Kerala Court January 1985 Judgments
Managing Partner, Nallappa Transport Vs. R.T.A., Palghat and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker18
ORDERU.L. Bhat, J.1. Under Ext. P1 first respondent, R. T. A., Palghat, preferred petitioner for grant of regular permit on the route dealt with therein. There were 11 applicants for the permit including fourth respondent. Fourth respondent and one of the other applicants filed appeals before third respondent, S. T. A. T., Ernakulam challenging Ext. P1 order. By a common Judgment, Ext. P 4, the Tribunal set aside the decision of the R. T. A. and held that fourth respondent should have been granted permit. His appeal was allowed and the other appealwas dismissed. Decision of the Tribunal preferring fourth respondent is now challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. We need only consider the case of petitioner and fourth respondent. Each of them secured five marks. Petitioner secured four marks on the ground of place of business or residence, four marks on the ground of sector qualification and one mark on the ground of business or techincal experience. Fourth respondent secured...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Rani Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-1985
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ853Ker
Bhaskaran, J. 1. The appellant is one of the two sisters of one Shaji, who died due to employment injury. A sum of Rs. 23,621/- has been awarded by the 1st respondent, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kozhikode, who is the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, towards compensation. The amount has been deposited by the employer for being distributed to the dependents of the deceased under Section 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Commissioner made thedistribution in the following terms- Father .... Rs. 6,000/-Appellant Rs. 2,000/-The younger sister whois arrayed as 4th Respondentin the appeal Rs. 10,000/- 2. The submission made by the counsel for the appellant is that the appellant and the 4th respondent having been placed in equal position, the Commissioner was not justified in ordering a sum of Rs. 10,000/-to the 4th respondent, and only a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the appellant. The reason stated by the Commissioner was that by the time the enquiry was instituted under...
Tag this Judgment!Jacob Philip and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Ker255
ORDERP.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. This batch of cases relates to the cancellation of permits issued to the respective petitioners for the purchase of cement from stockists licenced under the Kerala Cement Distribution (Licensing and Regulation) Order, 1974. Since both the Union of India as well as the State of Kerala are made parties in O. P. No. 4398 of 1982, that case is taken as the main case for the decision of the points argued in this batch of Original Petitions.2. The petitioners in O. P. No. 4398 of 1982 had on 21-12-1980 applied to the Director of Industries and Commerce for the issue of a permit for purchase of 1800 bags of cement. He was initially granted a permit for 200 bags by way of a direction to the 4th respondent, the Officer-in-charge of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation, Cement Depot. Thrippoonithura, to sell the aforesaid quantity of cement to the petitioner. There was a second allotment as per Ext. P1 dated 10-11-1981 by the District Collector, Ernakulam...
Tag this Judgment!Abad Fisheries Vs. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-1985
Reported in: [1985(50)FLR512]; (1994)IIILLJ59Ker
Menon, J.1. This is an appeal by the employer against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation directing deposit of Rs. 16,800, for payment as compensation to the 2nd respondent, in connection with the death of his daughter consequent on an employment injury sustained by her in the course of employment under the appellant. The only point raised is that the deceased was an 'insured person' within the meaning of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, the remedy under the Workmen's Compensation Act was barred. The 2nd respondent had first filed an application before the Insurance Court, under Section 75 of the Act in January, 1980, and the application before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner was filed only thereafter, in March, 1980. The E.S.I. claim was rejected for reasons unknown and the W.C. Commissioner took the view that the bar under Section 53 of the E.S.I. Act could operate only if the dependent was actually in receipt of benefits under Section 52.2. We a...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. P.A. Varghese Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ861
ORDERK. Sukumaran, J.1. This is an application Under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for transfer of two criminal cases -- C.C. 19/1983 and C.C.4/1984, now before the Special Court (Mark list cases), to any other Court of a Chief Judicial Magistrate or any Assistant Sessions Court. The application was opposed by the Director of Public Prosecution.2. A copy of the application had been forwarded to the Learned Magistrate for his remarks, which were furnished by communication dt. 17-10-1984, and were made available for perusal by counsel for the petitioner as desired by him. The allegations levelled in the petition for transfer have been denied by the Special Court. Notwithstanding such denial, the Magistrate took care to point out that he would never stand against the desire of the petitioner.3, The prayer of the petitioner for transfer has to be considered seriously and anxiously, having regard to the relevant considerations to be borne in mind when an application of the n...
Tag this Judgment!Vannathi Valappil Janaki and ors. Vs. Puthiya Purayil Paru and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-11-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker110
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 2 to 7, 11 and 12. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and recovery of plaintiff's 2/4 share in the plaint schedule properties.2. The plaint schedule properties originally belonged to three persons by name Koran, Kunhiraman and Manikkam. The properties were acquired by the above said three persons under Ext. B-1. It is dt. 19-4-1943. The plaintiffs claim that the properties were gifted to four persons by the original owners under Ext. B-2, which is same as Ext. A-1, This gift deed is dt. 15-1-1946. The plaintiffs claim title to and right of partition of the properties as per Ext. A-1. The contesting defendants submit that Ext. A-1 gift was cancelled by the donors. The cancellation is evidenced by document Ext. B-3. It is same as Ext. A-5. This document is dt. 8-8-1960. Further they submit that they are in possession of the properties with absolute title to the properties by virtue of three assignment deeds Ext. A-6, A-7, and...
Tag this Judgment!Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-03-1985
Reported in: (1985)47CTR(Ker)145; [1985]153ITR810(Ker)
Paripoornan, J. 1. In view of the importance of the questions raised in the case, a learned single judge of this court by order dated March 3, 1982, referred the above original petition to be heard by a Division Bench. The petitioner is a company carrying on business of spinning and weaving. It is an assessee to income-tax on the files of the second respondent. For the assessment year 1974-75 (year ending March 31, 1974), the net assessable income was fixed at Rs. 24,67,658. The assessable income was Rs. 28,77,301 before deducting depreciation allowance. From the net income arrived at, i.e., Rs. 24,67,658, the ITO set off the loss of the earlier years. For the years 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71, the loss was set off in full and for the year 1971-72, the loss was set off in part to the extent of Rs. 87,259. The total loss of the previous years so set off from 1966-67 to 1971-72, which amounted to RS. 24,67,658, was deducted from the net income arrived at. In the result...
Tag this Judgment!A. Abdul Rehman, A.B. Beedi Depot Vs. Govt. of India and ors
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-02-1985
Reported in: 1985(22)ELT53(Ker)
1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of beedies chargeable to excise duty Under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (here in after referred to as 'the Act'). His premises were inspected on 26-6-1976 by the Inspector of Central Excise, Trichur, and on verification of stocks found that there was deficiency to the extent of 1106 Kgms, of biri tobacco when compared with the book balance in E.B. 3 register maintained at the premises. Adjudication proceedings Under Section 33 of the Act were initiated in respect of deficiency noticed on inspection of the premises and the adjudicating authority, namely, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trichur as per his proceedings dated 28-2-1977 found that 26,88,385 biris had been manufactured and removed from the premises without payment of excise duty thereon. The petitioner was therefore directed to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and the excise duty of Rs. 2,688.40 due on the excisable goods removed without payment of duty. The decision...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›