Court : Kerala
Reported in : II(1991)ACC638
Padmanabhan, J.1. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by notification dated 2.11.1990, the Kerala Government enhanced the ordinary bus fare to 14 paise per kilometre. Due to the consequent public agitation, by another notification dated 15.11.1990 it was reduced from 14 paise to 13 paise per kilometre. All these O.Ps except O.P. 11357 of 1990 were filed challenging the enhancement. In G.P. 11357 of 1990 filed by the Kerala State Private Bus Operations' Federation, the challenge is against the reduction from 14 paise to 13 paise. All these O.Ps were heard together. At the time of arguments, the petitioners in O.P. 11357 limited his request to a direction for consideration of the representation. The other petitioners confined their claim to a direction to appoint an expert committee to go into the question of bus fare.2. The main grievance of the petitioners (by petitioners, I mean petitioners other than the petitioner in O.P. 11357) is that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1992)IILLJ786Ker
RADHAKRISHNA MENON, J.1. The employer within the meaning of the Employees State Insurance Act, for short the Act, is before us. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the expression 'wages' defined by Section 2(22) of The Act includes the 'Meals Allowance' the employer paid to the employees during the period in question.2. The answer to this question depends upon the construction of Section 2(22) which defines 'wages'. We shall reproduce this definition now;'2. Definitions:- In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,-- 22. 'wages' means all remuneration paid or payable in cash to an employee, if the terms of the contract of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled and includes any payment to an employee in respect of any period of authorised leave, lock-out, strike which is not illegal or lay-off and other additional remuneration, if any, paid at intervals not exceeding two months, but does not include- (a) any contribution paid b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1992]197ITR236(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Agricultural Income tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal') has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court :'Is the Tribunal justified in holding that 'motor cars' in entry III-B(i) of the statement of rule 9 of the Agricultural Income tax Rules, 1951, includes 'jeep'?'The respondent i.s an assesses to agricultural income tax. It is a registered firm. We are concerned with the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, for which the accounting periods ended on February 28, 1979, and February 28, 1980, respectively. Among others, the assessee claimed deduction of depreciation on a jeep owned and used by it for agricultural purposes. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer as well as the first appellateauthority held that the jeep owned by the assessee will covered by rule 9, Item III ' Machinery and Plant' and depreciation is allowable only at the rate of seven per cent. The plen of the assessee was t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1992]197ITR13(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of an assessee to agricultural income-tax, the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kozhikode, has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the applicant is not entitled to depreciation on the actual cost of acquisition of motor car bearing Registration No. KRD 57 as no depreciation had been actually allowed for the assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81 and1981-82?'2. The matter relates to the assessment year 1982-83 for which the accounting period ended on March 31, 1982. For this assessment year, amongst other things, the assessee claimed depreciation on motor car KRD 57. The car was purchased on November 29, 1978, for a sum of Rs. 38,256. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer fixed the written down value of the car, for the purpose of allowing depreciation for this year (1982-83), at Rs. 19,039. This was so done after deducting the depr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1992)IILLJ774Ker
Padmanabhan, J.1. The short question for consideration in this O.P. is whether the impugned provision in Exts, P1 and P2 is liable to be struck down as violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.2. Vijayamohini Mills was a private sector undertaking. On December 20, 1973 the management entered into Ext. P1 settlement with the unions representing the employees. Age of retirement was fixed at 56. Any employee who put in 10 years of service but did not complete 56 years was given the option for voluntary retirement or resignation. Such of the employees who put in 10 years of service was also given the option on voluntary retirement, resignation or retirement on superannuation, to nominate one of his relatives to be appointed in his place.3. The undertaking became a sick unit and was taken over by the Central Government. On April 1, 1976 it was handed over to the National Textile Corporation, a company fully owned by the Government of India. Thus it beca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : I(1992)DMC121
G.H. Guttal, J.1. This appeal by the wife, Geeta is against the decree made by the District Judge, Thodupuzha on 28.3.1988 in H.M.O.P. No. 143/ 1987 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act whereby he dismissed the wife's petition for divorce. He held that the respondent, husband, Mohan did not treat her with cruelty. In this judgment the petitioner and respondent are hereinafter referred as wife and husband respectively (W and H for brevity). The facts giving rise to this petition are briefly these.2. W and H were married on 4.8.1984 according to the Hindu Religious rites. The W was working in a High School at Kavalattgadu and H was employed in Muscat in the Sultanate of Oman. The H was on 10 day's leave during which time the marriage took place. He had no house of his own and after staying for a day in the house of W's father, the parties lived in house of H's brother until 13.8.1984. The H left for Muscat from Cochin on 14.8.1984. The W accompanied him to Cochin Air Port. The W co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1992Ker85
B.M. Thulasidas, J. 1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 53 of 1982 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kasaragod, is the appellant. He filed the suit for injunction to restrain the defendants from taking steps under the Revenue Recovery Act to recover the amount allegedly due from him. He denied his liability pleading discharge and also alternatively set up a contention that the claim is barred by limitation. The defendants contested the suit. The 1st defendant claimed that Rs. 2958.50 and interest was due and there was no bar for recovery. The second defendant admitted having sent the certificate to the Village Officer, Kudlu, to recover the above amount as per the requisition he had from the 1stdefendant. 2. The trial Court dismissed the suit which was affirmed by the Sub Judge, Kasaragod, in appeal, A.S. No. 73 of 1984, by judgment dated 10-3-1987 which is challenged in this Second Appeal.3. Heard counsel for the appellant andthe respondents: 4. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff was gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1992CriLJ1663
Chettur Sankaran Nair, J.1. Correctness of the order of acquittal in Criminal Appeal No. 81/88 on the file of the Court of Session Kottayam Division, and correctness of the decision in Verghese v. State of Kerala (1990) 2 KLT 416, relying on which, acquittal was made arise for consideration. In calendar review, a Criminal P. C. was registered against the order of acquittal. 1 he matter then came up before Raja-sekharan J. The learned Judge doubted the correctness of the reported decision, and referred the matter to a Division Bench. Thus, it conies before us.2. Appellant before the Court of Session (called the accused hereinafter), was convicted of the offence under Section 51(a) of the Kerala Police Act, by the trial Magistrate finding that he behaved in a disorderly manner under the influence of 'drink' in the office of PW 3 --Municipal Commissioner, at or about 3.30 p.m. on 19-9-1987. PW 3 made a report to PW 4--- Sub-Inspector of Police, who in turn deputed PW 2 to the Municipal Of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1992Ker342
Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioners in O.P. No. 7287 of 1991 and O.P. No. 7289 of 1991 are the appellants in the above two writ appeals. The said two original petitions and O.P. No. 7294 of 1991 were heard and disposed of together by a common judgment dated 30-7-1991 by a learned single Judge of this Court. The respondent-State has filed a common counter-affidavit in the three cases. It is filed in O.P. No. 7294 of 1991. No writ appeal is filed from O.P. No, 7294 of 1991.2. The original petitions were filed attacking Govern men! Notification dated 12-7-1991 - G.O.(P) No. 31/91,'F & PD dated 12-7-1991 Fxt.P1 in O.P. No. 7287 of 1991 and Ext.P10 in O.P.. No, 7289 of 1991. The petitioners prayed for the grant of a declaration; (a) that they are entitled to conduct trawling operations in the sea outside 12 nautical miles from the base line; (b)to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to forbear from restricting the movement of fishing vessels belonging to the petitioners or their membe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1991(63)FLR891]; (1992)ILLJ834Ker
K. Sreedharan, J.1. Petitioner commenced his service as an apprentice under the second respondent in November, 1969. He was absorbed in the regular service as Grade III workman in 1972. At that time, second respondent was under private management. Employees were entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. While so, the first respondent took over the management of the second respondent in 1974, on nationalisation. The age of retirement of the members of the staff under the first respondent is 58 years. So, the issue relating to the age of retirement of the members of the staff of the second respondent was settled by a memorandum of settlement dated July 5, 1981. Clause 7 of that settlement entered into between the parties as per Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was in the following terms:'It is agreed that the age of superannuation for all those members of staff who are on rolls as on date shall be 60 years...
Tag this Judgment!