Kerala Court April 1983 Judgments
Kadavanathil Baby and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-14-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1186
K. Sukumaran, J.1. Accused Nos. 1 and 4 in S.C. No. 105 of 1980 of the Sessions Court, Tellicharry have preferred the appeals challenging the conviction and sentence passed against them. Criminal Appeal No. 268 of 1981 is the appeal filed by the 1st accused. The appeal of the 4th accused is Criminal Appeal No. 279 of 1981.2. The 1st accused was charged with offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. as also an offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 for causing the death of Mathew Manjooran, the husband of the 4th accused by shooting him with an unlicensed country gun. All the four accused were charged under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted. Accused No. 1 was found guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and also under Section 3 read with Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. The conviction of the 4th accused was for offence under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Prison Reforms Enhancement of Wages of Prisoners Etc.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-13-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Ker261
Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J.1. This Court has been receiving petitions from prisoners in the various jails of the State either directly or through the grievance deposit boxes maintained in the jails. Such of those matters as call for attention of the Government are brought to the notice of the Government by the High Court, expecting that action would be taken thereon and if no action is taken then the court is called upon to look into the matter on the judicial side and pass necessary orders.2. The High Court forwarded a request of 19 prisoners from the Central Prison at Cannanore to the Government for necessary action along with the letter of the Registrar dated 18-6-1982. One of the prayers made in the representation by the prisoners was that the wages of the prisoners may be enhanced. The Government's attention was drawn to this prayer. In fact the question of enhancement of wages of prisoners was pending with the Government on a recommendation made by the High Court earlier. That has...
Tag this Judgment!Rajagiri Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Sales Tax Officer and o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-13-1983
Reported in: [1983]143ITR742(Ker); [1983]53STC370(Ker)
ORDERThe Government order that the collection of sales tax due under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, on the inter-State sale of rubber by rubber planters in Kerala during the period prior to 1st June, 1978, shall be waived.(By order of the Governor) C. P. Nair Secretary to Government.'Counsel also placed reliance on the decision reported in Nand Lal and Sons v. Excise and Taxation Commissioner [1983] 52 STC 249 and contended that the ratio of the said decision is fully applicable here also and in this view of the matter the ground on which the refund of Central sales tax paid was refused and contained in the following words in exhibit P-12 is clear by a legal error and exhibit P-12 deserves to be quashed, 'With reference to your letters cited requesting for the refund of C.S.T. paid for the period 1970-1971 to 1974-1975 it is informed that you are not eligible for the refund of tax already paid since the Government have only waived the collection of C.S.T. prior to 1-6-1978 as per G....
Tag this Judgment!Mani and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-13-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1262
Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. These cases had earlier come up for hearing before one of us (the Acting Chief Justice) and Justice Vadakkel when the court passed the following order:An interesting question which, though of daily occurrence, does not appear to have been posed in this form arises for decision before us on applications by two prisoners in the Cannanore Central Jail. They were charged in C. C. No. 2/82 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chalakudy as also C. C. No. 6/82 of that Court. They were convicted in both the cases and the entences have not. been directed to run concurrently. Their prayer in the petitions is that the sentences may be directed to be run concurrently. This necessarily gives rise to the question as to the circumstances under which a court should normally exercise the discretion to award the sentences concurrently rather than consecutively. The Cr. P.C. does not specify the situations under which a court would be justified in directing sentences...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›