Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1984(15)ELT325(Ker)
..... available to the appellants and therefore the writ petition is not entertainable, and should abate under section 58 of the constitution amendment act. on the terms of the provisions, the argument appears to be well founded, and we are inclined to accept the same. counsel for the appellants drew ..... to prevent the commission of such offence.* * * *there is an explanation to the section, clause (a) of which enacts : 'explanation.-for the purposes of this section,-(a) 'company' means a body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and* * * *counsel for the respondents placed reliance on this provision; but, for the appellants, it was ..... broker, moideen, (who was also a petitioner in the writ petition, and the 3rd appellant before us). moideen himself had denied having supplied any contraband cloves to the 2nd appellant. moideen's explanation was not accepted and he was also adjudged liable for penalty. copy of the order is ext. p6. appeal against the said order jointly .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker190; (1960)ILLJ323Ker
..... officer.'the original definition did not include a written agreement arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings, but this was added by the amending act, xxxvi of 1956. section 18(1) provides that a settlement arrived at by agreement between an employer and workmen otherwise than in the course of ..... workmen including himself, and that the 63 workmen who were thrown out of employment were not the jurior-most.5. the second respondent, the burmah-shell oil storage and distributing company of india limited, supports the petitioner and contends that the petitioner is the only union recognised by the management and that there ..... writ, order or direction restraining the labour court from proceeding with the enquiry. the first respondent is the state of kerala, the 2nd respondent, the burmah shell oil storage and distributing company of india limited, ernakulam, the 3rd respondent t. k. rajan, secretary, burmah shell temporary workers action committee, and the 4th respondent .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1999)ILLJ490Ker
..... to any of the offices or branches or subsidiary concerns managed by the company'. after considering ext. p-2 objections and ext. p-3 amendment to the industrial employment (standing orders) central rule s, by ext. p-5 the second respondent declined modification. the second respondent declined to modify it on the grounds that the certified standing ..... need not be the sizeable number of workmen. trade union can also be an applicant. it need only be a trade union registered under the trade unions act. act does not say that it shall have recognition or a representative character with substantial majority. it is obviously so because notice on such application for modification shall, ..... of either the workmen or the employer, none can take a stand that such provision cannot be deleted because of the absence of provision for an amendment in the act and that the provision contained in section 10 for modification is only to effect minor changes and not for deletion of any clause. the modification .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(3)KLT217
..... judgment. the interim stay granted by the delhi high court must, therefore, be read in that context and cannot extend to stay the operation of section 267 of the companies act'.17. referring to rama narang 's case supra the position was further clarified by the supreme court in k.c. sareen's case. it was held there as follows ..... and the sentence is for a fine upto rupees two thousand only, such conviction shall not be treated as a conviction for the purpose of the amended rule.11. in situations where the second proviso to article 311(2) are invoked, no notice is necessary is a well settled position, in the light of the constitution bench decision in ..... .k.r.b. kaimal, counsel appearing for the petitioner in the former writ petition, contends that the dismissal from service under the amended rule is not automatic. what the rule contemplates is invocation of the second proviso to article 311 of the constitution of india and action under that rule is to be taken, taking note of the conduct .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1991ACJ597
..... . this clearly shows that in order to make the intention clear that the comprehensive private car policy covers passenger's liability, the tariff advisory committee decided to amend clause 1 of section ii of private car comprehensive policies by incorporating certain wording after the words 'death of or bodily injury to any person'. the words ..... car on the date of the accident and registered owner is liable vicariously for the negligence of his driver, second respondent. hence the award should be passed against respondent nos. 1 and 2. as indicated earlier, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the first respondent in this case.28. in the result, m.f.a ..... first respondent cannot be held liable.12. mr. syed mohammed ali appearing for the third respondent contended that the policy, exh. b-8, is only an act policy and did not cover risk to passengers in the car and the tribunal rightly exonerated the insurer. learned counsel also supported the finding of the tribunal upholding .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : II(1995)ACC104; 1995ACJ1077
..... in that case plaintiff's house was damaged when its foundation had subsided. this was caused by negligent excavation by the first defendant as well as by the second defendant (a water company) which negligently allowed water to escape from their main. this was found to be a typical case of several tortfeasors.11. the above legal position has been ..... liability is fixed under section 34 as well as section 149 of the indian penal code because a common design can be traced in either of them. separate act or acts done by separate tortfeasors must either have been in concert between each other or towards a common design resulting in the tort to make all of them joint ..... the purpose of bringing the insurer on record.16. such an application for amendment is not affected by the period prescribed in section 110-a (corresponding to section 166 of the motor vehicles act, 1988) for making the claim. in basappa v. k.h. sreenivasa reddy 1982 acj (supp) 585 (karnataka), a division bench has held that there .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2004]271ITR178(Ker)
..... payers. hence the re-introduction of the same by exercising the power under section 295(2)(c) of the act is impermissible. it was further stated that even assuming that interest subsidy can be treated as a perquisite the second respondent is not entitled to fix the rates at 10 per cent. or 13 per cent. as the ..... september 25, 2001, as illegal and unconstitutional being hit by the vice of excessive delegation of power besides being ultra vires the rule making power of the second respondent and to stay the operation of ..... inserted by the finance act 2001, is illegal and violative of articles 19(1)(g) and 246 of the constitution of india, and a declaration that rule 3 of the income-tax rules, 1962, as substituted by the income-tax (22nd amendment) rules, 2001 (see [2001] 251 itr 81) by the second respondent under its notification no. 940(e), dated .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(4)KLT432
..... entitled to equal share in the property, they having been born in 1969 and 1970, much before the kerala hindu joint family system (abolition) act and the amendment act 15 of 1978 of the partition act. the petitioners would submit that by virtue of the decision of smt. paravankandiyal eravath kanapravan kalliani amma and ors. v. k. devi and ors ..... member the right to institute a suit for partition of the estate and the palace fund.5. later on, by amendment act 15 of 1978, the said act was amended. sections 4 and 5 were deleted and section 3 was amended as follows:3. partition of the estate and the palace fund:(1) the seniormost male member of the family shall ..... between their parents had taken place at a time when there was a legislative prohibition on the second marriage, be treated as legitimate, and would, therefore, inherit the properties of their father. raman nair, under section 16(3) of the act.but, that does not specifically throw any light regarding the problem facing us in this case .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004CriLJ354; 2003(3)KLT824
..... state government or a local authority or a person authorised in this behalf by the state government or a local authority'. in 1976 the section was further amended by act 34 of 1976 and the words 'or a local authority' at both the places where they occurred were omitted. as a result of omission of the ..... v.. v.p.n. arunachalam reddiar (air 1960 ker.356) dealing with the need for getting written consent for instituting prosecution as provided in the act before its amendment this court said that the sanction must be for the prosecution of specified individuals and for specific offences. it was also observed that sanction required by ..... accused, who is the petitioner, is the depot manager from whom the second accused obtained the adulterated chiclets. there is also statement in the complaint that the district food inspector, palakkad informed the first respondent that there was no nomination under the act for the company.3. first respondent gave the complaint to the magistrate on 31st january .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2004]140TAXMAN173(Ker)
..... . hence the re-introduction of the same by exercising the power under section 295(2)(c) of the act is impermissible. it was further stated that even assuming that interest subsidy can be treated as a perquisite the second respondent is not entitled to fix the rates at 10% or 13% as the benchmark rate for computing ..... unconstitutional being hit by the vice of excessive delegation of power besides being ultra vires the rule making power of the second respondent and to stay the operation of the aforesaid ..... inserted by finance act 2001 is illegal and violative of articles 19(1)(g) and 246 of the constitution of india, and a declaration that rule 3 of the income tax rules, 1962 as substituted by income tax (22nd amendment) rules, 2001 by the second respondent under its notification no. 940(e) dated 25-92001 as illegal and .....
Tag this Judgment!