Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: insecticides act 1968 section 26 notification of poisoning Court: kerala Page 8 of about 95 results (0.117 seconds)

V. Hariharan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala Represented by Its Chief Secre ...

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1968Ker42; (1967)ILLJ766Ker

..... , was on the petitioner who challenged the reservations in their favour. with respect, it seems to me that the decision of the supreme court, in the wealth tax act case, 1964 ker lt 285 which was concerned with article 14 of the constitution, can have no application here.as pointed out in the majority judgment of the supreme ..... contended that the governor has no power to pass rules retrospectively under theproviso to article 309 of the constitution. in any case, it is argued, the state government acting under rule 14 of the general rules is really only a delegate and can in no event pass a notification with retrospective effect. it is also contended that assuming ..... religion and/or caste to which those sections may belong. with this end in view, it is desirable that the state should undertake a detailed survey as early as possible. there will be no justification in continuing to apply the principles embodied in rule 14 to 17 ofthe general rules after 31-3-1968 without at fresh survey and a .....

Malayalam Plantations Limited and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : (1976)ILLJ114Ker

..... made.7. according to the appellants the notifications impugned were bad for several reasons. they were said to have been issued in violation of the mandatory provisions of the act and particularly section 5. the appellants' case is that there was an obligation to fix a definite date for consideration of the proposal and an obligation to give & hearing to the ..... wage packet. it is pertinent to point out that even in ext. p6 proposal for revision of minimum wages in the tea and lubber plantation industry published in november, 1968 dearness allowance was proposed for workers at the rate of 2 paise per day for every 5 points in excess of 650. no distinction was sought to be made between ..... the mysore high court in c.b. boarding & lodging v. state of mysore-the mysore case is reported in 1970-ii l.l.j. 403 ' a.i.r. 1968 mysore 156-there was actually a hearing and the supreme court had occasion to hold that reasonable opportunity had been given. that does not prove the appellants' point, for, in .....

K.K. Ramankutty Vs. State of Kerala and anr.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : (1972)IILLJ509Ker

..... s. money re-commanded that steps may be taken to acquire vellanikkara estate and also to declare the adjoining lands in five villages as project area under section 47a of the kerala land acquisition act. according to dr. money the land in and around the area of the vellanikkara estate would cost about rs. 10,000 to rs. 15,000 per ..... thus misconducted yourself in a manner unbecoming of a member of the service to which you belong, thus violating rule 3(1) of the all india services (conduct) rules, 1968.4. that you, sri k.k. ramankutty, in the report submitted by you made without any basis and for no justifiable reason, disparaging remarks against dr. money that he ..... to which you belong and displayed lack of the absolute integrity and devotion to duty enjoined on you by rule 3(1) of the all india services (conduct) rules, 1968.3. that you, sri k.k. ramankutty, in conducting the aforesaid enquiry and making your report, rashly, and in an irresponsible manner and without any basis made the .....

State of Kerala, Rep. by the Secretary to Government Food and Civil Su ...

Court : Kerala

..... not have been enforced by the state government by notification dated 22.01.2008? 16. before we proceed further, it is relevant to note the relevant provisions of the 1955 act. section 3(1) and (2) which are relevant for the present case is as follows: 3. powers to control production, supply, distribution, etc. "of essential comrrwdities: , (1) if ..... principal. it was contended before the division bench that the said orders were directly in confict with the provisions of the iron and steel control order and the 1968 order as a whole should be held to be invalid. the division bench further laid down that the law is well established that if power is vested with ..... delegated the power to make orders specified in clause (d) to (j) of section 2(3) to the government of kerala. the state of kerala issued an order on 02.04.1968 iz., iron and steel (declaration of stocks and maintenance of accounts) order, 1968. in pursuance of the said order, the director of industries and commerce issued circular .....

Paradesi Thyagarajan S. Vs. High Court of Kerala and State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Reported in : (1999)ILLJ113Ker

..... of integrity and impartiality: not very satisfactory14.05.1990 to 31.12.1990j.f.c.m., chalakkudychief judicial magistrate, thrissurthe officer concerned has a tendencyto alter sections of law to make it triable by court of sessions though in fact none of such cases deserved to be tried by court of sessions .considering what i ..... the compulsory retirement. in that case the respondent joined the punjab civil service in november 1954 and was selected for the judicial branch in 1965 and in 1968 he was promoted as officiating additional district and sessions judge. he was due to attain the age of 55 years on february 24, 1971. his case ..... , kanjirappally which was held by shri. s. paradesi thyagarajan :'..... .this practice adopted by the learned agistrate is an abuse of process of court. he was acting without jurisdiction......... practice of extending interim bail is not warranted by the code and it to be condemned.......the practice of directing accused to appear before court before .....

F.A.C.T. Employees' Association Vs. F.A.C.T. Limited and Ors.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : (1977)ILLJ182Ker

..... as the company) and its workmen represented by eight unions. the government of kerala referred the dispute by ext. ri dated 17-6-1972, under section 10 of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (herein after called the 'act'), to the industrial tribunal, calicut. the issues referred are: (i) production bonus. (2) annual bonus for 1970-71. (3) staffing of iv stage plants and ..... 31-7-1975 was received by the government on 29-8-1975. it was published in the gazette dated 30-9-1975 in accordance with section 17 of the act and it became enforceable in terms of section 17a on tin expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication.2. the petitioners in o.p. no. 5805 of 1975 are ..... the absence of one or more parties. this court had occasion to refer to the responsibilities of a civil court in passing an ex pane decree. in kochuvelu v. varkey, (1968) k.l.t. 462, this court stated :even though the defendant is ex parte, the duty is still there, on the part of the plaintiffs to prove & prima facie case .....

The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) V ...

Court : Kerala

Reported in : [1978]42STC225(Ker)

..... fertilisers, during the years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73. at the time of sale, as required by the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 5 of the act, the manufacturer-purchaser had declared that naphtha was for use in the manufacture of goods covered by schedule i. the assessing officer assessed the ..... in turn was used for manufacture of chemical fertilisers. on the view that naphtha was not used directly for the manufacture, he initiated proceedings under section 35 of the act and set aside the orders of the assessing authority. on appeal, the sales tax appellate tribunal reversed the said decision. these three tax revision ..... section (3) of section 5 of the act and furnishes it to the assessing authority he cannot be called upon to pay more than the concessional rate of tax of one per centand that the selling dealer could claim the concessional rate even if the declaration was in the nature of fraudulent misrepresentation. in premier electro-mechanical febricators v. state of madras [1968 .....

M/S. Muthoot Pappachan Consultancy and Management Services, Muthoot Ce ...

Court : Kerala

..... arises as to a. xxx, or b. xxx, or c. xxx, or d. xxx, or e. xxx, or [(ee) xxx, or (clause (f) omitted by act 44 of 1966, sec.32 (w.e.f.28.1.1968) f. any other matter which is in dispute between a principal employer and the corporation, or between a principal employer and an immediate employer or between ..... . section 75(1)(g) of the act reveals that one of the pre-requisites for the insurance ..... question or dispute subject to the provisions of sub-section (2a) shall be decided by the employees insurance court in accordance with the provisions of this act. (emphasis supplied) (2) xxx:- (a) xxx; (b) xxx; (clause (c) omitted by act 44 of 1966m sec.32 (w.e.f.28.1.1968) (d) xxx; (e) xxx; and (f) xxx. (2a) xxx. (2b) xxxx: 2. xxx. 23 .....

Food Inspector, Chalakudy Municipality and anr. Vs. Prabhakaran and or ...

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 1983CriLJ81

..... that the restriction of the period of 10 days was taken away in the new rule.12. it may be of benefit to refer to section 13 of the act in this context. sub-section (1) of this section obliges the public analyst to deliver in the prescribed form a report to the local (health) authority of the result of the analysis of any ..... intimation to the local (health) authority and sends the remaining two parts to the local (health) authority for the purposes of sub-section (2) of section 11 and sub-sections (2a) and (2e) of section 13. sub-section (3) of section 11 obliges the food inspector to send the sample by the 'immediately succeeding working day and rule 17 adverted to obliges him to do ..... the food inspector.' we may advert in this context to a decision of the division bench of this court in food inspector v. padmanabhan nair 1967 ker lt 825 : 1968 cri lj 683. that was a case where there were three witnesses to the mahazar. two of them were employees of the hotel and the other, a maistry of the .....

Fathima Beebi Vs. M.K. Ravindranathan and ors.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 1975CriLJ1164

..... operation of the presidential order suspending such right, these same rights cannot be allowed to reappear and reassert themselves masquerading as safeguards provided to the detenu under section 8(1) of the act.10. shri m. c. chagla then urged that -personal liberty is so paramount that it is the duty of the high courts and the supreme court ..... and when the rights under article 22(5) cannot now be enforced, to say that the same rights can be enforced by merely placing reliance on section 8(1) of the act would be a very artificial, unrealistic and unsubstantial approach to the question. the petitioner's answer was that the president has no authority by an order ..... of the order. the president's order mentions article 14. it would not therefore be possible to contend that section 3 (1) (c) of the act as amended by ordinance 11 of 1974 or any of the provisions thereof is discriminatory (1968 sc 173). passing on to the other articles mentioned in the order, we find article 21 and clauses (4 .....