Kerala Court March 1983 Judgments
Mrs. Elizabeth Samuel Aaron Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Ker225
Sivaraman Nair, J.1. This Original Petition is filed by the first petitioner Mrs. Elizabeth Samuel Aaron, who is alleged to be one of the major shareholders of the Super Clays and Minerals Mining Company Private Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the Company), which is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. She challenges Exts. P8 to P11, orders passed by the Government of Kerala under the Kerala Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1961 (Act 6 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the Relief Undertakings Act). She also challenges the constitutional validity of Section 3(1) of the Kerala Relief Undertakings Act. She has also sought to represent the Company which is mentioned as the second petitioner; but this claim seems hardly sustainable in view of the averments contained in the counter-affidavit of the second respondent that the Board of Directors of the Company does not support this move.2. The facts relating to the controversy are the following : The Super Clays...
Tag this Judgment!Kamaraj Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-1983
Reported in: 1983LC1462D(Kerala); 1983(14)ELT1751(Ker)
T. Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. On 1st November, 1980 by notification of the same date the Government of India, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), exempted Viscose staple fibre and Viscose tow, falling within Chapter 56 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), when , imported into India from so much of the duty of customs leviable thereon under the said First Schedule as is in excess of 10% ad valorem. By subsequent notifications of 26-8-1982, 13-12-1982 and 1-3-1983 the figures and words 10% ad valorem was substituted by 20% ad valorem, 30% ad valorem and 40% ad valorem respectively. There is exemption of customs duty on the same lines in respect of dealings in Polyaosic Fibre. In the first instance it was complete exemption but subsequent on 1-3-1983 the exemption was limited to duty in excess of 40% ad valorem.2. The question that arises for consideration is whether such exemption will ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Ameer Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-1983
Reported in: [1984]150ITR443(Ker)
Subramonian Poti, Actg. C.J. 1. The reference has been made to thiscourt of the following three questions under Section 64 of the Estate Duty Act,1953 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, thereopening of the assessment under Section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Actwas valid 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the entirety of the goodwill of the firm, M/s. Pulavar Shoe Mart, of which the deceased was a partner, belonged only to the deceased and passed on his death (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in arriving at the super profits of the firm in computing the value of its goodwill, income-tax payable or paid should be excluded ?' 2. The facts which have given rise to these questions are the following. One Gulam Moideen died on September 2, 1972. He was a partner of the firm, M/s. Pulavar Shoe Mart. This firm was constituted under a deed of partnership which is annex. A in the case. It was carrying on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadharan Vs. Kerala Fisheries Corporation Limited
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-1983
Reported in: (1983)IILLJ360Ker
Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. The petitioner was the factory manager of the Nylon Net Factory, which is run by the Kerala Fisheries Corporation Ltd. This Corporation is run by the Government of Kerala, Department of Fisheries. It is a statutory organisation, and as the petitioner has contended, it can very well be taken to be an instrumentality of the Government in the development of fisheries.2. The petitioner was served with a memo of charges on 6th September, 1980, which contained allegations that he failed to prevent the commission of fraud by one of his assistants, who was found engaging himself in a Nylon Net Factory owned by a private individual. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the memo of charges. An enquiry was conducted in the matter. The Enquiry Officer reported the petitioner guilty of all the three charges levelled against him. A copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and he was asked to show cause why punishment of removal from service ...
Tag this Judgment!Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. A. John Anthrapper
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-18-1983
Reported in: [1985]57CompCas717(Ker)
Khalid, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Company Judge in C.P. No. 33 of 1982, overruling the preliminary objection raised by the appellant company, the Malabar Industrial Company Ltd., about the maintainability of the petition filed under Sections 433(f) and 439(c) of the Companies Act, 1956, by the respondent, a contributory, on various grounds. The learned judge disagreed with the petitioner before him on most of the grounds but felt that there was a prima facie case that by the sale of the only estate belonging to the company, the substratum of the company would disappear and ordered advertisement of the petition.2. Notice was ordered on June 21, 1982, after the petition was admitted. The appellant company entered appearance and filed its counter-affidavit and moved Application No. 262 of 1982 for revoking admission and for dismissal of the petition in limine. This petition was rejected with the observation that the question of maintainability co...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan Nair Sreedharan Nair Vs. Oommoommen Abraham
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ker164
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The defendant in O. S. 193 of 1977 of the Munsiff's Court, Mavalikkara, is the appellant herein. The plaintiff in the suit is the respondent. The appellant is the tenant of a building belonging to the plaintiff-respondent. As per rental arrangement dated 8-10-1974, evidenced by Ext. A1, the building was let to the defendant, for one year. The agreed rent was Rs. 1.55 per day. After the expiry of the term, the defendant continued in occupation of the building. The plaintiff instituted O. S. No. 322 of 1975 for eviction and for arrears of rent. It was contended by the defendant in the said suit that there was no valid notice terminating the tenancy as contemplated by section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice terminating the tenancy in that case was Ext. 85. By Ext 85 notice the tenancy was terminated with effect from 8-11-1975. According to the defendant, the tenancy should be terminated on the day preceding the date of tenancy. The contention of the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Kerala Premo Pipe Factory Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1983
Reported in: [1984]57STC84(Ker)
Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J.1. The revision petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and the assessment in question concerned the year 1972-73. While completing the assessment for that year the Sales Tax Officer, Karunagappally, levied tax under Section 5A in respect of value of river sand and charcoal amounting to Rs. 33,963.80 and Rs. 1,225.81 respectively. The petitioner is manufacturing concrete pipes. River sand is the raw material required for such manufacture. Charcoal is also goods used in the manufacture. Evidently tax under Section 5A has been imposed in regard to the purchase of river sand as well as charcoal on the assumption that the purchases have been made by the assessee under circumstances in which no tax is payable. There was also another item of dispute and that concerns the turnover of sale deemed to be involved in the supply of waste material by the assessee to a contractor who in the same premises converts such waste material into hollow bric...
Tag this Judgment!Vasu Vs. T. Unnikrishnan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1194
ORDERU.L. Bhat, J.1. Revision petitioner is the complainant in C. C. 249 of 1982 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palghat. The complaint alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 189, 193, 209 and 211 IPC against the first respondent herein and another person with reference to a tractor of which the registration certificate stands in the name of the first respondent. The case of the complainant was that he purchased the tractor from the first respondent. Subsequent to the complaint, a search warrant was issued and the tractor was searched and produced before the Court. The revision petitioner as well as the first respondent filed claim petitions under Section 451 of the Criminal P.C. The learned Magistrate directed the tractor to be released to the custody of the complainant-revision petitioner on execution of bond and subject to certain conditions. This order was challenged by the first respondent before the Sessions Court Palghat in R. P. No. 42 of 1082. The learned Sess...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Madhavan Nayar.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1983
Reported in: (1983)35CTR(Ker)81
Paripoornan, J. - At the instance of the revenue, the ITAT has referred two questions of law for the years 1967-68 and 1969-70 and an additional question for the year 1969-70 in R.A. Nos. 57 & 58/C/1975-76 in ITA No. 483 & 549/C/72-73 in compliance with the directions of this Court. One of the common questions referred for the years 1967-68 and 1967-70 is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT having adopted month-to-month basis for computation of profits, is right in law in not adopting the same basis for the computation of profits from the sale of import entitlements ?'2. The assessee, respondent in these two reference, is an individual and a director in M/s Cochin Company Pvt. Ltd. The business of the company is export of sea-foods. In respect of such export, the company was allowed under the export incentive scheme certain 'import entitlements'. It is said that these import entitlements were sold by the assessee at a profit. For the accoun...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakrishna Pillai Vs. Sasidharan Nair and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Ker236
ORDERT. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The petitioner's election petition was dismissed by the learned Munsiff who is the competent authority under Section 22 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 (the 'Act'). The petition was dismissed on a preliminary point. The Munsiff held that sufficient court-fee had not been paid at the time of presenting the petition. The balance court-fee was paid only subsequent to the date of presentation of the petition. This involved an amendment of the petition which the Act and the Rules did not permit. Accordingly by Ext. P1 order the Munsiff held that the petition was not maintainable.2. The contention of the petitioner in the election petition is that of the 1,4 voles declared invalid 4 votes were valid arid ought not to have been rejected. Those 4 votes were cast in favour of the petitioner. If they bad not been rejected the petitioner would have won, for the difference between himself and the 1st respondent was only one vote. This is a matter which of course depe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »