Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2010(1)KLT816
P.R. Raman, J.1. The challenge made in this batch of Writ Petitions/Writ Appeal is against the amendment brought out to Section 6(1)(f) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 as amended by the Kerala Finance Act, 2006 (Act 22/2006). Though the amended Act was passed and assent of the Governor was obtained on 24.10.2006, it was given retrospective effect from 1.7.2006. As per Section 6(1)(f) of the Act thus amended, the rate of tax in the case of transfer of goods involved in the execution of works contract, where the transfer is not in the form of goods, but in some other form, tax payable is increased to 12.5% as against the 4% as it stood prior to the amendment. Prior to the amendment, where the goods incorporated in the works contract are separately ascertainable, the tax was levied at the rates applicable to the goods and where the goods incorporated in the works contract are not separately ascertainable, at the rate of 12.5 % at all points of sale. Though the grounds urged in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1963]14STC845(Ker)
M.S. Menon, C.J.1. The respondent was assessed to sales tax under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, on inter-State sales effected between 1st April, 1951, and 6th September, 1955. The contention of the department is that by virture of the General Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1962 (Act 9 of 1962) the inter-State sales within that period can be taxed, and that the conclusion to the contrary reached by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot be sustained. The petition words the question of laraised for our decision as follows :-Whether in the light of the Amending Act 9 of 1962 the finding of the Tribunal is correct 2. Section 2 of the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956 (Central Act 7 of 1956) said :Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, no laof a State imposing or authorising the imposition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of any goods where such sale or purchase took place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce during the period between the 1st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY,THE12H DAY OF SEPTEMBER201321ST BHADRA, 1935 W.P.(C).No.15237 of 2013 (S) --------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER:- --------------------- B.HAMZA, AGED69YEARS, SON OF MOHAMMED BAVA, RESIDING AT11328, K.B.JACOB ROAD, KOCHI - 682 001, GENERAL SECRETARY, COCHIN PORT LABOUR UNION (REGD.NO.287/69). BY ADVS.SRI.SUKUMAR NAINAN OOMMEN SRI.P.RAVINDRA NATH SRI.IMAM GRIGORIOS KARAT SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN SRI.M.A.ASIF SRI.ARUN ANTONY. RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, PARIVAHAN BHAVAN,SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001.2. COCHIN PORT TRUST, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN - 682 009.3. INDIA GATEWAY TERMINAL PRIVATE LTD. (IGTPL), REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ICTT VALLARPADAM SEZ, MULAVUKAD...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1978(2)ELT595(Ker)
V. Khalid, J.1. The petitioner is the Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, having its registered office at Madras, engaged in the business of manufacturing automobile tubes, treed rubber with cushion, treed rubber without cushion, and other products. The reliefs prayed are:'(a) to declare the provisions of Section 4 (1) to (3) of the new section of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 as revised by the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1973 (22 of 1973) as ultra vires of Section 3 of the Act and beyond the competence of Parliament;(b) by a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction ororder, quash the orders of the first respondent Exts. P 2, P 2 (a), P 2 (b), and P 2 (c);(c) to direct the first respondent to accept the value claimed by the petitioner-company, viz., manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit in the price-lists Exhibits P 1, P 1 (a), P 1 (b) and P 1 (c);(d) to stay the collection of excise duty on the goods of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1959)IILLJ760Ker
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the award dated 19 November 1958 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode, in I.D. Nos. 16 and 17 of 1958 and published in the Kerala Gazette, dated 23 December 1958.2. The petitioner, Ravikrishna Weaving Mills (Private), Ltd., Azhikode, was carrying on business in the manufacture and supply of cotton powerloom goods. It was employing about 189 labourers. In the latter half of 1957, the mill appears to have experienced some difficulty and, in consequence, the management decided in or about February 1958 to discontinue one shift in the company. In view of this decision, the management decided to lay off 74 of the juniormost workers on payment of the necessary compensation admissible in law and the lay-off was scheduled to come into effect from 1 March. 1958.3. On 1 March 1958, the 74 persons, who had been notified to be laid off, reported in the office and after signing in the lay-off r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1995(70)FLR583]; (1995)ILLJ877Ker
Sreedharan, J.1. Writ appeals arise out of the judgment in O.P. 9088/1993. Respondents 6, 8 and 9 in the said Original Petition are the appellants in Writ Appeal 1545/1993 and Writ Appeal 1554/1993 is at the instance of the 7th respondent. The appellants challenge the direction given by the learned Single Judge to the police officers to ensure that no obstruction are caused to the running of foreign liquor shop No. 129 of Njarackal Range by respondents 6 and 7 and their members and associates. Respondents 6 and 7 are two trade unions of abkari workers. In O.P. 5543/1994, licensee of Shop No. 129 of Njarackal Range for the year 1994-95 seeks police protection for carrying on the business without any obstruction from the members of respondents 6 and 7 trade unions. Since the issues that arise for consideration in these matters are one and the same, we consider it advantageous to dispose of these matters by a common judgment.2. For understanding the true nature of the dispute between the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker190; (1960)ILLJ323Ker
Joseph , J. 1. This is a petition by the Burmah Shell Workers Union, Ernakulam, praying for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing an order of the Government of Kerala dated 21-8-1957 (Ext. J) referring the disputes mentioned therein for adjudication to the Labour Court, Ernakulam. The petitioner also prays for a writ of prohibition or other appropriate 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 the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ernakulam.2. The facts stated in the petitioner's affidavit may be briefly stated: The Burmah Shell Workers Union is the only representative Union of temporary workers attached to the Burmah Shell Installation, Ernakula...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2008)IILLJ420Ker
Siri Jagan, J.1. The petitioner is a firm engaged in the business of professional consultancy and man-power and management services. The petitioner submitted draft standing orders for certification under Section 3 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 before the jurisdictional Deputy Labour Commissioner, who has been notified as the certifying officer under the Act. The same was certified in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 5 of the Act after conducting necessary enquiry and adjudication. Such certification was on May 28, 1998. The Act itself provides for an appeal either by the management or by the workmen if they are aggrieved by any clause in the Standing Orders as certified. None of the parties involved filed appeal against the Standing Orders of the petitioner firm as certified and the same became final. One-and-a-half years after the certification, by Exhibit P-2 notice, purportedly issued under Section 6 of the Industrial Employment (Stan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1968)IILLJ225Ker
M.U. Isaac, J.1. These two writ petitions also out of an unfortunate rivalry between three registered trade unions representing the workers in the Indian Aluminium Company, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to at the company). The company has about 750 workers, including the office staff which consists of clerical and non-clerical sections. The office staff has got a strength of 113, of which 53 belong to the clerical section. There is some dispute regarding their exact number. The Aluminium Factory Workers' Union (hereinafter referred so as the first union) has been in existence for a very long number of years; and to was the only trade union which represented the workers in the company till very recently. The Indian Aluminium Company Employees' Union (hereinafter referred to as the second union) was formed in 1965: and it claims a membership of 134, including in few workers in the non-clerical section of the office staff. According to the first union, the strength of the second union is muc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1960)ILLJ777Ker
T.K. Joseph, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing an order, Ex. P. 5, passed by the respondent 1, the Inspector, under Section 3 and Rule 7 of the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act XLVII of 1958. The petitioner is the general secretary of the Tomco Employees' Union, Ernakulam, and four respondents are:(1) the assistant labour officer,(2) the manager, Tata Oil Mills Company, Ltd.,(3) the secretary, Tata Oil Mills, Workers' Union, Ernakulam, and(4) the secretary, Tata Oil Mills Company, Ltd., Staff Association, Ernakulam.2. The facts may be briefly stated: The petitioner is the general secretary of the Tomco Employees' Union, a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, A section of the workers in the Tata Oil Mills Company, Ltd., at Ernakulam are members of this union. Under the standing orders of the company, copy of which has been ...
Tag this Judgment!