post Master General, Post and Telegraph Department, P. M. G.'s Office, Trivandrum and the State of Kerala, The petitioner alleges that the advertisement is widely published through posters in the Government Hospitals and other offices and in Post Cards similar to the one in Ext. P2 and that such advertisements should be interdicted. It is averred in the original petition that a reading of the advertisement will tempt people to take 'chloroquin' whenever they get fe...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. N. Soman
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ567
ORDERU.L. Bhat, J.1. The Food Inspector. Kallara Panchayat in Nedumangad Circle, inspected a provision shop in building No. C-3 1099 (2) adjoining a ration shop, A. R. D. 181 and situated within the limits of Kallara Panchayat, on 29-1-1981 at 1.30 P. m. and proceeded to purchase a sample of cumin seeds exhibited in the shop for sale, in accordance with the provisions of law. The accused sold the sample to the Food Inspector and after dealing with the sample in accordance with law, Ext. P-4 mahazar was prepared and got signed by the accused and the witnesses. One of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and the rest sent to the Local Health Authority. The Public Analyst in Ext. P-7 report stated that the sample contained 78.2% cumin seeds. 13.5% of non-edible seeds and 8.3% of extraneous matter, including dust. stones, lumps of earth, chaff. etc. and therefore the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for cumin seeds under item A.05.09 of Appendix B of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Jose Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-14-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ748
K. Sukumaran, J1. In the dark night of 14th January, 1980, (just three days prior to the new moon day which fell on 17-1-1980) two babies, Gini and Gina, found their watery grave. The children were born to the accused, aged 26, and his wife P. W. 6, aged 25. A cousin and neighbour of the accused, P. W. 1, gave Ext. P1 first information statement before the Head Constable P. W. 10 at 9.30 a. m. on 15-1-1980. Ext. P1 implicated the accused as the person responsible for the death of the children. A crime was registered--Crime No. 6 of 1980 of the Koratty Police Station P. W. 10 prepared the inquest reports Exts. P4 and P5. The investigation was continued by P. W. 11 who took over the same on 16-1-1980. The accused was arrested on 25-2-1980. A charge was laid against him before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chalakudy (where the case was registered as C. P. No. 23 of 1980) for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, of causing the death of the children...
Tag this Judgment!Aravindan and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-07-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1259
ORDERT. Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. Petitioners are the accused who are arrayed before the Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, Moovattupuzha in Crime No. 79 of 1982 (of the Koothattukulam Police Station). The offences alleged against them are under Sections 143, 149. 121A and 124A of the Penal Code and Section 131(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act. They have approached this court, seeking its inherent powers to quash the proceedings before the Magistrate on the around that even on the allegations made against, them by the police, they could not be convicted for the offences aforementioned and the continuation of the proceedings before the Magistrate would only be an abuse of the process of court.2. To appreciate the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners it is necessary to take note of the actual complaint made against them. What is stated in the first information is (Being in vernacular is omitted in this report Ed.) It is further elucidated that what the people...
Tag this Judgment!O. Balanarayanan and ors. Vs. the Registrar of Firms, Trivandrum and a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ker20
ORDERS.K. Kader, J. 1. The three petitioners herein along with one R. Prabhakaran constituted a partnership under the name and style 'Polylaminates' and the same was duly registered with the Registrar of Firms. Trivandum, under the provisions of the Partnership Act --hereinafter called the Act, While so, by mutual consent the firm was dissolved with effect from 1-4-1975 and a deed of dissolution also was executed on 8-3-1976 by all the partners. Public notice of dissolution of the partnership was published in leading vernacular dailies and also in the Kerala Gazette dt. 23-3-1976. Notice of dissolution in the prescribed form was sent by R. Prabhakaran, one of the partners to the Registrar of Firms, the first respondent herein. But thereafter, Sri R. Prabhakaran left India and his whereabouts were not known. Recently when the first petitioner happened to go to the office of the Ist respondent, he came to know that as there was some defect the notice of dissolution sent by R. Prabhakaran...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »