Kerala Court November 1986 Judgments
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. S ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-1986
Reported in: [1987]64STC411(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. These tax revision cases at the instance of the Revenue relate to the assessments made on the respondent under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (the Act in brief) for the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. The assessee is a dealer in ivory, horn and rosewood articles. Inter alia he had purchased finished goods from unregistered dealers and exported them, during the years in question. We are concerned in these revision cases only with the correctness or otherwise of the imposition of tax under Section 5A of the Act on the purchases of these finished goods from unregistered dealers. The first appellate authority upheld the imposition of the tax under Section 5A, but the Tribunal, on appeals, set aside the orders and held the assessee to be not liable to tax in respect of the purchases. The Revenue has come up in revision.2. Section 5A(1) which is relevant reads as under :5A. Levy of purchase tax.-(1) Every dealer who in the course of his busin...
Tag this Judgment!Palghat Oil Mills Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-1986
Reported in: [1987]65STC169(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The petitioner in these two petitions challenges the orders of assessment for the years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79. The main contention of the petitioner is that the expression 'his mill' in notifications S.R.O. No. 137/69 and S.R.O. No. 854/74 issued under Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, granting reduced rates, are wide enough to include a person who does not have a proper title, but who is in sole control of the mill. The petitioner contends that the Sales Tax Officer unjustifiably rejected its claim for reduction in rate on the basis of the two notifications. The notifications read:68. Coconut or copra by oil miller.S.R.O. No. 137/69...hereby reduce the rate of tax payable by an oil miller under the said Act in respect of his purchases of coconut or copra which is used by him for production of coconut oil and cake in his mill within the State for sale, from 3 per cent to 2 per cent.This notification shall come into force on and with eff...
Tag this Judgment!N.J. Joseph Vs. Labour Court
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-1986
Reported in: (1987)IILLJ180Ker
Fathima Beevi, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the legality of Ext. P1 award passed by the first respondent holding that the termination of the service of the petitioner is not illegal.2. The petitioner was appointed as traveling salesman in the Consumer Products Division of the second respondent company initially on probation on 17th November 1972 and was confirmed on 16th May 1973. The contract of appointment has been renewed from year to year. By notice dated 14th May 1980 his service was terminated with effect from 16th May 1980. The respondent in holding that there is no illegal termination has found that the petitioner is not a workman as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The main grievance of the petitioner is that this finding of the respondent is perverse, patently wrong and vitiated by errors apparent and that there had been no proper evaluation of the evidence or consideration of the relevant materials in arriving at the conclusion.3. In a petition u...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Sundaram Estate
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-1986
Reported in: (1987)IILLJ311Ker
Kochu Thommen, J.1. The Kerala State Electricity Board (the 'Board') is the appellant. It challenges the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (the 'Commissioner') in W.C.C. No. 19 of 1980 holding that the first respondent, the employer, was liable to pay the workman (the second respondent in this appeal) a sum of Rs. 18,816/-as compensation under Section 4(c) read with Section 3 and Part II of Schedule I and Schedule IV of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (the ' Act')and that the employer was to that extent entitled to be indemnified by the Board. This order is challenged only in so far as the Board has been held liable to indemnify the employer.2. Appearing for the Board, Shri K.P.G. Menon challenges the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. He contends that the alleged right of the employer to be indemnified by a stranger like the Board is a matter for determination by a civil court, and not by recourse to the summary procedure under Section 12(2) of the Act. He, howe...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Ramakrishnan Vs. Subbaramma Sastrigal and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Ker18
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J. 1. Sri P. R. Ramakrishnan, as advocate was, convicted for the offence of defamation under Section 500 of the I.P.C. The trial court sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The Sessions Court confirmed the conviction, but reduced the sentence to Rs. 250/-. Sri. Ramakrishnan filed the present revision. During the pendency of this revision, Sri. Ramakrishnan passed away and his wife and children got impleaded as parties. The foundation of this criminal case is a reply which Sri. Ramakrishnan sent to the first respondent's lawyer on 2-2-1974. It was a reply to a notice sent by the aforesaid counsel to Sri Ramakrishnan. The said reply contained imputations which are per se libellous. The criminal proceedings commenced twelve years ago did not culminate even with the death of the accused. For the sake of convenience, Sri. Ramakrishnan will be referred to as 'the accused' hereinafter and the respondent will be referred to as the 'complainant'.2. The complainant was a ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanayannur Service Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. V. Sarakutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-1986
Reported in: (1987)IILLJ498Ker
ORDERSivaraman Nair, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment of the District Judge, Ernakulam in A.S. No. 78 of 1979, in his capacity as the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. That appeal was filed by the present petitioner against the order in P.W.A. No. 58 of 1976 of the Labour Court, Quilon which is the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act 58 of 1976.2. The respondent was the Secretary of the petitioner-Society. She was kept out of employment for a period from 24th November 1975 to 31st August 1976 without payment of salary. She filed P.W.A. No. 58 of 1976 under the Payment of Wages Act, claiming an amount of Rs. 2,177.50 as unpaid wages. The Authority allowed the application to the extent of Rs. 1,526.50, over-ruling the objection of the petitioner-Society on a point of jurisdiction that the dispute should have been referred to and could be decided only by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative...
Tag this Judgment!Central Govt. Represented by the Director, Enforcement Directorate, Fo ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker179; 1987(13)ECC248; 1987(31)ELT902(Ker)
Thommen, J.1. This appeal by the Central Government is brought from the order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board (the 'Board') quashing the order of the Additional Director of Enforcement dt. 29-10-1977, whereby a penalty of Rs. 1,18,000/- was imposed upon the respondent in this appeal for the alleged violation of the provisions of Sections 8(1) and 9(1)(f)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The main contention of the respondent before the Board was that rules of natural justice were breached by the officer at first instance for the reason that the respondent was not given an opportunity to cross-examine persons who had, pursuant to summons under Section 40, given statements to the department. This contention was accepted by the Board. Accordingly the Board held :'3. We, therefore, set aside the order of the adjudicating officer and remand the case for fresh disposal after giving the appellant an opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements we...
Tag this Judgment!Balan Nair Vs. Bhavani Amma Valsalamma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker110
Bhat, J.1. Petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent. Respondents herein filed M.C. 37/1983 under Section 125 of the Criminal P.C. (for short the Code) before the Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Kayamkulam claiming maintenance at the rates of Rs. 300/- and Rs. 200/- per month respectively from the petitioner on the ground that they have no means to maintain themselves and petitioner, though he has means, has neglected to maintain them. Learned Magistrate set the petitioner ex parte and on the basis of the evidence of the first respondent, examined as P.W. 1, ordered the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rates claimed from 2-7-1983 onwards.2. Petitioner herein challenged the order by way of R. P. 30/1984 before the Sessions Court, Alleppey. Since the revision petition was filed belatedly, an application was filed for condonation of delay and the same was allowed. However, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition on the gro...
Tag this Judgment!Kassim Beevi Vs. Meeranchi Mytheen Beevi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker226
ORDERT.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. Petitioner was the 6th defendant in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of 4 cents of property described as item No. 2 in the schedule to the plaint. The petitioner was impleaded in the suit on the contentions raised that she was a bona fide purchaser of the properly for consideration without notice of the agreement to sell. The purchase by 6th defendant is under the document marked Ex.D2 in the suit, and is dt. 9-12-1968. The agreement to sell was dt. 14-10-1968 and was marked as Ext. P2 in the suit. There was controversy in the suit about the genuineness of Ext.P2. While discussing this issue, the confusion caused by a mistake in the directions in Ext. P2 was noted. For instance, the boundary on the western side was described us the boundary on the southern side; and the suit properly was described as the eastern side of an extent of 8 cents extending north-south, while in reality it was 4 cents on the southern side of the 8 cents l...
Tag this Judgment!C.V. Govinda Rao Vs. Government of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-1986
Reported in: 1987(32)ELT63(Ker)
V.S. Malimath, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 171 of 1979. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this case may briefly be stated as follows : The appellant was a dealer in gold, holding licence issued by the Gold Control Licensing Authority. He was doing the business as a licensed gold dealer. On the 9th of July, 1974, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Integrated Divisional Office, Ernakulam and party searched the premises of the appellant and seized gold ornaments weighing 2029.500 grams under a mahazar prepared on the occasion. That was done on the allegation that the appellant had violated the provisions of Section 55 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the appellant not having entered the possession of the said gold ornaments in the accounts which were required to be maintained in accordance with the said statutory provision. The appellant was duly served with notice under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »