Kerala Court December 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.
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. T ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-1986
Reported in: [1987]66STC34(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. These revision cases are at the instance of the Revenue and relate to the assessments made on the respondent-assessee for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77. The assessee is a manufacturer of and dealer in tiles, terra-cotta wares and ceramics. The assessee, who is carrying on his business in Quilon, purchases cashew shells which are in abundant supply in that area, for being used as fuel in the kiln in his factory for the manufacture of the tiles and others. The assessee contended that the purchase turnover of cashew shells was exempted from levy of tax under Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (the Act in short), under Notification No. SRO 722/73 issued by the Government of Kerala under Section 10 of the Act. Alternately the assessee contended that the purchase in question was not liable for the levy of tax under Section 5A since none of the conditions prescribed in Clause (a), (b) or (c) of Section 5A(1) was satisfied.2. The...
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. R ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-05-1986
Reported in: [1987]65STC105(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. This revision under Section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (the Act in brief) is at the instance of the Revenue and relates to the assessment made on the respondent under the Act for the assessment year 1981-82. The assessee is running an oil-mill by name Afra Oil Mill at Payanagadi in Cannanore District, which he has taken on lease from one Smt. C.P. Abeeda. The oil-mill in question is a 'new industrial unit under the small-scale industries' set up after 1st April, 1979 and hence coming within the purview of notification S.R.O. No. 968/80 issued by the Government of Kerala in exercise of the powers vested in them under Section 10 of the Act. The assessee claimed exemption from payment of sales tax in respect of the sale of the coconut oil and oilcake produced by him in the mill, under the abovementioned notification. The assessing authority repelled this claim for exemption for two reasons, namely, that the assessee did not produce the proceedi...
K.J. Joseph Vs. Hon'ble Justice, K. Sukumaran and Ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker140
ORDERVarghese Kalliath, J.1. The first respondent in this case is a sitting Judge of this court. The petitioner prays that this court should issue a writ of quo warranto calling upon the first respondent to show before this court under what authority, the first respondent if holding the office of a Judge of this court. The petitioner submits that there was no proper, effective and meaningful consultation as contemplated under Article 217 of the Constitution of India in the master of the appointment of the first, respondent as a Judge of this court, This is the stereo-bate of this action.2. Before I consider the points raised by the petitioner, I feel that I should tell in brief what I understand to be the sphere of action and the whip hand of a writ of quo warranto. What is the width and orbit of this prerogative writ. In fact this prerogative writ in its pristine form is now obsolete in the country of its origin. But in India, Article 226 of the Constitution specifically provides that...
S.M. Badsha Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-1986
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(Ker)266; [1987]168ITR332(Ker)
K.T. Thomas, J.1. A complaint was filed by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ernakulam, against M/s. Metalex Agencies and its partners and also some of its officers. The said agency is a firm having eleven partners. The complaint was taken on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class, Ernakulam, and was later transferred to the court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. There are seventeen accused of which the firm is the first accused. Offences alleged against the accused are those under Sections 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), besides offences under Sections 120B, 193, 196, 420 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Almost a decade after the institution of the complaint, one of the accused (the 13th accused) filed a petition in the trial court praying for discharge of the accused on various grounds. The learned Magistrate dismissed the petition by order dated March 12, 1985, against which Crl. R.P. No....
Sukumaran Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-1986
Reported in: (1987)IILLJ397Ker
Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.1. A short question in service law, an apparent conflict between Rule 7(b) and Rule 27(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (K.S. & S.S.R. for short) and the correctness of the decision in Dayanandan v. Public Service Commission 1985 KLJ 475 arise for determination in this Writ Appeal.2. In 1964, the Public Service Commission conducted a common test to select candidates for appointment as Lower Division Clerks in several departments in this State. The appellant and the second respondent were selected and included in the common rank list, the appellant securing the 47th rank and the second respondent, the 103rd rank. The appellant on advice by the Commission was appointed to the Public Relations Department on 27th May 1966. He was, however, retrenched for want of vacancy in that department on 6th September 1967. Thereafter, he re-registered with the Public Service Commission as provided in Rule 7 of the K.S. and S.S.R. He got an appointment in the F...
Vijay Kumar Vs. the D.i.G. of Police and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ2018
ORDERVarghese Kalliath, J.1. This is an application filed by the petitioner in this Original Petition titled as a petition under Section 2(c)(ii) and (iii) and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The office has not numbered this petition since normally application for taking proceedings for contempt of this Court has to be filed in accordance with the statutory provisions under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.2. The petitioner tells me that this petition is maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Article 215 of the Constitution. Of course, this petition poses a question whether a single Judge of this Court is barred from initiating proceedings for contempt in view of the provisions of Section 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act. I do feel that this is an intricate question and I feel that this question need not be considered at length in these proceedings since I am of the view that the facts disclosed in the petition d...
Mohammed Koya Vs. Balan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-1986
Reported in: II(1988)ACC171; (1987)IILLJ486Ker
C. Sankaran Nair, J.1. This appeal Under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, called 'the Act' hereinafter, is directed against an order awarding compensation to the workman. The appellant is the employer; the respondent, the workman. On 5-6-1976, while operating a circle saw, the workman sustained an injury, in the course of his employment, as a result of which he lost some fingers. The appellant was present at the time of the accident. So, says his son, witness No. 1 for the opposite party. A caim was made for compensation. Eventually, compensation in a sum of Rs. 7,560/- was awarded in accordance with Section 4 of the Act and Schedule I thereof.2. Counsel for the appellant assailed the order on several grounds, based on questions of fact and law. The former we are not inclined to accept, because the findings entered by the authority below are based on cogent evidence, and the appreciation of the evidence is not perverse. An appeal Under Section 30 of the Act is limite...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›