Kerala Court November 1995 Judgments
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Aluminium Industries Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-1995
Reported in: 1996(83)ELT41(Ker)
1. This appeal is by the Union of India in challenge of the decision rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court declaring that M/s. Aluminium Industries Ltd., Kundara is not liable to pay any further amount towards duty for import of the goods covered by a consignment which arrived at the Cochin Port on 12-8-1982 [reported in 1989 (1) K.L.T. 355].2. Facts in brief are these : M/s. Aluminium Industries Ltd., Kundara (ALIND for short) imported [some] aluminium rods for which shipment was made from Switzerland. A vessel carrying 75 metric tonnes of such aluminium rods arrived at Cochin Port on 12-8-1982. The Customs authorities assessed the import duty of Rs. 5,37,670/- on the said goods, but as the customs authorities refused to give clearance for release of the rods, ALIND filed the original petition for a direction to the appellants to permit ALIND to clear and transport the goods. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant it was contended that the import duty of ...
Tag this Judgment!Nair Service Society Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-28-1995
Reported in: [1998(79)FLR144]; (1998)IIILLJ1146Ker
K.J. Joseph, J. 1. The petitioner is running a medical mission hospital at Perunnai. The second respondent joined service as Compounder under the petitioner on December 25, 1969. She had been in the service of the petitioner for about 18 years. While so, she had applied for leave of two years on loss of pay from July 1, 1988 to June 30, 1990 on medical grounds, which was sanctioned by the petitioner. She had rejoined duty on July 1, 1990. Thereafter, again she had applied for leave for one year from July 19, 1990 on medical grounds. Even without waiting for the sanctioning of the leave, she left for Dubai, to join her husband who was working there. Thereupon, the petitioner issued a memo tothe second respondent in her permanent address. But the same was returned unserved. Again the management issued a memo directing the second respondent to appear before a medical board, as she had taken leave on medical grounds. That was also not served on her. Therefore, the management, as per the or...
Tag this Judgment!Anjillath Mohammed Kunhi Vs. K.K. Abdul Kajeed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-1995
Reported in: [1999]98CompCas607(Ker); 1996CriLJ2395
N. Dhinakar, J. 1. As the points to be considered in all the above criminal miscellaneous cases are one and the same, the above criminal miscellaneous cases are disposed of by a common order.2. The petitioner in all the above criminal miscellaneous cases questions the jurisdiction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur, to entertain a complaint laid for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, stating that the cheques in question were issued by the accused in the above criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasaragode, and the complaints ought to have been filed before the said Magistrate. According to the petitioner, the cheques in question were issued by him within the jurisdiction of Kasaragode and the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur, will not get jurisdiction to entertain the complaints merely because the cheques were later presented by the respective complainants with their bankers at Kannur...
Tag this Judgment!Rajiv Kesavan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ker229
K. Sreedharan, J.1. Short question that arises in all these Original Petitions relates to the quantum of commission payable to licencees, who operate S.T.D. public telephone booths. According to petitioners, they are entitled to 20% of unit call charges without any slab system. In other words, they contend that they are entitled to 20% of Rs. 1.25, which is the tariff per unit call metered in the exchange and there cannot be any reduction in the commission, even if the number of unit calls go beyond 10,000 a month. On this basis, they pray for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give a commission of 20% of unit call charges on S.T.D./ I.S.D. calls.2. Since learned counsel representing the petitioner in O.P. No, 7180/93, led the argument in this batch of cases and counsel representing the petitioners in the other Original Petitions adopted the same contentions, I consider it advantageous to refer tothe facts in O.P. No. 7180/93. Petitioner is maintaining a publi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1549
ORDERN. Dhinakar, J.1. This revision case is based-on a letter addressed by the II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kozhikode. Few facts need mentioning.2. A case under Section 306 I. P. C. was filed against two accused and of them the second accused is a person working in the Army. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session and the same was made over to the II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge by the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode. It is stated that the second accused, who is a military personel, committed an offence while he was on leave. When the accused was produced before the Magistrate, the Magistrate was not appraised of the fact that the second accused is a military personel and as such the learned Magistrate, thinking him to be a civilian, committed him to take his trial before the Sessions Court. On receipt of the records, the learned Additional Sessions Judge entertained a doubt as to the legality of the order of committal as one of the accused is a m...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Ahammad Koya and anr. Vs. Competent Authority and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1148
K.T. Thomas, Actg. C.J.1. Appellants are husband and wife. Some of the properties of the appellants were ordered to be forfeited to the Central Government under the provisions of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (for short 'Safema'). The said action of the authorities is being challenged by the appellants in the Original Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. But learned single Judge dismissed the Original Petition. This appeal is hence filed.2. Appellants have raised alternative contentions. One of them was that the provisions of SAFEMA are ultra vires to the Constitution. But with the pronouncement of the decision by a 9 Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas, : 1995CriLJ426 upholding the validity of SAFEMA, the challenge on that ground became completely defused. So the appeal was dismissed along with some other appeals in which the validity of the provisions of SAFEMA wa...
Tag this Judgment!Neil Gerard D'Cruz Vs. JacqulIn Rozario
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ker201; I(1996)DMC444
Thomas, Ag. C.J.1. Confirmation is sought to be accorded to a decree passed by the Family Court declaring the marriage between the parties herein as null and void. But the decree having been passed only on 29-6-l995 the Registry of the High Court raised a doubt whether the same can be considered for confirmation without lapse of an interval of six months. Smt. K. Meera, learned counsel for the petitioner urged the matter to be sent up on the judicial side as she was of the view that the period of six months envisaged in the proviso to 4th paragraph of Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act (for short 'the Act') is not applicable to confirmation of a decree of nullity. Hence we heard learned counsel on that point first.2. The Act envisages two modes to wriggled out of the catches of the broken. matrimonial alliance. One is by obtaining a decree for dissolution of marriage and the other is by obtaining a decree declaring the marriage null and void. Two forums are vested with jurisdiction t...
Tag this Judgment!Upasana Hospital and Nursing Home and anr. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-1995
Reported in: (1996)130CTR(Ker)412; [1996]217ITR555(Ker)
P.V. Narayanan Nambiar, J. 1. The prayer in these criminal miscellaneous cases is to quash the complaint, C. C. Nos. 58 of 1988, 57 of 1988 and 59 of 1988, respectively, on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences)'s Court, Ernakulam. These cases are referred to the Division Bench on the basis of the order of reference passed by Dhinakar J. in order to settle the apparent conflict between the decisions in Premier Breweries Ltd. v. Deputy CIT : [1994]207ITR871(Ker) and Vanaja Textiles Ltd. v. IAC of I. T. : [1994]208ITR602(Ker) .2. The prosecution is launched by the respondent, the Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Trivandrum, against the common petitioners alleging that they have committed offences under Sections 276C(1), 277, 276CC read with Section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. According to the prosecution, the assessee, who is the first petitioner, has concealed its income and income-tax returns were not filed within the time. It is also alleged that the...
Tag this Judgment!Food Corporation of India, Alleppey Vs. Alleppey Municipality and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ker241
Mohammed, J.1. The dispute in these writ petitions is between the Alleppey Municipality, Corporation of Calicut and Corporation of Cochin (hereinafter together called 'Municipal Corporations as the context may require) on the one hand and the Food Corporation of India (for short 'FCI') on the other. The central theme of the context relates to the levy of property taxes and service charges by the 'Municipal Corporations' under provisions of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961 and the Kerala Municipaliaties Act, 1960 and the claim of exemption by th 'FCI' under Article 285(1) of the Constitution of India.2. The relevant facts involved in these cases are summarised here as below: O.P. No. 4653 of 1987 was filed by the FCI, Alleppey for a declaration that it is not liable to be assessed to any property tax or service charge under the provisions of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960. It also prayed for quashing Exts. P12(a),(b),(c), to (t), P13, P14, P16 and P17 bills and communica...
Tag this Judgment!Kurumber Betta Estate Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR631(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The short question that is required to he considered is as to whether there is liability to pay interest on the amount in question with effect from July 6, 1987, as contended by the petitioner in this petition or from a later date on the basis of which the petitioner has been granted interest at the rate of 15 per cent. per annum.2. The question arises as follows : The petitioner is a partnership firm and is represented by its managing agent. The firm was carrying on business on acquisition of an estate known as Kurumber Betta Estate situated at Cherumully village in Gudallur Taluk, Nilgiri District. One of the partners, Shri Chenniah, expired in 1971. He happened to be indebted to the Income-tax Department and the property of the partnership became the subject-matter of an order of attachment by the Tax Recovery Officer, Bangalore, to the extent of share of Shri Chenniah in the partnership property and profits thereof in regard to tax arrears of Chenniah amounting Rs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »