Kerala Court February 1994 Judgments
H.O. John Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-1994
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ1095Ker
K.J. Joseph, J.1. When this case has come up for hearing on December 20, 1993, neither the counsel nor the petitioner was present. Therefore, Original Petition was dismissed for default. C.M.P. No. 874/94 is filed by the petitioner praying for restoration of the Original Petition back to files and to set aside the order of dismissal for default. Copy of the said petition was served on the respondents. I heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. The petition is not opposed. Hence the same is allowed. 2. The petitioner in this Original Petition is the Honorary Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce, Trichur, a registered body to improve and foster the industry and commerce in the Trichur Municipality. The Chamber of Commerce has a membership of many people who are businessmen, traders and industrialists in Trichur. Some of the members of the Chamber of Commerce are engaged in wholesale and retail trade of various commodities and also manufacturing and sale of various commer...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Baby Mathew Vs. Agricultural Income Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-1994
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(Ker)214
T. L. VISWANATHA IYER, J. :Petitioner is a doctor by profession. He is now faced with proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act (R. R. Act for brevity) for realisation of certain amounts due by way of tax under the Agrl. IT Act, 1950 (Agrl. IT Act in brief) from the third respondent, which is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 to which I shall hereinafter refer as the society. The tax is due for the asst. yrs. 1979-80 to 1982-83 corresponding to the accounting years 1978-79 to 1981-82. Petitioner was the president of the society for a term of three years, 1979-80 to 1981-82. The tax is sought to be recovered from him because of this connection.2. The society was assessed to tax under the Agrl. IT Act for the asst. yrs. 1979-80 to 1982-83 by the proceedings Ext. P3 dt. 12th March, 1985. The amount of tax demanded pursuant thereto was not paid. Though the assessment was made in the name of the society, copy of the order of assessment was ...
Tag this Judgment!Sujir Ganesh Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1994
Reported in: [1994]95STC368(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. This writ appeal arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing O.P. No. 5298 of 1989 on the file of this Court. In the said writ petition the appellant-writ petitioner has challenged the levy of penalty under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') for the assessment year 1984-85. By exhibit P5 order the Board of Revenue upheld the levy of penalty fixed by the second respondent, Deputy Commissioner in the revision petition and that order was under challenge in the writ petition disposed of by the learned Single Judge on March 15, 1993.2. The main question to be decided in this appeal is whether the ingredients of the provisions contained in Section 45A are attracted in this case so as to levy of penalty on the petitioner as prescribed therein. The portion of the said section which is relevant for the present purpose is extracted hereunder :'45 A. Imposition of penalty by officers and authorities.--(1) If the asse...
Tag this Judgment!P.P. Ponnan Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1994
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ1204Ker
Jagannadha Rao, C.J. 1. The appellant workman was the writ petitioner in O.P. No. 4869 of 1987 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated July 11, 1991. The 2nd respondent is the employer. The appellant was working as headload worker for the 2nd respondent. On March 7, 1983 a show cause notice was given regarding alleged misconduct and then on March 8, 1983 he was suspended pending domestic enquiry. By notice dated March 14, 1983, he was informed that an Advocate was appointed inquiring officer. The allegation was that he beat one of the co-workers while the latter was doing work, and his past conduct was also not good. The appellant admitted the incident, but contended that he acted in self-defence. The Inquiry Officer found the misconduct proved and the employer dismissed the appellant from service. Thereafter the matter was referred under the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court, Ernakulam, in I.D. No. 2 of 1984 and the Labour Court found that there wer...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P. Krishna Warrier. (and Vice Versa).
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1994
Reported in: (1994)118CTR(Ker)54; [1994]208ITR823(Ker)
ORDER--Question covered by Full Bench decision of High Court.Facts :Tribunal rejected application under s. 260(1) for amendment of its order. Miscellaneous application of revenue seeking that Tribunal should add a rider to the answer given by Full Bench. Application under s. 256(1).Held :It is clear that the decision of the Full Bench in assessee's own case in (1981) 127 ITR 192 (Ker) squarely governs those cases. The said decision was rendered relating to earlier assessment years. All that the Tribunal did was to apply the said decision to the appeals pending before it after getting back the answers to the questions referred tunder s. 256. The Tribunal, therefore, had only given effect to the said answers in its order passed under s. 260. What was in effect sought by the department by filing the application for modification of the order of the Tribunal made under s. 260 of the Act was to ask the Tribunal to read a rider into the answer given by the High Court in the decision reported ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan Nambudiri Vs. Thankamani
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-1994
Reported in: II(1994)DMC223
L. Manoharan, J.1. First defendant in O.S. 246 of 1984 of the Sub Court, Thrissur, a suit for partition, filed LA. 2143 of 1993 for transferring the suit to the Family Court, Ernakulam. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge. The revision petitioner challenges the said order in this revision.2. Plaintiff/respondent is the wife of the first defendant-revision petitioner. She instituted the suit for partition and allotment of her 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property. Second defendant is the daughter of plaintiff and first defendant. The respondent alleged that herself, the revision petitioner and the second defendant are entitled to 1/3rd each in the plaint schedule property. But the first defendant maintained that his sisters are also entitled to share and that, the tenants of the rooms and his sisters are also necessary parties. Accordingly they were also impleaded, the sisters of the revision petitioner are defendants 3 to 5, and defendants 6 and 7 are the ten...
Tag this Judgment!Unique Thread Mills Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-1994
Reported in: [1994]95STC269(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The petitioner is a small-scale industrial unit engaged in the manufacture of sewing thread, out of cotton yarn purchased by it. It has been registered as a small-scale industrial unit by proceedings, exhibit P1, dated January 3, 1992 of the second respondent, the General Manager of the District Industries Centre, Palakkad. It is stated that the unit was actually set up on November 30, 1990. It is claimed to be an industrial unit set up. by women, the entrepreneurs as well as the workers, permanent as well as casual, being only women. It has been recognised as such, and given the benefit of certain subsidy schemes and others, by proceedings, exhibits P2 and P3, of the second respondent.2. The petitioner made an application to the second respondent for the issue of eligibility certificate, to get exemption from payment of sales tax as per the Notification S.R.O. No. 969/80 dated September 29, 1980, issued by the Government under Section 10 of the Kerala Genera...
Tag this Judgment!Kalpaka Transport Co. (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Nagathoti Madhavi and Math ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-1994
Reported in: 1(1996)ACC337
K. Sreedharan, J.1. Respondents 2 and 3 in M.A.C. 85 of 1982 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode are the appellants. They are the owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. Respondents 1 to 9 herein are the wife and children of Nambaru, who was killed in the accident. They claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of compensation on account of the death of Nambaru. The Tribunal, by award dated 12.7.1985, directed the third respondent-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 20.2.1982 till date of payment together with costs, including Advocate's fee of Rs. 500/-. Hence this appeal.2. Bare facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows. At about 6.00 p.m. on 20.2.1982 while deceased Nambaru was walking along the eastern side of Vadakara-Kozhikode Highway, stage carriage bearing Registration No. KLZ 9738 belonging to the appellant, which was coming from behind Nambaru, knocked h...
Tag this Judgment!Law Society of India Vs. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-14-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Ker308
Varghese Kalliath, J. 1. This isa public interest litigation. Petitioner is a society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Charitable, Literary and Scientific Societies Act. It claims that it is involved in legal research legal literacy and espousing public interest causes before Courts.2. In this petition the petitioner wants to spearhead and underscore the high potency danger involved in allowing to continue the operation by the first respondent a 10,000 tonne Ammonia Storage Tank in Willingdon Islandin Port Area.3. The first respondent the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd., Udyogamandal is a public sector undertaking. It is engaged in the production of fertilisers. O. 27% of the shares in the Company is held by the public, the balance being held by the Government of India, the Government of Kerala, the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Its manufacturing units for production of chemical fertilisers are Cochin Division at Ambalamedu and Udyogaman...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanan Vs. B.P.L. Systems (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-14-1994
Reported in: [1994(68)FLR1067]; (1995)ILLJ43Ker
Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. Writ petitioners are the appellants. They are employees of the first respondent, the B.P.L. Systems and Projects. Ltd. On the ground of charges of misconduct amounting to causing bodily injury to officers of the management, these two employees were dismissed from service, after holding a domestic enquiry. Thereafter the matter came up before the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut in I.D. No. 6 of 1987. The said I.D. ended against the workmen on July 22, 1988 in a reasoned award. The award has been challenged in the O.P. by the workmen and the O.P. was dismissed by the learned single Judge by his judgment dated July 11, 1993. This appeal is preferred against the said judgment by the workmen.2. Relying mainly on the decision of the Supreme Court in Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Meerut, (1984-I-LLJ-16), it was contended for the workmen that the incident of assault on the officers of the management took place outside the factory premises and, theref...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »