Kerala Court September 1988 Judgments
K. Bhaskaran Vs. R. Janardhanan Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-30-1988
Reported in: (1990)ILLJ484Ker
Malimath, C.J.1. The award made in favour of the workman, the third respondent in the appeal, directing the appellant to reinstate him in service with backwages, having been affirmed by the learned single judge in the writ petition. the appellant has come up with this appeal. This application has been made under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act for payment during the pendency of appeal the wages last drawn by the third respondent. The application is opposed by the appellant alleging that the third respondent is gainfully employed as a driver under a particular employer and driving a particular vehicle. Theworkman has filed an affidavit denying these averments. He has averred that right from the date of his dismissal from service, he has not been employed anywhere. He has also denied the allegation that he is employed as a driver. He has stated that he does not know driving and he does not have a driving licence. Thus there is word against word. The appellant has not produced ...
Tag this Judgment!Alukkas Jewellery Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-29-1988
Reported in: (1989)76CTR(Ker)114; [1989]176ITR198(Ker)
K. Sukumaran, J. 1. A common question is involved in these nine writ petitions. It relates to the interpretation of Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, in particular, the scope and ambit of Explanation 2 thereof. 2. Three firms and their partners are involved as parties in these writ petitions, Two of the firms are engaged in jewellery business, Alukkas Jewellery, Trichur, and Alukkas Jewellery, Calicut. The third firm runs a hotel, Alukkas Tourist Home. Original Petitions Nos. 5641, 5642 and 5643 are by the firms, Alukkas Jewellery, Calicut, Alukkas Tourist Home, Trichur, and Alukkas Jewellery, Trichur, respectively. Varghese and Joy are partners in the three firms referred to above. The six writ petitions are by the partners challenging orders passed by the Commissioner by which a request for waiving of interest under Section 273A was turned down. 3. The background facts leading to the impugned orders are the following ; The firms and their partners had been originally ass...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Ali Vs. C.H. Mammuty and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1820
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. Complainant is the appellant. C.C.No. 186 of 1985 is a private complaint filed by him before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Tellicherry against the two respondents for an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the accused were acquitted by the Magistrate.2. The case of the appellant is that on account of the deceit and the fraudulent or dishonest inducement of both the respondents, he was made to part with Rs, 35,000/- in their favour on the assurance that N.O.C., visa, job and other facilities will be arranged for him in some Gulf Countries.3. The first respondent is running a travel and recruiting agency under the name 'M/s United Enterprises'. The head office is at Bombay and branch office is there at Tellicherry. Second accused is the employee of the first accused in the office at Tellicherry. On getting information, the appellant approached the accused and he was asked to go over to Bombay to meet the first accused. First a...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Abraham Vs. Mrs. Chandy Rosamma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker167
ORDERK.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale of the plaint schedule property dated 28th March, 1982 executed by the first defendant, is the revision petitioner. The second defendant is his wife, whereas the third defendant is his son.2. Taking the stand that she has improperly been joined as a party to the suit, thesecond defendant preferred an application under Order 1, Rule 10(2) read with S. 151, C.P.C. to have her name removed from the party array. The Court below by the order under challenge, has allowed the said petition.3. A re'sume' of facts essential and requisite to dispose of the question, whether the second defendant has validly been joined as a party to the suit, is stated hereunder : The first defendant in the agreement has conceded that the property is owned by him. It has further been stated therein to the effect that, though he had executed 'a ground rent deed' in favour of the second defendantleasing the...
Tag this Judgment!A. Kesava Bhatt Vs. Sree Ram Ambalam Trust and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-1988
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR379]; (1990)ILLJ192Ker
A. Sukumaran, J.1. A priest in a family temple has come to court. Purely materialistic is his demand; demand for money - arrears of salary, as he puts it-from the Sree Ram Temple Trust, Alleppey. He fought for it before the Labour Court. He has not got it. An adverse order passed by the Labour Court is now attacked by him.2. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was invoked by the petitioner by exhibit P-3 petition dated 31st January, 1986. He averred that he was entitled to unpaid salary for the preceding eight years at a monthly rate of Rs. 553; and for 12 years prior to that at the monthly rate of Rs. 200. The claims for the two periods aggregate to Rs. 1,01,088.3. A fundamental objection was taken by the opposite party. It contended that the petitioner was not a 'workman' and that the opposite party was not an employer; it claimed to be a 'religious and charitable trust which manages the affairs of a family temple', and that...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala and anr. Vs. C. Abraham and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-20-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker61
Sukumaran, J. 1. The appeals arise in an arbitration matter.2. The heart of the matter is about the existence of an arbitration arrangement between the State and the contractors. Essentially, the answer depends upon the construction of the contract in the light of the legal principles.3. This Court has rendered reported decisions, two on similar but slightly different factual situations, and one, on absolutely similar facts. A Division Bench to which one of us (Justice Fathima Beevi) was a party, noticed an irreconcilable difference in the views expressed in State of Kerala v. Joseph, 1983 Ker LT 583 and in M.F.A. No. 158 of 1984. The decision in Siby Varghese' case, (1987) 1 Ker LT 860, was rightly found distinguishable on its facts, both from 1983 Ker LT 583 and M.F.A. No. 158 of 1984.4. It is desirable that the brief and relevant facts are indicated before we go into the legal questions.5. In both the cases, Ext.B1 is the agreement. It contains very many parts. Some of them are more...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Kadungon and ors. Vs. E.K. Kadungon and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-20-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker190
ORDERM.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. The question to be consideredis whether the revision petitioners and the first respondent have leasehold right in the property or the revision petitioners alone have it The property originally belonged to the Tarwad of respondents 2 to 8 in jenm. As per registered marupat deed No. 1506 of 1901 the property was leased to Pottankulathil Ambu. Ambu assigned the property to Thottan Ambu and his sister Mani as per document No. 2208 of 1909. Ambu died and his share in the property devolved on his brother Kannan, Kannan assigned his right in the property to Nambi as per document No. 1852 of 1913. This relates to eastern half of the property. Thottan Ambu's sister Mani assigned her right in the property to Bruvadi as per document No. 1060 of 1916 (Ext. P-1).2. It is the case of the revision petitioners that after Nambi's death his right in the property devolved on his brother Kadungon, that the latter assigned his right to Kunhipatti by Ext. P-2 document on 13-11-...
Tag this Judgment!N. Ramachandran Vs. Cardamom Marketing Co. (Travancore) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-20-1988
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas205(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The first defendant in O. S. No. 267 of 1982 who is the sole defendant in O. S. No. 128 of 1984 is the revision petitioner.2. The court below, by a common order, disposed of the preliminary issue, extracted hereunder, by the order under challenge :'Is the signatory in the plaint competent to sue on behalf of the plaintiff company ?'.3. The plaintiff is the Cardamom Marketing Co. (Travancore) Ltd., Brindavan Buildings, M.C. Road, Kottayam-1. It is a public limited company within the meaning of the Companies Act. The plaint has been signed and verified by one Mr. N. Ananthasivan, designated as the secretary of the company. The verification reads :--'I. N. Ananthasivan, M.A., LLB, Secretary of the plaintiff company solemnly declare that all the facts stated by me in the above paragraphs are true to my knowledge and belief'.4. According to the petitioner, Sri Ananthasivan, inasmuch as he has not been duly authorised to sign and verify the pleadings, has no aut...
Tag this Judgment!T.C.C. Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. Labour Court
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-13-1988
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ5Ker
Sivaraman Nair, J. 1. Is the dispute between a Co-operative Society and its Secretary an industrial dispute Is the Secretary a 'workman' of the Society and is it competent for a Labour Court in a reference : under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the I.D. Act') to review the evidence and come to a finding different from that arrived at in the domestic enquiry after holding that the enquiry was fairly and properly conducted? These are the questions which arise for consideration in this Original Petition,2. The petitioner is the employer society consisting of the employees of the Travan-core Cochin Chemicals Ltd. The 2nd respondent was its Secretary. The statutory audit of the accounts of the Society for the year 1978-79 seems to have revealed some irregularities. These were revealed by the summary of the defects noted by the Auditor. The second respondent was on sick leave in 1979. When he rejoined duty, he was required to discharge the duties of a Clerk and was not...
Tag this Judgment!H. Rajendra Pai Vs. Chairman, Canara Bank and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-12-1988
Reported in: [1989(58)FLR670]; (1990)ILLJ294Ker
P.K. Shamsuddin, J.1. In this Original Petition, the petitioner seeks to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exls.P4. P5 and P7, to declare that the entire enquiry against him is in violation of the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 and the principles of natural justice, and therefore void, and to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to immediately reinstate him in service with the all benefits due to him.2. The petitioner was working as the Manager in the Kallekkad Branch of the Canara Bank. He was issued with a charge-sheet Ext. P1 alleging certain misconduct against him. It was alleged in Ext.P1 that while working as Manager of Kallekkad Branch, the petitioner granted several loans indiscriminately beyond his sanctioning powers and in total disregard to the accepted banking norms and practice and that he allowed part of the loan proceeds to be credited to loan accounts of other panics for closing overdue loans and for reducing the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »