Kerala Court March 1978 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M. Rajagopal (Managing Partner, K. M. S. Bus Service, Palghat) Vs. Sec ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-02-1978
Reported in: [1978]115ITR364(Ker)
SUBRAMONIAN POTI J. - Petitioner is the managing partner of a firm, K. M. S. Bus Service, Palghat. It is a partner carrying on the business of operation of stage carriage services in the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Originally, the partners were one M. Rayappa Gounder, now deceased, and M. Rajagopal, both said to be sons of ome Marappa Gounder. One Krishna Kumar was also taken into the benefits of the partnership. He was a minor and on his attaining majority he is said to have become the third partner. M. Rayappa Gounder, the managing partner of that firm is said to have died on January 16, 1974, and by vitue of clause 15 of the partnership deed, his widow is said to have succeeded to hsi share in the partnership assets. The petitioner, Rajagopal, became the managing partner on the death of his brother, Rayappa Gounder.It is said that all the permits and registration certificates for the vehicles operating in the various routes for the business of the firm were standing in the name...
C.K. Sivaraman Achari Vs. D.K. Agarwall and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-02-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1376
P. Janaki Amma, J.1. The appeal is by a complainant against an order of acquittal under Section 256 Cr. P.C. The case stood posted on 21-10-1976. The complainant and his counsel were absent on that day. The accused who was present requested for an adjournment. However, the court acquitted the accused. The complainant would say that his absence was due to a mistaken impression that the case stood posted to 27-10-76. According to him, when the Bench clerk announced the date of hearing on the prevous hearing date, both himself and his counsel understood it as 27-10-76. It was only when he went to court on 27-10-1976 that he came to know that the case was taken up on 21-10-76 and the accused had already been acquitted on that day.2. The main contention of the appellant is that the case stood posted for the day for return of summons and the court should have adjourned it to another date in order to enable the complainant to produce witnesses and should not have acquitted the accused.3. Sect...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›