Kerala Court January 1986 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.
P.M. Alias Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-15-1986
Reported in: (1986)IILLJ420Ker
M.P. Menon, J.1. While functioning as an Armed Reserve Police Constable the petitioner was charged with an item of serious misconduct. The allegation was that he had enticed a girl away from the Railway Station inAlways taken her to the treasury premises and had either raped her or attempted to rape her. On the basis of the above allegation an enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charge. After issue of a show cause notice the disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from service.2. The petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the D.I.G. of police. The D.I.G. took the view that in the light of Rule 10(a) of the Kerala Police (Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1958 the disciplinary authority should not have passed the final order inflicting the punishment, it should have waited till the criminal court had disposed of the pending case against the petitioner in connection with the alleged of...
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. H ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-10-1986
Reported in: [1987]66STC332(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The Revenue is the revision petitioner. The assessee, the respondent, is a dealer in hill produce, having its office at Robinson Road, Kozhikode.2. The only dispute that requires settlement in the revision is the one pertaining to exemption claimed by the assessee on the turnover of Rs. 6,45,406.90 relating to the inter-State purchases of pepper, arecanut and ginger from Mahe Produce Traders, Mahe and V.M. Abdul Rehiman, Mahe.3. According to the assessee, they effected purchases of these commodities from the dealers at Mahe and got them transported to Kerala from Mahe. These purchases, therefore, cannot be treated as local purchases. The appellant, therefore, has claimed exemption on this turnover. In support of the above contention the assessee produced before the assessing officer purchase bills from the above dealers in Mahe, the details of which are :Commodity Quantity Recorded purchased value1. Pepper 486.00.000 Qtl. 2,92,203.002. Areca 542.00.000 ' 2...
Ayyappankutty Vs. the State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-10-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1593
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner is prisoner No.,,4952 undergoing imprisonment in the Central Prison, Cannanore. He requests that the police and other State authorities may be restrained from publishing his photographs in public places. According to him, this action is illegal and violative of his fundamental rights. In view of his expectation of immediate release from jail, he feels that the publication of his photographs will adversely after his future life.2. On behalf of the State, I had the advantage of hearing able arguments on questions of fact and law from the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Law Society of India represented by advocates M/s. K.A. Abdul Salam, M.P. Krishnan Nair and C.A. Sebastian entered appearance and Mr. Abdul Salam ably assisted me by presenting the legal and factual aspects which involve public importance.3. The petitioner is convicted in three cases, namely, C.C. 110/84 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hosdurg, S.C. 23/84 on...
Divisional Forest Officer Vs. N.C. Balakrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-08-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ346
ORDERK. Sukumaran, J.1. The Divisional Forest Officer, Kozhikode, ordered Under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, confiscation of a jeep for illegal transportation of 336 Kgs of sandalwood. Though a contention was urged that the sandalwood was not a forest produce, t was negatived by the Court below. Yet the penalty of confiscation was set aside by the appellate Court. Two reasons were given in support of that decision : (1) Except in the present instance, the jeep had not been found engaged in the transportation of any contraband article, and (2) The Jeep was in the custody of the Forest Department for about four years after its seizure.2. The order of the appellate Court is challenged in this revision petition.3. The order of the Court below is not sustainable having regard to the statutory schemes and the established facts. Preservation of the forests in the State is a felt necessity. The Directive Principles contained in Part IV of the Constitution require the State to make end...
P.K. Visalakshy and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-07-1986
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ445Ker
ORDERK.S. Paripoornan, J.1. These O.P.s raise common questions. They were heard together. There are six petitioners in O.P.8 of 1986. They were appointed provisionally by the 3rd and 4th respondents. It is stated that they are workmen as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act and so they are entitled to protection and benefits given in Chap. V-A of the Act. Reliance was placed in the decision reported in Umayammal v. State of Kerala 1983 I LLJ 267. By Government Order dated 1st June 1983 the municipalities were directed not to terminate the service of the provisional hands without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. This order dt. 1st June 1983 was cancelled by Ext. P1, Government Order, dt. 11th December 1985. Reliance is placed in Ext. P1 orderon subsequent legislations-Kerala Public Services Amendment Ordinance 1983 and 'also the amendment effected in the I.D. Act 1947 by Act 49 of 1984 by inserting a new Sub-clause (bb) - in Section 2(oo). It is stated tha...
Bismi Abdullah and Sons, Merchants and Commission Agents Vs. the Regio ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker56
Sreedharan, J.1. Defendant in O.S. No. 61 of 1977 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Cochin is the appellant in this appeal. The suit was one for recovery of a sum of Rs. 82,405.08 as damages on account of breach of contract for the sale of certain quantity of rice. According to plaintiff the defendant contracted to purchase rice worth Rs. 3,44,786.35 that the defendant committed breach of that contract, that the said quantity of rice could fetch only Rs. 2,74,649.38 on resale, that on account of the above breach and resale they suffered a loss of Rs. 70,489.98 and that they are entitled to storage charges amounting to Rs. 11,915.10 for the 2942 bags of rice from 8-11-1975 up to 22-3-1976. The learned Subordinate Judge granted a decree to the plaintiffs allowing them to realise a sum of Rs. 81,522.48 together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit from the defendant with proportionate costs. Defendant challenges the said decree in this appeal.2. The material averment...
B. Thankappan Vs. Trivandrum Dist. Co-operative Bank Ltd., Trivandrum ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker1
Sukumaran, J.1. An important question concerning the Construction of Section 82 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') arises for decision in this writ appeal. The question is: When could it be said that an award of an Arbitrator had been made the subject-matter of an appeal before the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal?2. The appellant-writ petitioner was party to a dispute before the Arbitrator appointed under the Act. The decision turned out to be adverse to him. Aggrieved by the decision, he filed an appeal That was, however, beyond the prescribed time. A petition for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal was duly considered by the appellate Tribunal The intrinsic contradictions in the application were such that the Tribunal was not convinced of any sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. That circumstance, however, did not dash the hopes of the appellant. He attempted to salvage his cause -- successfully as it then turned ou...
Ayyappan Vs. Karthiayani Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker130
ORDERK.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. The decree-holder in a suitfor redemption of a usufructuary mortgage isthe revision petitioner. The revision arisesfrom execution proceedings.2. Respondents 4 and 5 in the petition are persons claiming to be tenants under the mortgagee-1st judgment-debtor. These respondents were parties to the suit. 3. In the counter, respondents; 4 and 5 have raised a contention that they cannot be evicted without recourse to the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Court below relying on the decision of this Court in Kumaran Nair v. Maniappan Pillay, 1971 Kcr LT 269 held that respondents 4 and 5 cannot be evicted as they are tenants directly under the decree-holder. This decision however is not applicable to the facts of the case particularly because, admittedly the persons who claimed tenancy in the said case, were not parties to the compromise based on which the decree for eviction was passed whereas here respondents 4 and 5 ...
Devassy Vs. Additional Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-1986
Reported in: [1986]61STC280(Ker)
K. Sukumaran, J.1. Section 20 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1968 (referred to hereafter as 'the Act'), calls for interpretation by this Court. The view of the learned single Judge as expressed in this case is reported in the decision, Devassy v. Additional Sales Tax Officer 1980 KLT 601. The correctness of the view is challenged in this writ appeal.2. We shall briefly allude to the short facts giving rise to the original petition before this Court.3. Joseph was an assessee under the Act. He died on 14th July, 1974. As on that date, a sum of Rs. 3,186.56 was outstanding from him by way of tax and interest, on the basis of final assessments made for 1971-72, 1972-73 and provisional assessment for 1973-74. This amount was demanded from Joseph but was not paid by him. It was accordingly certified for being recovered under the Revenue Recovery Act. This was, however, done only on 19th September, 1975, and as against the father of deceased Joseph. The father was coerced to pay the amo...
P.M. Kunhabdulla Haji Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(Ker)62; [1986]162ITR304(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. The original petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Ex. P-20 order dated October 15, 1985, passed by the first respondent under Section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There is also a prayer for the issue of an appropriate writ or direction to declare that the amount of Rs. 1,50,000 seized on July 4, 1982, belongs to the petitioner and to direct respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to forbear from giving effect to exhibit P-20 and directing the respondents to return the amount of Rs. 1,50,000 with interest due thereon to the petitioner.2. On July 4, 1982, the officers of the Special Customs Preventive Unit, Kanhangad, apprehended the third respondent--Shri K. K. Abdulkareem--and Shri K. Hamza and recovered a sum of Rs. 40,000 and Rs. 1,10,000 from them, respectively. They were proceeding to Kuttiangadi from Kanhangad by bus. No prima facie case under the Customs Regulations was disclosed. The Enforcement Directorate made over the case to the In...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »