Kerala Court July 1983 Judgments
Krishnan Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-26-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ87
P. Subramonian Poti, C.J.1. One Krishnan Nair alias Maniyan son of Velayudlhan Nair who is now undergoing a sentence of imprisonment in Central Jail, Trivandrum as convict No. 9266 sent a letter dated 4-3-1983 to this Court. He stated therein that he had been convicted by the Sessions Court, Trivandrum in S. C. 46 of 1969 on 25-11-1969 and was sentenced to life imprisonment, that he was subsequently released, and that he was residing in his house pursuant to such release for more than a year when he was again arrested and sent back to jail. He pleads that in the circumstances he may be released from the prison. Thereupon we took notice of the complaint by him as an Original Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and directed notice to the State and also called upon the learned Advocate General to furnish us all materials relating to the premature release of the petitioner and his re-arrest. Accordingly such materials have been made available to us.2. As slated, the petitioner w...
Tag this Judgment!Jose J. Kadavil and K.T. Mathew Vs. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-1983
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas969(Ker)
S.K. Kader, J. 1. These two petitions are filed respectively by Jose J. Kadavil and K.T. Mathew, who are contributories under the just and equitable clauseof the Companies Act, 1956, hereinafter called ' the Act, ' for winding up the Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., for short' the company, ' the respondent herein. My learned brother, before whom these petitions came, admitted the same and ordered notice to the company. On receipt of the notice, the company entered appearance and filed counter-affidavit in both these petitions. As the points arising for determination in both these petitions are the same, these petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. The grounds raised for winding up the company before this court are the following:(1) Articles of association of the company were amended in order to oppress minority shareholders. (2) The affairs of the company are being grossly mismanaged. The company is being managed as if it was a family concern of the board of directors. (3) S...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Mahim
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-1983
Reported in: (1984)39CTR(Ker)337; [1984]149ITR737(Ker)
Sukumaran, J. 1. The assessee, an individual, had earned income under different heads in the years 1966-67 and 1967-68. He had earlier been assessed in respect of the years 1964-65 and 1965-66. The assessment for 1964-65 had been, however, reopened by a notice under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on July 20, 1965.The returns for the two years in question were initially filed on June 26, 1968.2. In the meantime, detailed enquiries were being pursued in respect of the reopened assessment. The Department was in seisin of information about the assessee's connection with smuggling activities, and of his having started a retail business in cloth from November 20, 1963. The details of the proceedings before the officer in relation to that assessment year are gatherable from the statement, annexure 'A', to the reference case.3. The original income returned by the assessee for 1966-67 and 1967-68 was respectively Rs. 3,692 and Rs. 2,723. Revised return...
Tag this Judgment!Cherummel Abdulla Vs. Poovvalora Katheesa
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ker94
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The only question foe decision in this second appeal is as to whether a Mohammedan wife is entitled to past maintenance from her husband. There is no dispute that the 1st plaintiff is the wife and the 2nd plaintiff is the son of the defendant. There is also no dispute in this second appeal regarding the defendant's liability for past maintenance to the 2nd plaintiff. The defendant denies his liability for past maintenance to the wife on the ground that she had no satisfactory reasons for separate residence and also for the reason that under Mohammedan Law a wife is not entitled to claim past maintenance. The trial Court held that the 1st plaintiff had no justification for separate residence and a decree was granted for past maintenance to the 2nd plaintiff alone at the rate of Rs. 40/- per mensem. The plaintiffs appealed against the decree of the trial Court declining past maintenance to the 1st plaintiff. There was an appeal also by the defendant against t...
Tag this Judgment!Rajan Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-1983
Reported in: (1984)ILLJ278Ker
ORDERSivaraman Nair, J.1. The question which the petitioner, a Senior among Junior Engineers (now Assistant Enginners) hut a non-graduate, asks is the same which Bhagwathy J., posed on behalf of persons like the petitioner in the decision in Mohd. Shujat Ali v. Union of India : (1976)IILLJ115SC :I am senior to the graduate Supervisor who is intended to be promoted. I am more suitable than he is. It is no doubt true that I am a non-graduate, but my not being a graduate has not been branded as a disqualification. I am regarded lit for promotion and, like the graduate Supervisor. I am equally eligible for being promoted. My technical equipment supplemented by experience is considered adequate for discharging the functions of Assistant Engineer. Then why am I being denied the opportunity for promotion and the graduate Supervisor is perferred:There cannot be any doubt about the answer alter the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Basheer v. Karunakaran I.L.R. (1981) Ker. 527...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Sankaran Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-1983
Reported in: [1983]54STC312(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee borne under the files of the respondent. For the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 he was assessed to sales tax by the respondent on 16th February, 1967 and 15th February, 1967, respectively. In the appeal filed by the assessee (petitioner) as per the orders passed in STA Nos. 450 and 451 dated 6th March, 1968, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Trichur, set aside the assessments and remanded the matter for fresh disposal with certain directions. The petitioner was not keeping good health at that time. It is averred in the original petition that after a period of 13 years by notices evidenced by exhibits P1 and P2 dated 15th July, 1981, the respondent directed the petitioner to file objections against the proposal made in exhibits P1 and P2, assessing the petitioner to the best judgment of the assessing authority. The petitioner filed his objections exhibit P3 dated 25th July, 1981, stating that the business was abandoned long ...
Tag this Judgment!Koshy Vs. K.S.E. Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ker23
ORDERK.K. Narendran, J.1. The scope of the power of the Court under Section 5 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to grant leave to revoke the authority of an appointed arbitrator arises for consideration in this Civil Revision. The point is whether leave will be granted only if actual bias of the arbitrator is established or the existence of a circumstance which is likely to bias the arbitrator is enough.2. The petitioner was a contractor of the respondent. Kerala State Electricity Board. As his claims were not settled he invoked the arbitration clause in the contract and moved the Sub Court, Trivandrum, for the appointment of an arbitrator. By order dt. 22-7-1980, the court appointed the respondent as arbitrator. After the above order, the petitioner came to know that the respondent-Board has issued a letter dt. 21-4-1979 to their Chief Engineer deciding most of the issues to be settled by arbitration against the petitioner. This fact was not brought to the notice of the court when the appo...
Tag this Judgment!In Re. an Accused Vs. the State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ743
G. Balagangadharan Nair, J.1. This reference made by the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode under Section 395(2), Cr. P. C. raises a short question, though the arguments before us were more directed to the validity of the reference that the point referred. In C.C No. 74 of 1979 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode convicted the accused under Section 392 read with Section 34, I. P. C. and sentenced them to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 300/-, each, with a default, sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one month. They appealed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction but found that on the terms of Section 392, I. P. C, the offence was punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine and that as imprisonment till the rising of the Court was no rigorous imprisonment the sentence was illegal. While confirming the conviction the learned Judge ordered that the question of sentence ...
Tag this Judgment!Malankara Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Ker248
ORDERT. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The petitioner is a company owning rubber estates. Lands belonging to the petitioner had been notified for acquisition under Section 3 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 (the 'Act'). Different notifications were made in respect of different plots of land belonging to the petitioner. Exts. P1, P2 and P3 are notifications issued wider Section 3 of the Act covering 17 hectares. 52 acres, 8.8 sq. metres; 27 hectares, 85 acres, 86 sq. metres; and 62 hectares, 25 acres, 28 sq. metres, respectively. Exts. P1, and P2 are dated 31-10-1977 and Ext. P3 is dated 5-12-1977. Declarations under Section 6 had been made by Exts. P4, P5 and P6 dated 21-1-1979, 2-11-1978, and 4-12-1978, respectively in relation to plots notified under Exts. P1, P2, and P3. In respect of these plots notices under Section 9 (3) & (5) were issued by Exts. P7 and P10 dated 30-1-1979 and 8-2-1979 respectively in regard to Ex. P1 plot; by Exts. P8 and P11 dated 20-12-1978 and 4-1-1979 respecti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›