Kerala Court April 1982 Judgments
V.V.L.N. Chary and ors. Vs. N.A. MartIn and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-23-1982
Reported in: [1985]57CompCas534(Ker); 1983CriLJ106
K.K. Narendran, J. 1. The accused in C.C. No. 610 of 1979 on the file of the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ernakulam, are the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr. PC, 1973. The above complaint was filed by the first respondent herein under Section 200 of the Cr. PC for offences under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The first respondent supplied a few lorry loads of scrap iron to M/s. Standard Steel and Allied Products, Bangalore, a business concern run by the petitioners-accused. According to the first respondent, on behalf of the other petitioners, the first petitioner made representations to the first respondent at Ernakulam that the petitioners will make payment for the goods after they are delivered at Bangalore. The lorry charges would be paid as soon as the goods were delivered at Bangalore and the value of the goods would be sent later along with the additional copy of the invoice enclosed with the wa...
Tag this Judgment!Mudhavan Kutty Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-15-1982
Reported in: 1982(II)KLT212
Khader, J.1. A clerk who has been dismissed from service of the third respondent herein seeks to quash on order Ext. P3 passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), ernakulam, the second respondent herein.2. The petitioner joined service in the year 1961 and while working as cashier, he is alleged to have misappropriated money belonging to the bank and consequently be was dismissed from service after conducting a domestic enquiry. It is alleged that be made several representations to the bank against his dismissal and finally as he did not get any reply from the bank he filed an application before the Government of Kerala under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. As no order was passed on his application, the petitioner moved this Court in O.P. No. 898.80 and in pursuance of a direction of this Court the Government of Kerala disposed of the application of the petitioner stating that he has to move the appropriate authority under the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter the ...
Tag this Judgment!Catalysts and Chemicals India (West Asia) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-02-1982
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(Ker)274; [1982]137ITR110(Ker)
Subramonian Poti, Actg. C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following two questions, question No. 1 at the instance of the department and question No. 2 at the instance of both the department and the assessee. 2. The questions are :At the instance of the department: '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on the interpretation of the agreement dated February 21, 1969, the Appellate Tribunal was justified and had materials before it in holding that the three manuals acquired by the assessee are books in form as well as in substance and they constitute tools of the trade attracting depreciation and development rebate as plant?' Common question: ' (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in fixing the cost of the three manuals at Rs. 25,000?'3. The facts which give rise to these questions are these : The assessee-company was floated as a result of a collaboration agreeme...
Tag this Judgment!Moosa Abdul Rahiman and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-02-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1384
K. Sukumaran, J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench for decision concerns the interpretation of Section 217 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973(Act No. 2 of 1974). This section broadly corresponds to Section 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. Section 217 reads as follows:Recall of witnesses when charge altered: Whenever a charge is altered or added to by the Court after the commencement of I he trial, the prosecutor and the accused shall be allowed-(a) to recall or resummon, and examine with reference to such alteraiion or addition, any witness who may have been examined, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, considers that the prosecutor or the accused, as the case may be, desires to recall or re-examine such witness for the purpose of vexation or delay or defeating the ends of justice;(b) also to call any further witness whom the Court may think to be material.2. The skeletal facts necessary for the appreciation of the question raised are the foll...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaranarayanan Vs. Ayyappan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-01-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ker66
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for partition of his 2/11 shares in the three items of properties mentioned in the plaint. The properties belonged to Thupran who died in the year 1121. His legal heirs under the Cochin Makkathayam Thiyya Act were his wife deceased Kurumba and children the plaintiff, defendants 1, 2, 3, 9 and deceased Cheeru. Cheeru's children are defendants 4 to 8. Kurumba died after the Hindu Succession Act. Defendants 10 and 11 are impleaded as alienees of the properties and defendants 13 to 20 are those residing with defendants 10 and 11. All the legal heirs of Thupran except the plaintiff and the 4th defendant have purported to assign the properties to defendants 10 and 11 as per a registered sale deed Ext. B-l dated 27-11-1952. This document recognises the title of the plaintiff and the 4th defendant to their respective shares in the suit properties and a provision is made to pay off these two co-sharers who did not join in ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Nair and anr. Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-01-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ker136
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J.1. This writ petition raises two questions of law :(1) Whether the President of a Cooperative Society could be removed from his office by a motion carried by a majority of the number of members of the committee (Board of Directors) of the Society; and (2) whether such removal could be challenged by a member of the society.2. The facts briefly stated are as follows :-- The two petitioners are members of Anikkad Service Co-operative Bank (the Bank), the 3rd respondent in the Original petition. Respondents 1 and 2 respectively are the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ernakulam, and Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Muvattupuzha. Respondents 4 and 5 are stated to be the members of the Committee of the Bank. The affairs of the 3rd respondent Bank is governed by the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (the Act) and the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (the Rules) and the bye-laws framed thereunder for the Bank. The 5t...
Tag this Judgment!K.T. Pavunny and anr. Vs. K.T. Mathew
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-01-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Ker309
ORDERV. Khalid, J.1. The revision petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 247 of 1978 of the Sub Court, Ernakulam, and the respondent, the plaintiff in that suit. The suit was for a permanent injunction to restrain the petitioners from carrying on business in the name of 'Victory Press Offset Printers' or any other name likely to mislead or deceive the public into the belief that the press run by defendants is the same as the plaintiff's business known as 'Victory Offset Printers' or any such other name allied to that. According to the plaintiff he started a Press at Kunnamkulam by name Victory Offset Printers. This press earned a name and reputation throughout Kerala and outside as one of the best printing establishments. Several leading institutions and the public were impressed with the excellence of the printing and the business methods adopted by the plaintiff. The defendants knowing about this, in an attempt to divert the plaintiff's business to them, made arrangements to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›