Kerala Court March 1986 Judgments
Ernakulam District Private Bus Operators' Association Vs. Regional Tra ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker11
ORDERK.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. There are two petitioners in this O.P, The 1st petitioner is the President of the Ernakulam District Private Bus Operators' Association. He is also the owner of a stage carriage operating within the City of Cochin. The 2nd petitioner is also the owner of a stage carriage running within the City limits of Cochin. The challenge in this case is against Ext. P1 proceedings of the 1st respondent dt. 28-1-1986 insisting the installation of Electronic Speed Regulator Device in all private stage carriage vehicles limiting their speed to 50 kilometres per hour. Ext. P1 was passed after issuing notice to all stage carriage permit holders and after hearing them. The petitioners state that it is impracticable to operate the services with the electronic speed control device fitted to the bus which involves needless expenses. This is-insisted with regard to buses operating within the City limits alone. This is unauthorised and illegal. Section 70 of the Motor Vehicles Ac...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Padmini Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-1986
Reported in: II(1986)ACC138; [1987]61CompCas222(Ker)
Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner, insurance company, was the third respondent in MAC No. 43 of 1985 on the file of the fourth respondent-Tribunal. The claim was filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 herein, who are legal heirs of deceased, Bhaskaran Nair, who met with an accident on October 11, 1981. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3, wife and children of the deceased, claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000. The fourth respondent by exhibit P-l judgment dated December 13, 1985, awarded the entire sum claimed with interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum from February 24, 1982, till the date of payment and costs including advocate's fee as provided for suits. In this original petition, the attack is against exhibit P-l to the extent it awards advocate's fee as provided for suits. The petitioner states that this portion of the award cannot be challenged under Section 110D read with Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and so this original petition is filed challenging exhibit P-l to the extent...
Tag this Judgment!Calicut Co-operative Milk Supply Union Vs. Calicut Co-operative Milk S ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-1986
Reported in: (1986)IILLJ422Ker
Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. Ext. P3 is under challenge.2. By Ext. P3 the 2nd respondent has virtually revoked the order, he had passed, permitting the petitioner to have it being represented in I.D. 7/83, by a lawyer.3. Relevant facts lie in a narrow compass. They are: Pursuant to the notice, the petitioner appeared before the 2nd respondent through lawyer who filed the vakalath on 2nd September, 1983. The first respondent also appeared before the 2nd respondent through lawyer who filed vakalath on 7th September, 1983. The other two trade unions impleaded as parties to the proceedings, are not interested in the outcome of the proceedings and therefore they have not been participating in the enquiry.4. This was the state of affairs when on 8th November, 1985 the first respondent filed the petition, C.M.P. 59 of 1985 (Ext. P 1) praying that it may be allowed to conduct the case without the assistance of the lawyer and that the vakalath filed by the counsel on its behalf therefore be cancell...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Carbon Ltd. Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-1986
Reported in: [1986]62STC359(Ker)
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. By these original petitions as amended, the petitioners seek to quash the notifications, exhibits P1 to P3 in O. P. Nos. 3301 and 3302 of 1984 and exhibits P1 and P3 in O. P. No. 4273 of 1984 issued by the Government under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The petitioners are manufacturers of carbon black. Their manufacturing units are located outside Kerala. The 4th respondent in 0. P. Nos. 3301 and 3302 of 1984 is a company having its factory at Ambalamukal, a place within the State. It had started manufacturing carbon black from January, 1984 onwards.2. As per exhibit P1 notification produced in O. P. Nos. 3301 and 3302 of 1984, the six items mentioned therein, manufactured within the State and sold for use in the manufacture of tyre within the State, were exempted from liability to sales tax. Carbon black is item 2 in that notification. As per exhibit P2 notification dated 28th February, 1984, sale of carbon black manufactured within the State is exemp...
Tag this Judgment!Crompton Greaves Ltd. Vs. Toshiba Anand Lamps Ltd. (Now Known as Keral ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker27
Bhat, J. 1. Respondent herein filed a suit under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act') praying that the Arbitration agreement dated 15-11-1967 (Ext. A1) be filed and that the disputes or differences between the parties be referred to arbitration to any arbitrator to be appointed by the Court. Appellant herein, defendant in the suit, filed written statement opposing grant of reliefs. Overruling his contentions, the trial court held that reliefs under Section 20 of the Act are to be granted and directed production of the Arbitration agreement. This Judgment is now challenged by the defendant. Parties will be referred to in this Judgment by their rank in the trial court.2. Both parties are Private (Public?) limited companies. Plaintiff is a manufacturer of electric lamps of various types. Defendant is engaged in purchase and sale of electric lamps and other goods. Under Ext. A1 dated 15-11-1967 the parties entered into an agreement by which the plaintiff agreed to ...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) Vs. the Indian Oil Corporation ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-1986
Reported in: [1987]64STC160(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. This batch of tax revision cases by the State of Kerala is against the common order of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, in sales tax appeals by the assessee, the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Ernakulam, relating to its assessment for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1973-74. The main point urged by the Senior Government Pleader Shri T. Karunakaran Nambiar is against the finding of the Tribunal that the purchase turnover of petroleum products is not exigible to tax under Section 5A. of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, for short the Act.2. The original assessment orders for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 brought to tax the purchase turnover of petroleum products purchased by the assessee from the Cochin Refineries Ltd. and despatched to depots outside the State for the purpose of sale. The assessee had no complaint against the inclusion of the purchase turnover and the tax assessed was duly paid. The assessing authority, afte...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. P ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC380(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The only question for decision in this tax revision case is whether zinc sulphate is a fertilizer falling under entry 64 of the First Schedule of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, as it stood at the relevant period of assessment. The Tribunal refers to a clarification issued by the Joint Director of Agriculture; Government of Kerala, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, Government of India, that zinc sulphate is a chemical manure included in Clause 27 of the Schedule of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1957.2. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Champakulam Village Service Co-operative Society Ltd. [1980] 46 STC 318 has held that rock phosphate is a chemical fertilizer falling under entry 64 as it stood at the relevant time. We therefore see no reason to take a different view and hold that zinc sulphate is a chemical fertilizer.The tax revision is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Reghunatha Panicker and Etc. Vs. Kunjala Thankappan and ors., Etc.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker159
ORDERK. Sreedharan, J.1. The 4th accused in C.C. 1781/83 on the file of the Judicial II Class Magistrate II, Trivandrum is the petitioner in Crl. M.C. 319/83. Third accused in the said case has preferred Crl. M.C. 320/83, These petitions are for quashing the complaint in the said case. 2. The material averments made by the petitioners in these petitions, in a nut-shell, are as follows : -- The petitioner in M.C. 319/83 is working as Security Officer, Government Secretariat, having lien as Circle Inspector of Police, S.A.P. -- C -- Company, Trivandrum. The petitioner in Crl. M.C. 320/83 is Circle Inspector of Police working in Trivandrum District. Petitioners were deployed for duty in the Legislative Assembly to assist the Watch and Ward of the Kerala Legislative Assembly which was subjected to serious law and order situation within the Assembly premises. The petitioners had been specifically instructed to prevent the unlawful entry of others into the Legislative Assembly Hall to mainta...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaveni Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-1986
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC161
ORDERNo. 68576/SSA1/85/Home Dated, Trivandrum, 4-11-1985Whereas the Government of Kerala is satisfied with respect to the personknown as Shri. V. Jayakumar, S/o Shri. K. Velappan Pillai (1) Saroj, Thevally, Quilon, (Managing Partner, M/s Jaya Cashew Corporation, Quilon (3) Flat No. 8, Ponnamma Aroma Bhavan, Beach Road, Quilon (4) M-8, M.I.G. Flats, Nandanam. Madras), that with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods, it is necessary to make an order directing that the said person shall be detained.Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974), the Government of Kerala direct that the said Shri. V. Jayakumar be detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison, Trivandrum.By order of the Governor,Sd/- N. KaleeswaranCommissioner & Secretary (Home)On 22-11-1985--i.e., a day after the arrest--the grounds of detention, Ext. P 7, together with 25 docum...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Gangadharan Vs. T.V. Rajendran, Editor and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1765
ORDERK. Sreedharan, J.1. The first respondent filed a petition before the Judicial I Class Magistrate's Court, Kunnamkulam alleging that the petitioner herein and two others have committed offences under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). That complaint was numbered by the Court as Crl. M. P. No. 1030/85. After conducting an enquiry, the learned Magistrate by his order dated 4-3-86 numbered it as S.T. No. 230/86 for offences under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 as amended by the Act of 1978 and ordered the issue of summons to accused. The petitioner, the first accused, has filed this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to quash all proceedings in S.T.No. 230/86.2. The facts which lead to the complaint, in a nut-shell are as follows:The first accused gave away in marriage his daughter to the second accused, the son of the third accused on 8-12-1984. On that ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »