Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: kerala Year: 1978 Page 1 of about 21 results (0.009 seconds)

Nov 16 1978 (HC)

Karthiayani Sreemathi and ors. Vs. Dt. Collector and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Nov-16-1978

Reported in : (1979)IILLJ248Ker

v.p. gopalan nambiyar, c.j.1. these o.ps. were referred to a division bench by our learned brother chandrasekara menon, j., in an elaborated order of reference running nearly to ten typed pages, as the learned judge felt that the questions raised are not only of interest in an academic sense but also of great importance. the question itself as stated shortly by the learned judge is whether the legal representatives of the deceased employer would fall within the definition of the term 'employer' in section 2(c) of the kerala toddy workers welfare fund act and of the term 'defaulter' in section 2(e) of the kerala revenue recovery act, 1968, read with section 68 of the said act. we shall notice the facts first in o.p. no. 4816 of 1976 in which the main arguments were advanced. counsel in the other writ petition practically associated himself with the said arguments.o.p. no. 4816 of 19762. the four writ petitioners are the daughters of one krishnan padmanabhan, an abkari contractor who died on 11.11.1972. besides the petitioners, the deceased had a son sridharan and another daughter karthiyayani ratnamma. the deceased had bid toddy shops no. 13 (sic)adoor and t.s. no. 14 in thuvayur and t.s. no. 15 in ezhamkulum in kunnathur range, t.s. no. 8 in chittoor in karunagappally range, and t.s. no. 8 in pulamon in kottarakara range. he was conducting these shops till his death, and thereafter the business is being continued by his only son sridharan. the petitioners alleged that they .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 1978 (HC)

Vijaya Oil Mills Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Oct-05-1978

Reported in : [1980]45STC463(Ker)

p. narayana pillai, j.1.this is an appeal filed by an assessee from an order passed under section 23(3) of the kerala general sales tax act (15 of 1963), for short, the kerala act, imposing a penalty of rs. 20,386.24 for non-payment of tax in due time. the order was passed by the assistant commissioner, alleppey. the correctness of it was challenged in revision before the deputy commissioner, quilon. he set aside that order and remitted the proceeding to the assistant commissioner. the board of revenue took up the matter in revision suo motu. it restored the order of the assistant commissioner. the correctness of that is challenged here.2. the assessee is a firm dealing in copra and other declared goods. for the assessment year 1966-67 it paid rs. 2,42,339.56 up to 20th april, 1967, towards sales tax under the central sales tax act (74 of 1956), for short, the central act. for the same assessment year under the kerala act assessment was made by the department on 31st december, 1968, and notice was issued to the assessee demanding payment on or before 7th may, 1969, of rs. 2,14,591.87 towards sales tax and rs. 98.20 towards surcharge. on receipt of the notice the assessee sent a letter on 25th april, 1969, to the department informing it that more than what was demanded in the notice had really been paid even long before and requesting that that amount may either be refunded or at least adjusted towards the demand made under the kerala act. no reply was sent to that letter. on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 09 1978 (HC)

P. A. Mohammed Abdul Khader and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Feb-09-1978

Reported in : [1978]112ITR552(Ker)

n. d. p. namboodiripad j. - a proceeding under the income-tax act, 1961 (briefly 'the act'), has led to this application under article 226 of the constitution.the facts are not seriously disputed. the petitioner is an assessee on the file of the income-tax officer, a ward, palghat, and for the assessment year 1966-67, he was assessed to income-tax by exhibit p-1 order dated march 26, 1977. the tax determined was rs. 82,650, to which there is advance payment under section 140a to the tune of rs. 77,048. but while pronouncing the order or assessment the income-tax officer also levied what is called penal interest under section 217 and section 139(8) of the act, the petitioner filed a petition before the first respondent, who is the commissioner of income-tax, kerala ii, on the basis of section 273a of the act. that petition was dismissed by exhibit p-3 order dated july 25, 1977. it is the validity of exhibit p-3 order that is challenged in this petition.to appreciate the contentions of the petitioner it is necessary to extract the relevant provisions of section 273a of the act which formed the basis of the application which led to exhibit p-3 order. the relevant portions of section 273a are sub-sections (1)(i), (iii) and (c).'273a. power to reduce or waive penalty, etc., in certain cases. -(1) notwithstanding anything contained in this act, the commissioner may, in his discretion, whether on his own motion or otherwise -(i) reduce or waive the amount of penalty imposed or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 13 1978 (HC)

A.B. Ismail Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jun-13-1978

Reported in : [1978]42STC217(Ker)

v.p. gopalan nambiyar, c.j.1. the assessee in this tax revision challenges the view of the sales tax appellate tribunal regarding the assessability to sales tax of the turnover of a meat-vendor at trichur in respect of his transaction. the nature of the transaction, the circumstances under which the question arose and the contentions raised, have been described in the order of the tribunal thus :here, it is admitted by the appellant that he is purchasing goats and sheep for slaughtering them. it is not disputed that live-stock will be goods within the meaning of the kerala general sales tax act. according to the assessing officer, when the appellant is killing these goats and sheep, the appellant is consuming them for the manufacture of other goods for sale within the state, for, according to him, when a live goat is cut and killed, what is produced is not a live goat, but only lifeless mutton. so, the officer has taken the view that in the business of the appellant, there is a manufacturing process, but, as stated above, according to the appellant, he is only processing live goat or sheep into mutton by killing them and cutting them into pieces and he is not doing anything more than processing the mutton.2. the question therefore for consideration before the tribunal and before us is whether the meat-vending, in the circumstances thus described, would attract section 5a of the kerala general sales tax act, which is as follows :5a. levy of purchase tax.-(1) every dealer who, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 26 1978 (HC)

Gwalior Rayons Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd., Mavoor and anr. Vs. Governme ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jun-26-1978

Reported in : AIR1979Ker56

gopalan nambiyar, c.j.1. thegwalior rayons silk ., mavoor -- a private limited company -- and one of its shareholders, are the two petitioners in this writ petition. they challenge the recent gwalior rayons (rayon pulp division) taking over of management ordinance, 1978 (ordinance no. 14 of 1978) promulgated by the governor. the company is registered under the companies act with its registered office at nagda in madhya pradesh. besides its factories at nagda and gwalior in madhya pradesh, the company has two factories in kerala state at mavoor, near calicut, and also its factories in harihar (karnataka) and bhiwani (haryana). the factories at mavoor are engaged in the manufacture of rayon grade pulp from bamboo and various other hard and soft woods, and staple fibre from the dissolving pulp. apart from these two divisions, there is a paper division engaged in the manufacture of various types of paper. the rayon pulp division went into production in 1963. the impugned ordinance in effect provides for the taking over of the management and administration of the company and entrusting the same to a controller appointed by the government. the ordinance is styled an ordinance 'to provide for the taking over of the management of the undertaking of the rayon pulp division of the gwalior rayons and silk manufacturing and weaving company limited for a limited period in order to secure the proper management thereof and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.' the preamble .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 21 1978 (HC)

Kavitha Movie House Vs. M.A. Abdul Khader and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Aug-21-1978

Reported in : (1980)IILLJ24Ker

gopalan nambiyar, c.j.1. these two writ appeals are by the owner of the 'kavitha movie house', one of the well-known cinema houses of this city. the appellant had conducted an enquiry against two of the gate-keepers employed by it in respect of a certain misconduct alleged against them and a charge in respect thereof. the charge - to state it with reference to the facts in w.a. 174/77-- was that a complaint was received from m/s. thirumeni pictures, distributors of films, that on the 10th january, 1974, for a matinee show of the picture 'jesus' in the kavitha theatre only 65 numbers of middle circle tickets of rs. 1.50 each, were issued in the gent's side, and that when their representative counted the number of persons in the above class, it was found that the number was seven in excess of the number of tickets issued; that on-the-spot enquiries revealed that at the instance of sri srinivasan three persons were admitted to the middle circle by abdul khader who was in charge of the middle circle that day. in the course of the enquiry into the complaint it was stated that the theatre owner received a statement from the booking-clerk mr. hameed, that ari abdul khader stated to him that three persons were admitted on the strength of the pass issued to sri srinivasan, whereas the fact was, that no pass was issued to sri srinivasan for admitting three persons that day. on these facts abdulkhader was charged, that he had admitted persons without any tickets or any passes issued; .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 12 1978 (HC)

P. Sundari Bai, Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jun-12-1978

Reported in : AIR1979Ker68

gopalan nambiyar c.j. 1. the kerala building tax act, 1975 (act 7 of 1975) has been assailed in these writ petitions as violative of articles 14 and 19 of the constitution and also of article 301. the act has a history. the first building tax act 1961 imposed a tax on a uniform basis depending on the floorage or the plinth area of the building. the levy was struck down as unconstitutional by a learned judge of this court in kunhali haji v. state (1965 ker lt 390). the decision was confirmed on appeal by a division bench -- vide state of kerala v. haji k. kunhipokker (1966 ker lt 694) : (air 1967 ker 114); and again on further appeal by the supreme court --vide state of kerala v. haji k. kutty (1968 ker lt 649 : air 1969 sc 378). almost similar legislation in mysore was struck down in bhuvaneswariah v. state of mysore (air 1965 mys 170)) and in bombay, in lokmanya mills v. barsi municipality (air 1968 bom 229). the impugned act was preceded by ordinance 10 of 1974, replaced by act 16 of 1974.2. the act has been passed under entry 49 of list ii -- taxes on lands and buildings. the heading of the act is ; 'an act to provide for the levy of a tax on buildings,' it comes directly within the scope of the entry. indeed, the legislative competence was hardly disputed. in substance the act levies a tax on the construction of buildings completed on or after the 1st april, 1973, the 'capital value' of which exceeds 20,000/- rupees, the tax is on agraded scale provided in the schedule. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 03 1978 (HC)

George Vs. thekkekkara Vareed

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Aug-03-1978

Reported in : AIR1979Ker1

gopalan nambiyar, c.j.1. this appeal arises in execution and has been referred to a full bench in view of the importance of the questions involved. the division bench has not stated the points of importance. the learned single judge who referred the case to a division bench referred to the decision of the supreme court in eapen chacko v. provident investment co. (p) ltd., (1977 ker lt 1) : (air 1976 sc 2610) and observed that the decision gave no indication as to whether an execution proceeding can be regarded as a continuation of the suit so as to make it a pending proceeding in a case where the suit was decreed prior to 1-1-1970, (the relevant date for the purposes of this case), and the execution commenced after that date. the learned judge referred to a number of decisions as having been cited by counsel in support of the contention that although the suit was itself decreed prior to 1-1-1970 the execution proceedings had to be regarded as pending even if initiated only after that date. as against this, the learned judge noticed the decision of raman nayar j. of this court cited on the other side, in new model bank ltd. v. p. a. thomas (air 1960 ker 243), where the learned judge's observations sound in a different direction. it was in view of this that the reference was made to a division bench.2. the decree-holder in o. section 559 of 1960 on the file of the wadakkencherry munsiff's court is the appellant in this second appeal. the suit was as a reversioner of a limited .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 16 1978 (HC)

P.M. Nianan and ors. Vs. the Executive Officer, Anikad and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Aug-16-1978

Reported in : AIR1979Ker18; 1979CriLJ372

gopalan nambiyar, c.j. 1. these writ petitions challenge the vires of rule 10 of the kerala food adulteration rules. in respect of the contravention of the said rule, there was a criminal prosecution of the petitioners in these writ petitions. the validity of the rule was canvassed in revision proceedings before this court under section 482 of the cr. p. c. the rule was upheld -- vide gopinathan nair v. executive officer, anikkad (1975 ker lt 549) : (1976 cri lj 171). these writ petitions are now filed to declare the rules ultra vires.2. the learned advocate-general placed before us the decision of this court reported in 1975 ker lt 549 : (1976 cri lj 171). he also cited the supreme court decision in shankar ramchandra abhyankar v. krishnaji dattatraya bapat, (air 1970 sc 1) where it was ruled by the supreme court that where on the revisional jurisdiction, the high court dismisses the revision after hearing both the parties, the order of the appellate court becomes merged with the order made in revision, and thereafter the appellate order cannot be challenged or attacked by another set of proceedings in the high court under article 226 or 227 of the constitution. the principle of merger of orders of inferior courts would not become affected or inapplicable by making any distinction between a revision and an appeal. it was also ruled that the right of appeal is one of entering a superior court and invoking its aid and interposition to redress the error of the court below. when .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 07 1978 (HC)

M. Madhavan Pillai Vs. K.A. Balan and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Dec-07-1978

Reported in : AIR1979Ker120; [1978(37)FLR59]

gopalan nambiyar, c.j. 1. a physics lecturer of the s. n. m. college, meliankara -- a private college managed by a corporate educational agency, the h. m. o. p. sabha, vadakekara, parur --has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned judge dismissing his writ petition. the principal of the college made an appointment of the head of the department of physics. the appellant was one of those who strongly resented the appointment and regarded it as an act of favouritism. the form and manner of the appellant's protest led to disciplinary proceedings being initiated against him and to his suspension pending enquiry. a junior of the manager's standing counsel was, in the first instance, appointed enquiry officer. the appellant protested, and filed o. p. no. 3747 of 1975 in this court. the management agreed for appointment of a fresh enquiry officer. the 2nd respondent, an advocate of this court was chosen as the fresh enquiry officer. the appellant repeated his protest alleging that the said 2nd respondent was intimately associated with the standing counsel for the management. he raised the fundamental and basic objection that the management was really the accuser against him, and cannot be a judge in its own cause against the fundamental principle of natural justice forbidding such a course of action. the management could not, it was added, do indirectly through the medium of an enquiry officer, what it cannot do directly, itself. the learned judge held that having .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //