Kerala Court October 1988 Judgments
Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. P.A. Thampi Rawther
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-31-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker171
ORDERK.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The order under attack in this revision petition is the order passed by the District Judge under Sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, for short. The Telegraph Act. By this order the District Judge has determined the dispute concerning the sufficiency of compensation assessed by the Electricity Board under Section 10, Clause (d). Sub-sec. (5) of Section 16 says, speaking of such an order, that it has to be final.2. Construing Section 18(5) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 containing the word 'final' the Supreme Court in Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai, (1987) 1 Ker LT 53 : (AIR 1987 SC 203) held :'The language of the provision of Section 18(5) read with Section 20 inhibits further revision. To vest the High Court with such jurisdiction would be contrary to the scheme of the Act, would be contrary to the public policy and would be contrary to the legislative intentionas manifest from the different s...
Tag this Judgment!P.J. Johnson and Sons. Vs. Astrofiel Armadorn S.A. of Panama, Panama C ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker53; [1990]69CompCas619(Ker)
Kochu Thommen, J. 1. This appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money for goods and services supplied to a ship stated to be owned by the first defendant. The third defendant is stated to be the agent of the first defendant. The contract, under which money is claimed by the plaintiff, is stated to have been entered into with him by the third defendant, which is a corporation registered in England, for and on behalf of its principal, the first defendant, which is a corporation registered in the Republic of Panama. The court below found that the Contract, as evidenced by Ext. A10 dated 22-4-1974, having been made by the third defendants agent of the first defendant, the latter alone was liable under it. However the suit was dismissed for the reason that it was barred by limitation.2. The vessel 'Agiaparaskevi' arrived at the port of Cochin on 3-5-1974 and left on 3-6-1974. It was during that period that goods and services were supplied by the plaintiff to the vessel, as ac...
Tag this Judgment!Jose Vs. Alice and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1527
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The petitioner Jose and the 1st respondent Alice both Roman Catholic Christians - were married according to their religious rites on 15-1-1981 in the Santhipuram Church, The marriage was solemnized by a minister of the Roman Catholic Church according to the rules, rites, ceremonies and customs of the church. It is not disputed that the minister had received episcopal ordination and was competent to solemnize the marriage under Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872. After marriage the couple resided in the house of the petitioner for 2 1/2 months. During the course of their stay together the petitioner suspected the chastity of the wife. According to him she was pregnant even at the time of the marriage. The pregnancy was terminated at the instance of the petitioner and the respondent wife was left at her parents' house. The petitioner thereafter filed an application before the Archdiocesan Tribunal, Ernakulam to declare the...
Tag this Judgment!Jacob Vs. Tahsildar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR243(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. The petitioner is the Administrator of Cosmopolitan Hospital, Trivandrum. It is owned and run by a private limited company, Cosmopolitan Hospitals Private Limited. The matter arises under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The petitioner has put up, a building for the purpose of a hospital. Proceedings were initiated to assess the building under the Kerala Building Tax Act. The petitioner contended that the building is entitled to exemption from the levy of tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The proceedings had a chequered career. Finally, in Original Petition No. 6950 of 1984, this court directed the Government to give an opportunity to the petitioner and decide the claim for exemption pleaded by the petitioner afresh. In pursuance thereto, the Government of Kerala heard the matter afresh and passed an order dated September 13, 1988, evidenced by exhibit P-7, holding that the petitioner is not eligible for exemption from the levy of tax under the Kera...
Tag this Judgment!Malabar Spinning and Weaving Mill Vs. Narayanan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-1988
Reported in: [1989(58)FLR434]; (1994)IIILLJ323Ker
Paripoornan, J. 1. A common question is posed for consideration in both these Original Petitions. The petitioner is the same in both the cases. It is a Government of Kerala company incorporated under the Companies Act. The first respondent, in both these O.Ps. filed an applications before the second respondent, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, for payment of balance amounts due. The petitioner management contested the claim. Amongst others, it was contended that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the applications in question and that no sufficient cause was shown by the first respondent to condone the delay in filing the applications. By Ext. P-3, in both the cases, the second respondent-Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act found that it has got jurisdiction to hear the applications. It also held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing the applications. The matter was posted for further evidence. The peti...
Tag this Judgment!iyatteri Shanmughan and ors. Vs. Pathiyottil Radha and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker227
ORDERM.M. Pareed Pillay, J. 1. Revision petitioners claim to be the cultivating tenants of the property. The lease set up by the revision petitioners is denied by respondents 1 and 2. The Land Tribunal allowed the Original Application. The Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) reversed the order of the Land Tribunal and held that the lease set up by the revision petitioners has not been established. 2. The case of the revision petitioners (applicants) is that the property was orally leased to the first revision petitioner and his brother Apputty in 1940 by Chandukutty. Chandukutty's daughter (1st respondent) filed the appeal before the Appellate Authority. As the lease set up by the revision petitioners is denied by the 1st respondent it is for them to establish it by adducing cogent evidence. The claim of the revision petitioners based on oral entrustment from the father of the first respondent has not been substantiated by any reliable evidence. It is contended by them that they are lia...
Tag this Judgment!Sabu Rubber Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-24-1988
Reported in: 1989(41)ELT627(Ker)
T.L. Vishwanatha Iyer, J.1. Petitioner challenges a notice to show cause evidenced by Ext. P 31, Petitioner is a manufacturer of tread rubber. Apart from being a manufacturer, he is also active in spear-heading the movement against the highhanded actions of the officials of the Collectorate of Central Excise, Cochin. The officials have been on a rampage with raids, searches and seizures and harassment against small scale industrialists which has rendered it impossible for such industries to function. The motivation behind all this is the scheme of award formulated by the Government of India in the year 1985.2. The ill-will generated towards the petitioner has resulted in successive raids of his premises in October, 1987 and later. Nothing incriminating was found. But the respondents were out to harass the petitioner. They raided the premises of other businessmen as well. In one such raid of M/s. A. V. Thomas & Company Ltd., they got invoices related to one Sabu Rubber Products, Vallach...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagavathy Tea Estates Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-21-1988
Reported in: [1989]179ITR508(Ker)
K. Sukumaran, J. 1. Plantations in Kerala play a prominent role in the economy of the State. Many are the tales of thrill behind the pioneering operations of this organised agricultural activity. Even when a revolutionary land reform passed along the social life of the State in a steam-roller manner, plantations were spared. Whether it be the aromatic cardamom in the higher planes or the tea bushes with the sprinkling of colourful leaf-gatherers, or the coffee plants with their inimitable blooms and berries or the rubber trees arrayed as if in an Army parade, they elicit the appreciation of all who pass by. When many a rural tyrant had his wings clipped off, the planter soared high with a spirited profit-earning spree. Naturally, this boundless contiguity of greenery attracted the attention of administrators including the tax-gatherers.2. Plantation tax was imposed in the State by the Kerala Plantation Tax Act, 1960 (Act 17 of 1960).3. Law-making has its own complexities. This enactmen...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Vs. Mathruboomi Printing and P. Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-1988
Reported in: (1991)ILLJ359Ker
Sukumaran, J. 1. A Compositor (one who 'puts black onto white', as Gantier, the French writer would picture him) sent out from service by a mighty printing establishment-the Mathrubhoomi-and tired by a wearisome and long litigation, has come before the Court, He was in service for about 18 years. He is now out of employment for about eight years. The termination of his employment was unjust, is his complaint. That did not, however, appeal to the Labour Court which looked into it. A fundamental flaw vitiated the Labour Court decision, is what is urged in the writ petition. That contention needs closer examination by this Court.2. It is better to browse through the show cause where the facts are packed and paraded.3. The petitioner had a case that there were some skeletons in the cup board. He alleged victimisation as a main motivation for the termination of his service. The Labour Court did not note any. If it could otherwise be helped, a gruesome sight can be better be avoided. The dec...
Tag this Judgment!V.V. Muhammed Kunhi Vs. Venugopalan K. Nambiar and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR69(Ker)
K. Sukumaran, J.1. The petitioner had pledged some articles, according to him, with the first respondent, Venugopalan K. Nambiar. The Income-tax Department had conducted a search and effected seizure of the articles from Venugopalan Nambiar, Proceedings are going on between the Department and Venugopalan Nambiar in relation to various matters in the course of the action initiated under the Income-tax Act. The writ petition in which Venugopalan Nambiar has sought return of articles so seized, is pending before this court. As a matter of fact, the final hearing has been fixed on October 26, 1988.2. The present petition is from one who claims that he had pledged the articles with Venugopalan Nambiar. He does not have a cause of action directed against the Income-tax Department. The larger contention that the Income-tax Department has no jurisdiction to seize the articles of a stranger assumes that the articles really belong to a stranger. That is a matter which has yet to be adjudicated. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »