Kerala Court February 1988 Judgments
Raghavan Nair Vs. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-29-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker129; [1990]67CompCas341(Ker); 1988(17)ECC185; 1988(36)ELT427(Ker)
Sivaraman Nair, J. 1. We had dismissed the appeal for default as per judgment dt. 11th Jan. 1988. Counsel for the appellant filed CM.P. No. 3947 of 1988 to set aside that order arid restore the appeal and hear it afresh. After hearing both sides, we allowed the petition on 18-2-1988. The appeal was heard immediately thereafter. 2. The appellant was a coir exporter. He had appointed a Commission Agent, M/s. Gover Horowitz and Blunt Ltd., London, to act as his agent abroad. During the year 1972-73, he had exported 530/bales of coir yarn valued at 9,895.50 to that London firm; but he realised only 9,568.60. During the year 1974, he exported 1165/bales of coir yarn valued at 31417.82 through the same agent; but he realised only 28,445.63. 3. The Enforcement Directorate, Madras issued two show cause notices to the appellant, the former on 29-2-1980 under Sections 10(1) and 12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 for short the 1947 Act for realising less than the export value of g...
Tag this Judgment!Sivankutty Vs. S. Komalakumari and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-29-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker124
ORDER1. A question of some practical importance in Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition. Certainly, this question is not res Integra, but judicial opinion is not uniform.2. The revision petitioner is the husband. His wife and child filed a suit under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, for short the Act. In the suit, the plaintiffs moved for interim relief of maintenance. The trial court allowed interim maintenance. It awarded Rs. 300/- per month for mother and child the revision-petitioner challenges this order.3. The counsel for the revision-petitioner submitted before me two points. He raised a question of law. He said that the court when trying a suit under Section 18 of the Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order for interim maintenance. This he said on the ground that there is no specific provision for it provided in the Act He also submitted before me that some of the courts in India have tak...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Collector of Customs and ors. Vs. P.V. Thomas and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-29-1988
Reported in: 1988(17)ECC265; 1988(35)ELT300(Ker)
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. In C.C. No. 59 of 1985, three persons were prosecuted by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Cochin before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam for an offence punishable under Section 13 of the Dangerous Drugs Act as well as Section 135(1) of the Customs Act for having contravened Section 7 read with Section 20 of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Accused 1 and 2 were convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each. Third accused was acquitted. Crl.A. No.23 of 1986 was filed by the complainant against the acquittal of the third accused. Accused 1 and 2 filed appeals against their convinction and sentence before the Sessions Judge. Those appeals were recalled to this court. They are Crl.A Nos. 226 and 227 of 1986. All the three appeals were heard together.2. First accused is a Dutch National having Netherland passport and residing at Cochin. Second accused is a person belonging to Tamil Nadu and he was residing alo...
Tag this Judgment!V.A. David and anr. Vs. Kerala State Financial Corporation and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Ker319
Paripoornan, J. 1. In these two O.Ps. common questions arise for consideration. They were heard together. O.P. 4641 of 1986 : -- The petitioner obtained a loan from the 1st respondent, the Kerala Financial Corporation (in short, Corporation), An agreement was executed by the petitioner in favour of the Corporation. It is Ext, P-l. According to the petitioner, the Corporation did not act according to the terms and conditions of the agreement. The performance of certain conditions by the petitioner became impossible. The petitioner was earnest in complying with the terms of the agreement and for completing the industrial concern, for which the loan was obtained. Though the Corporation did not adhere to the terms of the agreement, the petitioner was pursuing the mailer with the Corporation. He requested for enhancement of the loan amount. He also requested for immediate disbursement of the loan amount as per Ext. P-l. The full amount was not disbursed at any time. While sey by Ext. P-5 dt...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadevan Vs. Reserve Bank of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-1988
Reported in: (1988)IILLJ370Ker
Sreedharan, J.1. Petitioner, an officer Grade-A in the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'), has been compulsorily retired with effect from 31st December, 1987. The said order is under challenge.2. The petitioner is a holder of M.Sc. Degree in Statistics. In 1952 he was appointed as Clerk Grade-II in the Bank. While he was working at the Bombay office of the Bank, he was transferred to the Trivandrum office in 1961. He was selected and appointed as Sub Accountant in the year 1965. That post was later re-designated as 'Staff Officer Grade-A'. The petitioner availed of the facility of non-transferability. On account of that, he was not eligible for and could not secure further promotions in the service. The petitioner was continuing in the Trivandrum office of the Bank. He has put in more than 35 years of service of which for more than 21 years he had been an Officer. When he attained the age of 55 he was found suitable to be retained in service. Accordingly, in ...
Tag this Judgment!Pappu and anr. Vs. Raja Tile and Match Works
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-1988
Reported in: (1989)ILLJ14Ker
Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.1. The applicability of Section 33C(2) of the industrial Disputes Act to a claim for bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act arises for determination in this appeal.2. The facts are not in dispute. The appellants are two employees of a Tile and Match Factory, claiming bonus for the year 1978-79 at the rate of 17.75 per cent of the wages as declared by the employer. The employer paid the bonus deducting seven days wages, paid for national and festival holidays. These two employees claimed that bonus was payable to them with reference to the wages received by them for these holidays as well; but the employer did not accede to this demand. They, therefore, moved the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The employer questioned the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain the application; but the same was overruled and the employer was directed to pay the two appellants Rs. 27.50 towards bonus. This decision was challenged by the employer ...
Tag this Judgment!Asramam Village Industrial Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1988
Reported in: 1988(18)ECC69; 1988(17)LC691(Kerala); 1988(38)ELT14(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The challenge in this original petition is to the demand for excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short the Act) for matches cleared by the petitioner during the period June 19,1980 to March 31,1981. The demand has been made without giving the petitioner the benefit of the concessional rate of Rs. 1.60 per gross of fifty's, as per Notification No. 99 of 1980 issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules. The circumstances leading to the filing of the Original Petition are as follows :-2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of safety matches. The Government of India issued Notification No. 99 of 1980 on June 19, 1980 reducing the rate of duty payable for safety matches manufactured and cleared by small scale units. A copy of this notification is Ext. P1, The availability of the concession was subject to various conditions, as detailed in the various provisions in the notification. The petitioner satisfied these conditions and was theref...
Tag this Judgment!V.i.T. Sea Foods Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1988
Reported in: 1989(23)LC566(Kerala); 1989(42)ELT220(Ker)
T.L. Vishwanatha Iyer, J.1. With the consent of parties, the original petition itself is taken up for disposal.2. The petitioner is an exporter of marine products. They had imported raw materials without payment of duty of Customs, for packing the marine products under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Scheme. Later, however, the Customs Authorities initiated proceedings against the petitioner, alleging violation of the conditions of the licence by which import of the packing materials without payment of duty was permitted. The petitioner objected, on merits, as well as on the ground that the Customs Authorities had no jurisdiction to take proceedings for violation of the conditions of the import licence. They were supported in the latter contention by the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court of Madras in W.P. Nos. 9578 and 11152 of 1985.3. The Collector of Customs did not accept these contentions. He held the petitioner guilty of violation of the conditions of the import licence....
Tag this Judgment!V.i.P. Sea Foods Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1988
Reported in: 1989(25)LC514(Kerala); 1989(44)ELT606(Ker)
T.L. Vishwanath Iyer, J.1. With the consent of parties, the original petition itself is taken up for disposal.2. The petitioner is an exporter of marine products. They had imported raw materials without payment of duty of customs, for packing the marine products, under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Scheme. Later, however, the Customs Authorities initiated proceedings against the petitioner, alleging violation of the conditions of the licence by which import of the packing materials without payment of duty was permitted. The petitioner objected on merits, as well as on the ground that the Customs Authorities had no jurisdiction to take proceedings for violation of the conditions of the import licence. They were supported in the latter contention by the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court of Madras in W.P. Nos. 9578 and 11152 of 1985.3. The Collector of Customs did not accept these contentions. He held the petitioner guilty of violation of the conditions of the import licence. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A. Yunus Kunju
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-1988
Reported in: [1991]189ITR672(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. The Revenue is the petitioner in both these original petitions. The same assessee is the respondent in both the cases. The matter arises under the Income-tax Act. Both the original petitions relate to the assessment year 1979-80. In these two original petitions filed under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, the Revenue prays that the Appellate Tribunal may be directed to refer the questions of law, formulated in the original petitions, for the decision of this court.2. The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. He is a cashew exporter. He had open loan and key loan facilities with the State Bank of Travancore, Quilon Branch and South Indian Bank, Quilon Branch. In effecting the assessment for the year 1979-80, the Income-tax Officer made certain additions. The additions were made with reference to the loans which the assessee obtained from the State Bank of Travancore, Quilon Branch, and South Indian Bank, Quilon Branch.3. We shall first deal with the trans...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »