Kerala Court November 1987 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.
Vishwanatha Pai and ors. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-1987
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ1044Ker
Balakrishna Menon, J. 1. In this batch of writ petitions the petitioners who are all owners of cinema theatres challenge the validity of Section 24 of the Cine-Workers and Cinema Theatre Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Cinema Theatre Workers Act) and the notification dated 30.4.1986 of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour (produced as Ext.P1 in O.P. 8207 of 1986)amending the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 issued under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Employees Provident Funds Act). 2. The Employees Provident Funds Act came into force on 14.3.1952. The Preamble of the Act states that it is an Act to provide for the institution of provident funds, familypension fund and deposit linked insurance fund for employees in factories and other establishments. The Act by Section 1(13) makes it applicable to every factory referred to in Clause (a) and also to any other ...
K.K. Balakrishna Pisharody Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker211
Malimath, C.J.1. We are Surprised that when an order of this Court was not obeyed, the petitioner felt that he must invoke the jurisdiction of this Court once again under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was explained by Sri Nayanar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that it was so done because in the first order no time limit was fixed for compliance. It is not the law that when no time limit is fixed, the order is not required to be complied with. If the time limit is not fixed, the order has to be complied within a reasonable time. What in a given case is the reasonable time depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. When an order is made by this Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, it has ail the efficacy and vitality and has to be obeyed. If it is not obeyed the party cannot once again approach this Court for securing what he thinks a stronger order by securing fixation of time limit for compliance. That is precisely what the p...
T.K. Hamsa Vs. Pandikasalayil Abdul Kareem
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Ker47
ORDERP.K. Shamsuddin, J. 1. This revision petition has been directed against the order of the court of Munsiff, Taliparamba in E.P. No. 47 of 1982 in O.S. 288 of 1972. That application was filed under Order XXI, Rule 37, C.P.C. for arrest and detention of the respondent to realise the decree debt. The petitioner herein obtained a decree in O.S. 288/72 for Rs. 1,800/- against the respondent herein. When the above execution petition was filed it was objected to by the respondent herein. He contended that he is a debtor entitled to the benefit of the Kerala Debt Relief Act. The petitioner disputed that the respondent is a debtor within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the Kerala Debt Relief Act and contended that he was having income of more than Rs. 3,000/- per year. The petitioner herein was examined as P.W. 1 and Exts.A.1 to A5 were marked and a report of the Commissioner Ext.C1 regarding the income of the respondent herein was obtained. The lower court took the view that the burden is o...
Unniraman Vs. Padmanabhan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker257
ORDERVarghese Kalliatha, J. 1. Departing from a hyper-technical view, the courts below have taken a justice-oriented approach in this case. The courts below have rightly understood that judiciary is held in respect by the people and the litigants not on account of its power to legalise an unjust cause on technical grounds. When real justice is seen pitted against technical considerations, the courts should always lean to disburse substantial justice. This is so, because no one can claim to have acquired a vested right in perpetrating an injustice on account of a rule of technicality or on account of a little negligence on the part of the other side. In such cases, courts should apply the technical rules in a rational, commonsense and pragmatic manner. Courts are given the power to restore a suit decreed ex parte. In exercising this power, courts should always consider the question whether a meritorious matter is being decided at the very threshold without an opportunity being given to ...
P. Ramachandra Reddiar and P. Arjuna Reddiar Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-03-1987
Reported in: [1993]200ITR161(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.3-11-19871. The following questions have been, at the instance of the assessee, referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee individual had transferred the assets to his spouse ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the income arose to the spouse from the assets transferred by the assessee ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the requirements of Section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act are satisfied ?' 2. The assessees are partners of a firm carrying on business in textiles under the name and style of 'Good Morning Stores'. Apart from the two assessees (Ramachandra Reddiar and Arjuna Reddiar), the firm had, during the relevant years, no other partner. Besides the textile business, th...
A.K. Nanu and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-02-1987
Reported in: [1989]65CompCas510(Ker)
Kochu Thommen, J.1. These appeals arise from the common judgment in O. P. Nos. 6991, 6999 and 6992 of 1986 whereby the learned judge held that, in respect of a debt recoverable by recourse to the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (' the Act'), the bar of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963, was inapplicable. The learned judge stated :'.....As long as the right is not extinguished and no period isprescribed for resorting to the proceedings for recovery under the Act, the fact that a suit is barred will not disentitle the Bank from resorting to steps in pursuance of the notification by proceeding under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act..... '2. The provisions of the Act have been made applicable by S. R. O. No. 797 of' 1979 to the recovery of loans advanced by a bank to a person for agriculture or agricultural purposes. It is open to the bank to recover such debts by recourse to the summary procedure under the Act instead of having recourse to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›