Kerala Court June 1983 Judgments
M. Madhavan Nair Vs. P.E. Varkey and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Ker254
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J.1. In and by the judgment dated 18-3-1983 in M. V. A. A. No. 8 of 1983, a true copy of which is marked Ext. P-6, the 4th respondent the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, granted a temporary permit on the route Karuvarakundu-Trichur via Thuvur, Pandikkad, Perinthalmanna, Pattambi and Kunnamkulam (vide Ext. P-1 rough sketch) for a period of four months to the 1st respondent, setting aside the relevant proceedings dated 21-12-1982 of the 3rd respondent, the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram, a true copy of which is marked Ext. P-2, whereunder the permit was ordered to be granted to the petitioner. In Ext. P-2 proceedings of the 3rd respondent the petitioner and the 1st respondent respectively were shown as applicants Nos. 1 and 4; there were two other applicants also. The decision of the 3rd respondent as stated in Ext. P-2 reads as follows :--'Applicant No. 3 is absent. Heard applicants 1, 2 and 4. This is long route. Marks are awarded. Applicants...
Tag this Judgment!Heveacrumb Rubber (P) Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-1983
Reported in: 1984(3)ECC197; 1983LC1121D(Kerala); 1983(14)ELT1685(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner is a private limited company. It carries on the business of purchasing natural rubber in scrap form and by cleaning it sells the same to the manufacturers of rubber goods in standard 26 kg. blocks. They are called crump or block rubber. By Ext. PI the Inspector of Central Excise, Palai, the 2nd respondent, requested the petitioner to furnish certain particulars. Thereafter by Ext. P2 dated 7-2-1981 the 1st respondent informed the petitioner that block or crump rubber, produced in the petitioner's factory, is liable to central excise duty under Tariff item No. 68 of Central Excise Tariff and asked the petitioner to send certain details and particulars. The petitioner was also asked to explain why action should not be taken for not obtaining Central Excise Licence and clearing the goods without payment of duty. The petitioner sent a detailed objection dated 13-3-1981 to the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner they are not carrying on any manu...
Tag this Judgment!Anthony Ammal Vs. Antony
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ker38
ORDERK.K. Narendran, J.1. The short point that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision is whether the Court can direct a sale of the property involved in a partition suit and distribution of the proceeds even in a case where a request is not made by a shareholder or shareholders interested individually or collectively to the extent of one moiety or upwards and whether such a sale should be conducted in open Court. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. The challenge is against the order of the Munsif's Court, Palghat dismissing an application for a review of an order refusing to give a direction to the commissioner appointed in a final decree proceedings in a suit for partition, to stop the sale. The commissioner appointed in the, final decree proceedings reported to the Court that the decree schedule properties can only be sold and the sale proceeds distributed among the sharers and that was allowed by the Court. Accordingly, the commissioner...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Suresh Shenoy Vs. Wealth-tax Officer, A-ward and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-1983
Reported in: [1984]149ITR65(Ker)
Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee to wealth-tax. He is a partner in two firms, namely, M/s. New Guna Shenoy Co. and Sasidhara Shenoy & Bros. For five years, 1978-79 to 1982-83, the 1st respondent, WTO, A-Ward, Ernakulam, referred the question of valuation of the petitioner's properties to the 2nd respondent, Valuation Officer, to assess the net wealth of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent requested the petitioner to furnish certain details as per notice dated December 20, 1982 (Ext..P-1). The petitioner filed objections before the 2nd respondent, Ext. P-2, dated March 2, 1983, and Ext. P-3 dated March 15, 1983. The Valuation Officer effected a preliminary valuation report dated February 28 (Exts. P-4 and P-4(a)) which was served on the petitioner on March 1, 1983. The petitioner was directed to file his objection to the estimate of valuation on or before March 10, 1983, as is seen from para. 7 at p. 43 of the counter-affidavit of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner took ti...
Tag this Judgment!Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-27-1983
Reported in: (1983)IILLJ404Ker
Kochu Thomman, J.1. This is a petition fur a writ of mandamus to direct respondents 1 and 2 to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Drugs Controller, Ayurveda in the Drugs Control Department and to restrain respondents 1 and 2 from appointing any other person either by deputation or otherwise to that post. In C.M.P. No. 17816 of 1982 this Court passed an interim order on 20th August, 1982 as follows:Urgent notice and interim stay for a month. Hand over the order. On 15th September, 1982 this Court made a further order in the following words:Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the 3rd counter-petitioner. It is submitted by the counsel for the 3rd counter-petitioner that before the stay order was issued by this Court, on 18th August, 1982 the 3rd counter-petitioner was actually appointed. It is submitted by the petitioner's counsel that the 3rd counter-petitioneralias not so far taken charge.In the facts and circumstances of this case, the stay is vacated. Bu...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Office ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1983
Reported in: (1983)35CTR(Ker)391; [1984]145ITR266(Ker)
Halagangadharan Naik, J. 1. By his order, Ex. P-l, dated December 6, 1977, the 1st respondent, the ITO, C Ward, Trivandrum, assessed the income of the petitioner for the assessment year 1975-76 and determined the tax payable at Rs. 1,11,50,375. In addition to this he charged Rs. 5,57,515 as interest under Section 139(8) of the I.T. Act (' the Act') on the ground that the income-tax return which was duo to be filed on or beforeAMay 31, 1975, was filed out of time on January 23, 1976. From the order of assessment the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. In giving effect to the appellate authority's decision the first respondent by his order Ex. P-2 dated March 31, 1978, reduced the interest to Rs. 5,09,770. Thereafter the petitioner moved a petition Ex. P-3 dated August 25, 1973, under the proviso to Section 139(8)(a) before the 1st respondent seeking waiver of the interest on the plea that it was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing the return within t...
Tag this Judgment!Sethu Lakshmi Bayi Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-20-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Ker250
Paripoornan, J.1. In view of the importance of the questions raised, our learned brother Justice Dr. T. Kochu Thommen has referred this Original Petition to be heard and disposed of by a Division Bench, by the order of reference dated 3rd of March, 1983. The petitioner in the Original Petition is Senior Maharani and ex-Regent of the State of Travancore. The Regency commenced on the 1st of Sept., 1924 and terminated on 6th of Nov., 1931. In Oct. 1932, the then Maharaja of Travancore State sanctioned an allowance of Rs. 75,000/- per year to the Regent Maharani. The payment was continued till Dec. 1971 when it was stopped. The Senior Maharani's request to continue the pension before the authorities did not meet with success. By communication dated 18-1-1974 the State Government regretted that the Maharani's request to continue the allowance (payment) cannot be granted. Thereupon she filed O.P. No. 1338 of 1974 to quash the order of the State Government dated 18-1-1974 and for other relief...
Tag this Judgment!iyyu and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-20-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ494
ORDERSukumaran, J.1. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Crime No. 67 of 1983 of the Fort Cochin Police Station are the petitioners. They moved but without success. a bail application before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Cochin. The reason for rejection was technical. The court said that the offences alleged against them were exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.2. The petitioners persevered in their attempt by moving Crl. M. P. No. 296 of 1983 for bail. before the Sessions Court.3. The 1st accused in Crime No. 67 of 1983 and also filed a bail application, Crl. M. P. 278 of 1983. before that court. The court passed a detailed order therein: the bail application was rejected thereunder.4. Crl. M. P. No. 296 of 1983 was considered alone' with Crl. M. P. No. 278 of 1983. Both petitions were rejected by separate orders passed on 9-6-1983. The learned Sessions Judge observed that the reasons for declining bail in Crl. M. P. No. 278 of 1983 equally apply to the petitioners' case as well' an...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Bhaskaran and ors. Vs. Returning Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ker78
K. Bhaskaran, J.1. This writ petition poses some questions of law pertaining to Rules. 26, 28 and 35, Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (the Rules). The petitioners are stated to be two members of the Nanminda Rural Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., No. D 1988 a society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (the Act), and governed by the said Act and the Rules. The society appears to have been registered in or about 1969 There after the bye-laws of the society had undergone a change as per the amendment in terms of the resolution passed at the general meeting of the society on 7-9-1986 which was duly approved by the Registrar Co-operative Societies.2. The term of office of the members of the committee of the society was to expire on 31-3-1982, In accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 35(1) of the Rules which lays down that the committee shall meet at least 60 days in advance of the date of expiration of its term and pass a resolution fixing th...
Tag this Judgment!V.N. Purushothaman Vs. Agrl. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-1983
Reported in: [1984]149ITR120(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. The petitioner is an assessee to Agricultural Income-tax on the files of the 1st respondent, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer. For the assessment year 1980-81, he filed a return showing a loss of Rs. 12,049-16. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer assessed him to the best of his judgment as per Ex. P-1 order, dated September 25, 1981, on a total income of Rs. 63,328.38 and levied a tax and surcharge of Rs. 25,791.48. The assessee filed an appeal, Ex. P-2, before the 2nd respondent, AAC, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales tax. Pending the appeal, he also filed a petition to stay the collection of tax till the disposal of the appeal. This is evidenced by Ex. P-3, dated October 22, 1981. By Ex. P-4 order, the 2nd respondent, AAC, passed an order, rejecting the prayer for stay of collection, but, permitted the petitioner to pay the amount in four instalments as detailed therein. Thereafter, this O.P. was filed praying to quash Ex. P-4 order of the 2nd respondent, a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »