Kerala Court October 1996 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Govindan Kutty Vs. South Malabar GramIn Bank
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-01-1996
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ325Ker
B.N. Patnaik, J.1. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the junior officers have been promoted to the higher post in supersession of his claim arbitrarily by adopting the method of selection contrary to the rules/circulars. When this matter came up before a learned single Judge, it was contended that the respondents 1 and 2 ignored the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 604/ 1988 and denied the promotion to the petitioner illegally. Learned Judge therefore, referred the matter for a decision by a Division Bench.2. The petitioner prays for issuance of a direction to respondents 1 and 2 who are respectively South Malabar Gramin Bank, represented by its Chairman and the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (NABARD) represented by its General Manager to promote him to the post of Field Supervisor on the basis of his seniority and to quash the promotions given to the juniors as per Ext. P6. He was appointed as Junior Clerk on May 6, 1977 in t...
Kerala Produce and Export Company Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-01-1996
Reported in: [1998]111STC357(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. The revision petitioner--Kerala Produce and Export Company--as stated in the petition is a dealer in pepper and dry ginger and acts as a selling agent on behalf of the growers and producers of these commodities. It is also averred in the petition that on a small-scale, these goods are also purchased and sold. It is urged that in this situation, the assessee would have no turnover as defined under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, as it is only a selling agency in respect of goods taxable on the purchase point. It is urged that being the agent directly of the growers, there could not be any liability because the assessee could not be the last purchaser in the State.2. For the assessment year 1987-88, the petitioner-assessee declared a turnover of Rs. 87,81,017.17. The accounts were scrutinised by the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax Office, Special Circle-II, Kozhikode, and it was found out that the correct turnover would be Rs. 88...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›