Kerala Court February 1984 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kochu Velu Vs. Purakkattu Joseph and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-08-1984
Reported in: 1(1985)ACC107
V. Bhaskaran Nambiar, J. 1. Kochu Velu was a coconut climber. He fell down from the tree on 16-6-1972. There was a multiple fracture of the left hand. He cannot hereafter climb the trees. He lost his avocation and claimed compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Joseph, his employer disputed the claim and contended that Kochu Velu was only a casual employee. The Commissioner accepted the contention and rejected the claim. Velu filed appeal to this Court. The appeal was allowed and it was held that he was a workman entitled to compensation. The matter was sent back to the Commissioner for fixing the compensation amount. This decision is dated 2-1-1980 and is reported in Kochu Velu v. Joseph 1982 A.C.J. (Supp) 486 (Kerala).2. Thereafter the Commissioner found that the appellant was getting an average monthly income of Rs. 5.25; he would come under the lowest wage group according to Schedule IV of the Act, that there was no total disablement, the earning capacity was 50% and thu...
Aluminium Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-07-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)ECC164; 1984(16)ELT183(Ker)
ORDERM.P. Menon, J. 1. The controversy is about levy of customs duty on aluminium ingots imported by the petitioner-company.2. Duties are leviable under three heads :-(i) Basic duty under Section 2 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975;(ii) Auxiliary duty of customs under the Finance Act; and(iii) Additional duty of customs under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.By a notification issued on 9-9-1980, in exercise of power under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 Government had exempted aluminium ingots from the whole of the basic duty. Another notification had also been issued on the same day, amending an earlier notification of March, 1980, exempting aluminium ingots from auxiliary duty. As regards additional duty, the rate was 40% prior to 29-8-1980; but on that day, notification No. 176 was issued, also in exercise of power under Section 25(1), exempting additional duty in excess of 12 1/2 %.3. On 27-3-1981 two notifications numbered as 75 and 76 were issued. The effect of the ...
State of Kerala Vs. K.C. George
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-1984
Reported in: (1984)ILLJ512Ker
Fathima Beevi, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment in O.P. No. 7200/1983 quashing Ext. P1 order dated 16th August, 1983 by the State Government placing the 1st respondent-petitioner, the Chief Engineer (Arbitration) under suspension, in exercise of the power under Rule 10 of Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960.2. The 1st respondent entered Government service in the Public Works Department on 4th July, 1951 and is to retire in July 1984. He took charge as Chief Engineer (Arbitration) on 4th March, 1983. In his capacity as Chief Engineer (Arbitration), the 1st respondent had to discharge quasi-judicial functions of adjudicating on claims in arbitration cases between the Government and contractors and to pass awards. The aggrieved party could challenge the award where there is misconduct on the part of arbitrator or on the ground that the award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid.3. The 1st respondent in his capacity as Chie...
Parameswaran Thampi Vs. Padiyan Thomas and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Ker135
Bhaskaran Nambiar, J. 1. The plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession is 'the appellant and the dispute that now survives for determination relates to the leasehold right over 6 acres and 8 cents claimed by the third defendant. The trial Court has upheld the lease. In view of the fact that we are remanding the case to the trial Court for a fresh consideration on this aspect, we shall briefly advert to the facts and also consider the legal aspects raised.2. The suit is for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for other consequential reliefs. The title of the plaintiff is admitted while his possession is disputed. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff had leased the disputed land to the third defendant in 1st Chingam 1120 M. E. (1945), he surrendered the leasehold right on 30-4-1954, and thereafter it was leased to two others in 1962, who remained in possession till 1969 and surrendered the property to the plaintiff. The plaiutiff has been in possession since then a...
K.P. Mohammed Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ745
K. Bhaskaran, A.C.J.1. Both are writ petitions concerning the right to perform cabaret dances in restaurants; though the nature of reliefs sought is different. In O.P. No. 7675 of 1983, filed by one Sri K. P. Mohammed, President of All India Lohia Vichar Manch & Member, Cabaret Virudha Samithi, Calicut, the main prayer is for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2, namely, the State of Kerala and the Corporation of Calicut, to ban the Cabaret dance conducted in various restaurants in the city of Calicut. In O.P. No. 8271 of 1933, filed by M/s. Queens Restaurant (Private) Ltd. Calicut, represented by its Managing Director, the main relief sought is the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, the Police authorities in the city of Calicut, to forbear from interfering with the petitioner's right to cater to the needs of the adult customers who purchase cabaret coupons for admission to the hall exclusively reserved for them.2. In these writ petitions, t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›