Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1986Ker230
ORDERV. Sivaraman Nair, J.1. The three petitioners are conducting coconut husk decortication industries which were licensed earlier than the promulgation of the Kerala Coconut Husks Control Order. All three are members of the Decorticated Fibre Producers Association, Unnikkulam Amson, Kozhikode. Their complaint is against the attempts of the State and its subordinate officers in mobilising procurement of green husks for retting for use in the traditional coir industry, which is organised mainly on co-operative basis, and the allotment of only dry coconut husks to the mechanised sector of the industry. This is sought to be done by issue of permits enabling the mechanised industrial sector to purchase only dry (brown) coconut husks. Petitioners submit that their industries were started at a time when there was no restriction at all in the procurement of husks, and therefore the machineries in the industrial units were so devised and fabricated as to consume green husks for manufacture of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1963Ker301
Mathew, J.1. Defendants 3 to 5 are the appellants. The suit was for recovery of the amount due from defendants 1 and 2 by sale of the plaint schedule properties, and for directing defendants 3 to 5 to deposit Rs. 40,000/- or such other sum as may be found to have been realised by them by sale of the moveables scheduled in the plaint. Plaintiff is a public limited company having its registered office at Calicut. It went into voluntary liquidation on 13-7-1952, and Shri S. Paramasivan was appointed as liquidator and he has tiled the suit on behalf of the company. The 1st defendant in the case is a private company registered under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office in Calicut. 2nd defendant is the Managing Director thereof. The 1st defendant borrowed from the plaintiff money as per hundies dated 134-1952, 20-6-1952 and 17-1952 aggregating to a total of Rs. 55,000/-. Thereafter the 1st defendant requested the plaintiff for further accommodation by way of loan for a sum o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker75
M.S. Menon, J. 1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar at Kozhikode in O. S. No, 41 of 1948. The suit was for damages for the breach of a contract of affreightment and the return of the advance freight paid by the plaintiffs.2. The total claim was for a sum of Rs. 10,736-10-6. The lower Court said :'The suit is decreed with costs against defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally for the sum of Rs. 10,736-10-6 with interest thereon at 6 per cent. from the date of plaint and full costs of suit withinterest thereon at 6 per cent, from this date till realisation.'3. The 2nd defendant was the tindal of the country craft Itehrnania, the vessel concerned in this case. He had not chosen to appeal and the decree as far as he is concerned does not arise for consideration.4. In the plaint as originally filed there were only two defendants :'Tulsidas Mulji ,1011 of Mulji Vishram trading under the name and style of Vishram Khimjee'and Hasan Ayooh, the tindal m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1962Ker185
Ansari, C. J.1. This batch of six petitions challenges the writ petitioners' being assessed to the professional tax under the Proviso to Rule 18(2) of the Taxa-tion and Finance Rules . These had been framed under the Travancore District Municipalities Act, No. XXIII of 1116, hereafter referred to as the Act, whose Section 91 authorises the profession tax being levied, if the Council by a resolution determine such a tax being levied. The Section further enacts among other things that every company, which, after the date specified in the notification published under Section 79, transacts business within the Municipality governed by the Act, for not less than sixty days in 'the aggregate in any half-year, should pay a half-yearly tax assessed in accordance with the Rules in Schedule II. Such schedule comprises among other things Rules 16 and 18, which alone are relevant for purposes of deciding these writ petitions. Rule 16 gives slabs of half-yearly income for purposes of assessment to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1985(4)ECC221; 1983LC973D(Kerala); 1983(14)ELT1677(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner is a firm. It is manufacturing commercial plywood. It was paying excise duty under Central Excise Act. According to the petitioner, commercial plywood manufactured and marketed by it will come under Central Excise Tariff 16-B. It is said that commercial plywood is taxable at 20%. The explanation to tariff item 16-B states that eight items mentioned therein will not be commercial plywood. One of the items excluded from the main tariff item 16-B, is 'structural plywood' coming under clause (iv) of the explanation. The petitioner states that in view of notification that existed from time to time, and in particular notification Nos. 15/68, 16/68, then 69/68 & 14/70 and until recently, the petitioner was paying excise duty at 20% for the plywood manufactured by it as 'commercial plywood' and not at the rate payable to 'structural plywood'. The respondents to this Original Petition are the Union of India, Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Cochin, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1996Ker379
1. Petitioner is the appellant. He challenges Ext. P2 order issued by the Government of Kerala. By Ext. P2 order, Government ordered that all arrack shops in the State will stand abolished from 1-4-1996. Presumably Ext. P2 order is issued in consonance with Article 47 of the Constitution of India. Appellant's attack of Ext. P2 is three fold. By abolition of all arrack shops from 1-4-1996, appellant's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is violated as he is working as Route Manager for distribution of arrack for the past five years and he is earning his livelihood by working as Route Manager. The second attack is on the ground that while arrack shops are to be abolished, toddy shops and shops selling Indian made foreign liquor are to continue and hence it is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The third attack is that the fermentation industry is regulated by the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and that Ext....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1975)IILLJ477Ker
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. All these petitions challenge the validity of the Kerala Industrial Employees' Payment of Gratuity Act, 1970, for short the Act which came into force on February 18, 1970, This Act replaced Ordinance 7 of 1969 which had had come into operation on December 10, 1969. The Act was superseded by the coming into force of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act) passed by Parliament and which came into force on September 16, 1972. Section 14 of the Central Act specifically provides that the Central Act or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than the Central Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than that Act.2. Before we proceed to deal with the contentions raised by counsel it is necessary to state the scheme provided by the Act. Section 4 enjoins that 'gratuity shall be payable to an employee--(a)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2005Ker307; 2005(3)KLT1052; [2006]144STC476(Ker)
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the constitutional validity of Section 76 of the Kerala Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. 1959 (Kerala Act X of 1960), hereinafter 'the CF Act', for short, and the notification issued by the Government of Kerala as per S.R.O. No. 226/2002 published in the Kerala Gazette Extra-ordinary No. 420 dated 5-4-2002, by which, the Government authorized levy of additional court-fee in exercise of power under Sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the CF Act. After the issuance of the aforesaid Notification, the Chairman of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal issued a Circular, which is also under challenge.2. The petitioners are assessees under the Commercial Tax Laws, to wit, the Central Sales Tax Act, the Kerala General Sales Tax Act or the Value Added Tax Act. As against assessment orders and allied matters, they have statutory remedies by way of appeal to the Appellate Authorities or the Tribunals, as the case may be, as a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(4)KLT81
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the constitutional validity of Section 76 of the Kerala Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (Kerala Act X of 1960), hereinafter 'the CF Act', for short, and the notification issued by the Government of Kerala as per S.R.O.No. 226/2002 published in the Kerala Gazette Extra-ordinary No. 420 dated 5-4-2002, by which, the Government authorized levy of additional court-fee in exercise of power under Sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the CF Act. After the issuance of the aforesaid Notification, the Chairman of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal issued a Circular, which is also under challenge.2. The petitioners are assessees under the Commercial Tax Laws, to wit, the Central Sales Tax Act, the Kerala General Sales Tax Act or the Value Added Tax Act. As against assessment orders and allied matters, they have statutory remedies by way of appeal to the Appellate Authorities or the Tribunals, as the case may be, as ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1998Ker231
Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that has come up for consideration before us is as to whether an appeal shall lie to a Bench of two Judges under Section 5(ii) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge rendered under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.2. Appeal was preferred against the judgment in L.A.A. 101 of 1990 under Section 5(ii) of the Kerala High Court Act along with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 899 days in filing the appeal. When the delay petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench, Bench expressed doubt as to whether the appeal itself would be maintainable.3. According to the learned Judges, Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act does not provide a further appeal to the Division Bench against the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge. It was stated, Section 54 provides only one appeal to the High Court and a further appeal to the Supreme Court. Sinc...
Tag this Judgment!