Kerala Court August 1983 Judgments
T.A. George Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1983
Reported in: [1985]153ITR721(Ker)
Kader, J. 1. The scope and ambit of Section 35 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (Act 22 of 1950), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', arise for determination in this O.P., filed by an agriculturist, challenging the legality and validity of a reassessment made under Section 35 read with Section 18(4) of the Act. Exhibit P-4 notice dated August 29, 1978, and Ex. P-7 proceedings of the first respondent dated February 6, 1979, reassessing the petitioner to agricultural income-tax and Ex. P-8 order of revision passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, the second respondent herein, confirming Ex. P-7 are assailed and sought to be quashed mainly on the grounds that the essential requirements of Section 35 of the Act have not been complied with, that Ex. P-4 is not a valid notice as contemplated by law, that without issuing a valid notice satisfying the requirements under Section 35 of the Act, the Agrl. ITO does not get any jurisdiction to r...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Transformers Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1983
Reported in: 1983(14)ELT2293(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company which manufactures power/distribution Transformers. The short question that arises for consideration is in this case is, whether the petitioner is a 'related person' under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with regard to its supply of transformers to M/s. Genelac . Company Ltd. The department proceeded firstly on the ground that the petitioner being a related person to M/s. G.E.C. Ltd. will not get the benefit of concession regarding the payment of excise duty as per notification No. 120 of 1975-C.E., dated 30-4-1975. The petitioner was personally heard in the matter on 28-12-1981. It is common ground that no order was passed immediately. Thereafter by Ext. P5 communication dated 16-1-1982 the 2nd respondent-the Superintendent of Central Excise, Kalamassery I Range, Ernakulam, Cochin 18 -informed the petitioner, that 'on a perusal of invoices it is seen that the transformers were sold by the petitioner afte...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1983
Reported in: [1984]55CompCas590(Ker); [1984]55STC209(Ker)
Paripoornan, J. 1. The petitioner is one of the directors of a private limited company, named 'Ravathy Exports (Pvt.) Ltd.' This original petition has beenfiled praying for the issue of a writ of prohibition to restrain the respondents from enforcing recovery of any money against the petitioner in pursuance to Ex.P-1 notice and also to quash Ex. P-1 notice. Ex- P-1 notice is one under the Revenue Recovery Act and is dated June 2, 1982, The movable property of the defaulter, named therein (the petitioner herein), is sought to be proceeded against for arrears of sales tax amounting to Rs. 65,201.80. The said amount of sales tax is due for the year 1976-77, as a result of an assessment order effected on the company. The petitioner's case is that he is not the defaulter and for arrears of tax due from the company, he cannot be proceeded against. The recovery proceedings, evidenced by Ex. P-1 is attacked as illegal and unauthorised. 2. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents ...
Tag this Judgment!C.K. Moidoo and ors. Vs. Vayyaprath Kunnath Mayan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-04-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ322
ORDERU.L. Bhat, J.1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) to quash the proceedings in C. C. 191 of 1982 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tellicherry.2. The petition has been filed by accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. That is because the court, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, issued process only against these persons and excluded accused Nos. 3 and 6.3. The parties are Muslims, It appears, accused 3 and 6 were married on 26-3-82. The complaint rests on the allegation that the bride, the third accused, was aged only 14 years at the time of the marriage. Accused 1 and 2 are the parents of the bride. Accused 4 and 5 are the brother and sister-in-law of the first accused. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against accused 1, 2, 4 and 5 that is, excluding the newly wedded couple, merely on the basis of the complaint and the sworn statement. This is challenged as contrary to...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kochupennu Lakshmi Vs. the Chairman, Kerala State Road Transport ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-03-1983
Reported in: II(1984)ACC181; AIR1984Ker97
Subbamonian Poti, C.J. 1. That the provisions of law conferring rights on parties are of no consequence to those who have no means to avail themselves of the benefit of such law is more than evident from the facts of the case before us. A Harijan lady who lost her husband in an accident on 19-3-1978 petitioned to the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation for payment of compensation due on account of the death of her husband. It was a bus belonging to the Corporation that caused the accident resulting in the death of the petitioner's husband and another person. She laments in the petition that only a sum of Rupees 1,000/- was paid to her, that, she had to leave her house at the Harijan Colony, Pulimathu and take shelter in somebody else's house and that she has no means to resort to a court or a tribunal or pay fees to counsel.2. It is further mentioned that two years prior to the date of her petition the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation offered to pay her Rs. 10,000/- but that...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Karthiyayani and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-03-1983
Reported in: (1984)ILLJ259Ker
Sivaraman Nair, J.1. The question arising for decision in these three appeals is as to whether a teacher is a workman as defined in Section 2(s), Industrial Disputes Act. Khalid, J. in his judgment in O.P. Nos. 3696 of 1979 and 637 of 1980 since reported in 1982-I L.L.J. 454, held that a teacher, not being a person employed to do manual work, is not a workman. That judgment is the subject-matter of Writ Appeals Nos. 410 and 411 of 1982. U.L. Bhat, J., in his judgment in O.P. No. 6966 of 1981 followed an earlier judgment of Khalid, J. reported in 1982-I L.L.J. 23, and held that substitute teachers appointed by the Railway Administration were not workmen entitled to the protection under the Industrial Disputes Act. That judgment is the subject matter of Writ Appeal No. 587 of 1982.2. Section 2(s), Industrial Disputes Act, defines a workman as follows:2(s). 'workman' means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technic...
Tag this Judgment!Chirukandan and ors. Vs. Superintendent, Central Excise and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-02-1983
Reported in: 1984(15)ELT7(Ker)
Kochu Thommen, J.1. A common question arises in all these cases, and that is the only point urged before us at the bar on behalf of the petitioners. It is alleged that the Copra Cess Act, 1979, under which the petitioners are required to pay duty of excise on the copra consumed in their mills, is ultra vires and beyond the competence of the Parliament. Such a cess, the petitioners say, is a tax on consumption, and not a duty of excise falling under entry 84 of list I of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution. The petitioner in O. P. No. 3799 of 1979 has not, unlike the others, challenged the whole Act, but only Section 3(1) thereof which is the charging section.2. The Copra Cess Act, 1979 (No. 4 of 1979) imposes under Section 3 a cess which is described as a duty of excise. It reads :'3. Imposition of cess : (1) There shall be levied and collected as a cess, for the purposes of this Act, on copra consumed in any mill in India with a view to producing or manufacturing any goods therefrom ...
Tag this Judgment!Jacob and anr. Vs. Jayabharat Credit and Investment Co. Ltd., and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-02-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1584
ORDERK.K. Narendran, J.1. Two questions arise for consideration in these criminal revisions. They are: (1) Whether a third party to the proceedings, who claims for interim custody of a vehicle seized, can challenge in revision under Section 397 of the Cr. p. C. an order passed under Section 451 of the Cr. P.C. 1973 rejecting his claim and giving custody to another claimant, and (2) in granting interim custody of a motor vehicle seized, what are the considerations that should weigh with the Court, can anybody other than the registered owner be given custody 2. The short facts of the case are: A case was registered by the Ernakulam Town, North Police Station for the theft of a bus KLR 4150 on the complaint of the petitioner in Crl. R. P. 211 of 1983. The vehicle was seized and produced before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court I, Ernakulam on 3-5-1982. (Though in the order the date is given as 3-5-1982, it can only be 3-5-1983). The petitioner in Crl. R. P. 211 of 198...
Tag this Judgment!P. Sundardas Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-01-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ker18
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J.1. The petitioner had, with a view to set up a wheat roller flour mill at Chelambra village of MalappuramDistrict, applied to respondent 3, District Collector, Malappuram, for a licence under the provisions of Wheat Roller Flour Mills (Licensing and Control) Order, 1957 (the Order). On 18-3-1981 the petitioner was granted a licence. Subsequently the petitioner received a communication from the 3rd respondent dt. 11-11-1981, a true copy of which is Ext. P-1, informing him as follows:--'Sri P. Sundardas, Krishna Oil Mills, West Mill, Calicut has been granted a licence No. 1/MJI, in this office proceedings No. C34/487/81 dt. 18-3-1981 for conducting a Roller Flour Mill in R.S. No. 451/ of Chelambra village in Ernad Taluk. The above licence was issued during the period when powers for permitting the setting up of new Roller Flour Mills of 30 tonnes capacity per day were withdrawn from the State Government. Hence, the grant of licence to Sri P. Sundardas is ab initio vo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›