Kerala Court March 1985 Judgments
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. P.M. Paul and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Ker206
ORDERV. Sivaraman Nair, J.1. The first respondent had entered into a works contract with the petitioner, represented by the Chief Engineer, Cochin Zone of the Military Engineering Service on 7-4-1979. Clause 70 of the Contract provided for Arbitration, and was in the following terms :'Arbitration -- All disputes, between the parties to the contract (other than those for which the decision of the CWE or any other person is by the Contract expressed to be final and binding) shall, after written notice by either party to the Contract to the other of them, be referred to the sole arbitration of an Engineer Officer to be appointed by the authority mentioned in the tender documents. Unless both parties agree in writing such reference shall not take place until after the completion or alleged completion of the Works or termination or determination of the contract under Condition Nos. 55, 56 and 57 hereof. Provided that in the event of abandonment of the Works or cancellation of the Contract u...
Tag this Judgment!Mcdowell and Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-1985
Reported in: [1986]62STC164(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Indian-made foreign liquor. It is an assessee on the files of the first respondent-The Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax (Assessment), Special Circle, Alleppey. The petitioner was assessed under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act for the years 1976-77 to 1979-80. It was also assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act for the year 1975-76. There are in all 9 assessments for these years. They are evidenced by exhibits P13 to P21 orders. According to the petitioner, these assessments were made arbitrarily and without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate its case. The notice calling for verification of accounts was issued on 16th April, 1984. There were subsequent notices to similar effect on 3rd May, 1984, 3rd August, 1984, and 8th October, 1984. Finally e...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. V. Sunder Raj and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1869
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. The appeal is filed by the State against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Perumbavoor in S.T. 378/78. Food Inspector attached to Perumbavoor Municipality filed complaint alleging offences under Sections 2(1)(a) and 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. Al was conducting a butter shop in room No. XII/220 in Perumbavoor town and A2 was the Salesman employed by Al in that shop. On 24-9-1977 at about 11.30 a.m. the complainant purchased 450 grams of butter from the stock exhibited for sale from the shop. A2 was paid the price of Rs. 9/-. Food Inspector sampled the butter as per the rules and one of the samples was sent to the public analyst. Report showed it was adulterated. The learned Magistrate found Al and A2 guilty and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months....
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Narayanan Namboodiri and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Ker160
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. By these writ petitions three persons as worshippers inthe Sree Krishna Temple at Guruvayoor challenge the constitutional validity of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978 (Act 14 of 1978). The petitioner in O. P. No. 7592 of 1984 is also the Vice-President of the Kshetra Samrakshana Samithi, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act with objects inter alia to see that necessary measures are taken to ensure that the temples in Kerala are administered and managed in the interests of the worshippers.2. The Sree Krishna Temple at Guruvayoor hallowed by legend and the memory of saints like Villwamangalam Swamiar (Leela Suka who wrote Sree Krishna Karnamritham), Melpathur, (the author of Narayaneeyam), Poonthanam, (who sang Gnanapana) and Kururamma, is unique in its importance to the devotees from all over India. The legend is that the idol, installed in the temple made of a rare stone 'Pathala Anjanam' was presented by Lord Vishnu himself to Lord Brahma ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Ariffa and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1290
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. The question which we are asked to decide as a point of law is whether a child accused can be committed for trial before a Sessions Court along with an adult accused. We have no hesitation to give the answer; that a child accused can never be committed before the Sessions Court for trial along with an adult accused under the present law. We are also of opinion that in view of the provisions contained in the Kerala Children Act, 1972, a child accused cannot be tried by ordinary criminal courts. We feel certain that our conclusions are well fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in : 1981CriLJ1497 (Raghbir v. State of Haryana).2. Before proceeding to give our reasons for the conclusion, we shall give in brief the facts, which gave rise to this question. S.C. Nos. 81/83 and 82/83 on the file of the Sessions Court, Trichur were registered as per the committal orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chalakudy in C.P. Nos. 29/83 and 3...
Tag this Judgment!K. Parameswara Ballakuraya Vs. Commissioner of Agrl. Income Tax.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-1985
Reported in: (1987)66CTR(Ker)243
Bhaskaran, C.J. - On receipt of Annexures A-1, A-2 and A-3 assessment orders dt. 31-10-1977 respectively for the asst. yr. 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77, the petitioner filed his objections in which he never raised a question as to whether the notice was bad for not having sent separate notices to him, one in his capacity as the manager of the HUF properties, and the order as the trustee of the trust properties. He filed the return pursuant to the notice disclosing only the income from the properties held by him in his capacity as the manager of the HUF properties, concealing the income derived by him in his capacity as the trustee of the trust properties. The main contention before the Agrl. ITO was that he was entitled to exemption under s. 4(3) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Agrl. ITO who inspected the property issued a reassessment notice and completed the assessment without accepting his contention. In appeal and second appeal the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala-ii, Ernakulam Vs. G. B. Transports, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-1985
Reported in: (1985)50CTR(Ker)9; [1985]155ITR548(Ker)
FATHIMA BEEVI J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, had under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, referred for the opinion of this court, at the instance of the Revenue, the following common questions of law arising out of a common order of the Tribunal in I.T.A. Nos. 338 to 342 (Coch)/74-75 dated March 10, 1976 for each of the assessment years 1967-68 to 1971-72 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the interest on the excess amount of advance tax payable to the assessee under section 214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, up to the date of the regular assessment can be enhanced consequent on the reduction of income by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer on the assessees petition dated August 2, 1973, is an order un...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudevan Namboodiripad and ors. Vs. Ravi Namboodiripad and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Ker250
Padmanabhan, J.1. In this appeal filed by the plaintiffs in O. S. 22 of 1974 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court. Ottappalam, the short question for consideration is whether Ext. B11 dated 10-11-1962 is actually ;t partition or only an arrangement for maintenance. Both sides agreed that if it is treated as an outright partition, the appellants are out of court; otherwise the suit for partition will have to be allowed.2. Admittedly such of the plaintiffs and defendants who were in existence on the date of Ext. B11 wore members of an undivided Namboodiri Illom. The properties sought to be partitioned are B, B1 and C schedule items in the plaint. Plaint A schedule is the genealogy table. D schedule items are debts to be discharged by the Illom. B schedule items are properties in the direct possession of the Illom and Bl schedule items are outstanding with tenants. C schedule items are movables.3. On 10-11-1962 the then existing members of the Illom entered into Ext. B11, naming i...
Tag this Judgment!Konath Madhavi Amma Vs. S.M. Sherief and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-20-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1496
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. The appeal is by the complainant in C. C. No. 613 of 1977 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam and it is directed against the judgment dt. 30-5-1980 dismissing the private complaint filed for offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent-accused is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of a daily newspaper by name 'Geetha', published from Ernakulam. Exts. PI, P2 and P3 are respectively the publications made by him in the issues of his paper dt. 2-1-1977, 10-4-1977 and 21-8-1977. The complainant's case is that these publications are defamatory to her and her daughter, in having openly attacked their conduct especially morality. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused.2. The main question arising in this appeal is whether the complaint is fatally defective inasmuch as it has not disclosed the allegations which specifically constituted the imputations affecting the reputation of the complaina...
Tag this Judgment!Venkideswara Prabhu Ravindranatha Prabhu Vs. Surendranatha Prabhu Sudh ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Ker265
Padmanabhan, J.1. Second defendant is the appellant. O. S. No. 2 of 1973 before the Sub Court, Alleppey was filed by the plaintiff for dissolution of partnership and settlement of accounts. The Sub Judge allowed the suit granting dissolution of partnership and ordering settlement of accounts. Hence this appeal.2. A brief history of the litigation may help us in understanding the facts and controversies. The parties are followers of the Hindu Law. First defendant is the father and defendants 2 to 6 are his sons. Among them, some died after the suit. 9th defendant is the wife of the 5th defendant and defendants 7 and 8 and the plaintiff are their sons. Defendants 10 to 14 are the daughters of defendants 5 and 9.3. In the year 1124, the first defendant executed Ext. B1 settlement deed by which some of the properties were given to defendants 2 to 6. The joint family properties were divided between defendants 1 to 6 under Ext. A1 in 1955. An oil mill alone was kept in common. There was a pr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »