Kerala Court March 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.
M.M. Pulimood Vs. Registrar of Firms
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-1984
Reported in: [1987]61CompCas209(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J. 1. The petitioner and six others formed into a partnership for the purpose of owning and managing plantations under the name and style of 'Pulimood plantations', The firm came into existence on June 1, 1983. Exhibit P-1 dated June 1, 1983, is the partnership deed. Partner No. 7 is the 'Wynad Plantations P. Ltd.' which is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. An application under Sections 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, in the proper form signed by all the partners was presented to the respondent, the Registrar of Firms, for the purpose of registration of the partnership under Sections 59 of the Partnership Act. Exhibit P-4 is a photostat copy of the application in Form No. I submitted to the respondent. The requisite fee for registration was also paid. The application was returned as per exhibit P-5 memo for the reason stated therein that 'A firm cannot be recognised as partner'. The application was re-presented with exhi...
Kerala Civil Aviation General Workers' Co-op. Society Vs. Union of Ind ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-1984
Reported in: (1984)IILLJ314Ker
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. OP No. 1056 of 1984 is by the Kerala Civil Aerodrome Workers' Union (hereinafter referred to as 'the Union') represented by its General Secretary for the following reliefs:a) A writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining respondent 1 to 4 from entrusting the contract of porterage service in the Civil Aerodrome at Trivandrum to the 5th respondent.b) A writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondent 1 to 4 to allow the members of the petitioner union to continue as porters of the Civil Aerodrome at Trivandrum.Respondent 1 to 3 are the Director General of Civil Aviation. The Regional Director and the Aerodrome Officer, Civil Aerodrome, Trivandrum, and the 4th respondent is the Union of India represented by its Secretary for CivilAviation Department, New Delhi. It is stated in the Original Petition that the members of the petitioner Union are engaged in connection with porterage work in the Trivandr...
Official Liquidator, Palai Central Bank Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Inco ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-27-1984
Reported in: [1984]56CompCas433(Ker); [1984]150ITR148(Ker)
Paripoornan, J. 1. The official liquidator, Palai Central Bank, has filed the above application. For the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77, the respondent (Income-tax Officer) effected assessments.' Those were finally decided by the Appellate Tribunal. Notices of demand were served in, pursuance thereto. The official liquidator remitted the amounts on April 27, 1981, after obtaining sanction of this court. The amounts due as per the notices of demand were Rs. 20,559 and Rs. 16,963 towards the tax payable for the years 1975-76 and 1976-77.2. Thereafter the respondent-ITO issued notices under Section 154 of the Act purporting to correct the mistake apparent on the record in issuing the demand notices. It was alleged that the mistake was in not including the interest on the additional tax for the period from the date of the order of the AAC to the date of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Objections were invited. The official liquidator objected to the jurisdiction of the ITO to rec...
Sudarsan Chits (India) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-27-1984
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas261(Ker)
U.L. Bhat, J.1. The first and second petitioners in the two cases are common. The first petitioner is a company under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short ' the Act '), and petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 are its directors. The common respondent is the Registrar of Companies, Kerala, Ernakulam. The company was required to file before the Registrar of Companies, the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account for the periods ending April 30, 1980, and July 31, 1980, before November 30, 1980, and March 2, 1981, respectively. The company, however, did not file the balance-sheets and, therefore, the Registrar filed two complaints before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, against the company and its directors alleging the commission of offences punishable under Section 220(3) of the Act. The accused filed petitions before the trial court in Crl. M.P. Nos. 890 of 1983 and 894 of 1983, respectively, praying for dismissal of the complaints and acquittal of the accused on the ground that the com...
Shihabudeen Kunju Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-26-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ker12; (1985)IILLJ106Ker
ORDERP.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The petitioner on 11-4-1983 submitted an application to the 2nd respondent. Director of Factories and Boilers who is also the Chief Inspector of Factories, for the approval of the site and for permission for the construction of a factory for processing raw cashew. The application was in the proper form and was in accordance with Rule 3 of the Kerala Factories Rules. 1957. As per Ext. PI memo dt. 13-5-1983 the 2nd respondent returned the application for rectification of certain defects pointed out therein. The defects were cured and the application was re-presented on 25-5-1983. There was no reply within the statutory period of 3 months mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Factories Act, 1948 and the petitioner was entitled to presume that his application for approval of site and permission for the construction had been granted. Sub-sec. (1) of Section 6 authorises the Government to make rules requiring the previous permission in writing of ...
A.M. Padmakshi Vs. Sudarsan Chits (India) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-26-1984
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas637(Ker)
K.S. Partpoornan, J.1. This is an application filed under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with rules 105, 117 and 118 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The applicant as well as the third respondent herein are judgment-debtors in O.S. No. 1 of 1972 of the Sub-Court, Tellicherry, in the suit filed by the first respondent company for realising an amount of Rs. 8,636. It was decreed on July 31, 1975. By the decree, a charge was created over the landed property extending to 1 cents under Re. Sy. No. 407/3, 4 and 5 of Kannapuram amsom. The first respondent company filed E.P. No. 51 of 1975 and brought the property to sale. E.A. No. 126 of 1975 was filed by it seeking permission to bid the property in the auction. It was granted. In the meanwhile, the third respondent paid Rs. 3,000. The fourth respondent filed the suit against the first respondent company, O. S. No. 349 of 1979, of the Sub-Court, Tellicherry, for recovering a sum of Rs. 7,000 odd and obtained a decree on Mar...
Demach Engineers Private Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Winny Xavier
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-26-1984
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas499(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The respondent in the company petition is the applicant herein. This application is filed praying for the grant of the following reliefs :(a) to stay further proceedings in Company Petition No. 1 of 1983.(b) refusing advertisement of Company Petition No. 1 of 1983 ; and(c) to revoke the order of admission of Company Petition No. 1 of 1983 as not maintainable in law.2. The application is supported by an affidavit dated February 28, 1983. This is opposed by the petitioner in the company petition.3. Company Petition No. I of 1983 was filed by the respondent in this application. The respondent was an employee of the company. Alleging that the company neglected and refused to pay a sum of Rs. 6,109.50 as salary and other dues in spite of repeated demands and that the applicant company is commercially insolvent, Company Petition No. 1 of 1983 was filed praying that the company be wound up under the provisions of the Companies Act. This petition was filed on December 21...
Commissioner of Agrl. Income Tax Vs. Pullangode Rubber and Produce Co. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-1984
Reported in: (1986)57CTR(Ker)256
T. Kochu Thommen, J. - The following questions have been referred to us by the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the premium paid on the insurance against loss or theft of cash in transit is allowable deduction as per s. 5(j) of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950, especially so when there is a clear provisions regarding the payment of insurance premium on insurance against loss or damage of crop in s. 5(n)(iv) ?2. Was not the Tribunal in error of law in deciding that even if the said insurance premium paid towards insurance of loss or theft of cash in transit is not allowable under s. 5(n)(iv), it is allowable under s. 5(j) ?'2. The assessees claim for deduction in respect of the asst. yr. 1975-76 was disallowed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax (Special) by his order dt. 17-1-197...
State of Kerala and anr. Etc. Vs. K.C. Moosa Haji and ors. Etc.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Ker149
M.P. Menon, J.1. These are appeals under Section 8-A of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act. 1971 (hereinafter called the 'Vesting Act'). The Act came into force on 10-5-1971. Its object was to provide for the vesting of private forests in the State Government, and for assignment thereof to agriculturists and agricultural labourers for cultivation, as in the opinion of the legislature, all private forests in Kerala were agricultural lands. Section 2 (f), defined 'private forest.' Section 3 provided for the vesting of the ownership and possession of all such forests in the Government, and for the extinguishment of rights, title and interests of owners and other persons. Under Section 4, vested private forests were to be deemed to be reserve forests so long as they remained vested. Section 5 provided for summary eviction of persons found to be in unauthorised occupation of the vested areas. Section 6 provided for demarcation of the boundaries, and Section 7, for the c...
Kunju Mohammed Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-1984
Reported in: (1984)IILLJ1Ker
Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.1. In 1976, a Full Bench of this Court in Gopala Pillai v. S.S.I. Corporation 1978-11 L.L.J. 368 held that a 'Corporation which has been registered as a company under the Companies Act cannot be regarded as a Start? for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution'. Is this decision still good law especially after the subsequent pronouncements of the Supreme Court on the subject? This accounts for the constitution of a larger Bench to dispose of this writ petition.2. Two of us (Bhaskaran, Ag. C.J. k Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.) had occasion to consider this aspect in a recent decision in Sofhi. F.A.C. T. (1984 KLT 32) when the question was raised whether F.A.C.T. (Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.), a registered company, is a State amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Surveying the decisions of the Supreme Court beginning with Rajasthan Electricity board's case in 1967 and ending with Ajay Hasia'scase in 1981 and applying the principles stated therei...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »