Kerala Court July 1984 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.
State of Kerala Vs. K.V. Sadanandan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-23-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1823
ORDERV. Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.1. The Court is no clog on investigation and prosecution is no lever for humiliation. Freedom of the individual is no licence to commit crime; personal liberty this cam have no conflict with public interest. The Court protects both interests and strikes a balance when there is clash. I repeat these - I stated the same in earlier proceedings - for, these statements have greater significance in the present controversy.2. In the early hours on the 9th October, 1981. in the heart of this city, a shot rang in Majeendran's house. The bullet pierced his body. He was fatally injured. On the way to the hospital he died. About three years have elapsed: the investigation is still not over! The police, cannot be blamed, so says the Prosecutor. The influence and the ingenuity of the accused have protracted the investigation. and the alleged main culprit, the 1st accused was absconding all these years. His whereabouts were not known and the police did not have any clue e...
A. Abdul Rahim and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ker103
Bhaskaran, Ag. C.J. 1. Both thesewrit petitions are directed against the same order, viz. G.O. Rt. No. 3200/78/G. Edn. dated 26-10-1978 passed by Government of Kerala, a true copy of which is marked as Ext. P9 in O.P. No. 361 of 1979. It would appear that there has been dispute between the petitioners on the one hand and the 4th respondent in O.P. No. 362 of 1979 on the other in regard to the ownership and the right of management of the school with respect to which Ext. P9 order has ultimately been passed. The question really is whether the validity of an alleged transfer of the property and right of management of an aided school could be decided by the Educational Authorities or not. This Court in the judgment in W.A. Nos. 152 & 191 of 1978 stated as follows : 'It was pointed out by this Court that the Kerala Education Act and the Rules left it to the statutory authorities constituted by them to decide the question of the right of management to school to the best of their resources an...
State of Kerala Vs. Chakku and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ414
ORDERV. Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.1. Contravention of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act or any Orders issued pursuant thereto may entail confiscation of the essential commodity. Before final orders are passed, it may also be necessary to sell the commodity in public auction or at controlled rates when it is subject to speedy and natural decay or when it is otherwise expedient in public interest. When, confiscation, is finally awarded, does it not attach to the money represcnting the commodity or can it be said that there was no confiscation of the sale proceed and that the money has to be returned? The answer seems to be simple ; but the learned Counsel for the respondents submit on the basis of Abdul v. State of Kerala 1979 Ker LT 189 : 1979 Cri LJ NOC 65 that the sale proceeds have to be disbursed to the person from whom the cement was seized, notwithstanding confiscation of the commodity. This requires consideration and so to the facts.2. The Police seized 49 bags of cement...
K.M. Mathew and ors. Vs. T.V. Balan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1039
ORDERK. Sukumaran, J.1. In February, 1981 there was a strike of the College Teachers. Later, it was withdrawn. It appears that the Government had interdicted payment of salary for the strike period to those who had participated in the strike.2. On 10-6-1981, the Calicut edition of 'Malayala Manorama' published a news item, emanating from its Trivendrum reporter, captioned : 'They pocketed the salary withheld by the Government.' The report was indubitably not complimentary to those connected with the strike. It was clearly stated in the report that most of the Government College Teachers abused their position as 'drawing officers' and thus received the salary and allowances which had been withheld by (he Government. The Association of Government College Teachers through its General Secretary contradicted the report. He asserted that neither the office bearers nor the active workers of the organisation had received salary in the manner suggested. This report was published in the same pap...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G.T.N. Textiles Limited
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-1984
Reported in: (1985)44CTR(Ker)62; [1985]155ITR5(Ker)
Kochu Thommen, J. 1. The following question has been, at the instance of the Revenue, referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances and on an interpretation of Section 40A(7)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of Rs. 29,593 being the gratuity liability relatable to the accounting year ending June 30, 1972, for the assessment year 1974-75?'2. The assessee maintains its accounts on the mercantile system. Its claim for deduction of a sum of Rs. 29,593 for payment of gratuity was disallowed by the ITO by his order dated September 22, 1976. However, it was allowed on appeal by the AAC, whose order was confirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the liability relating to the year ending on June 30, 1972, in the sum of Rs. 29,593 'squarely falls under Clause (b) of Sub-section (7) of Section 40A and has to be allowed '.3. The assessee claimed certain deductions in respect of its ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Phair Laboratories
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-1984
Reported in: [1985]154ITR141(Ker)
Kochu Thommen, J.1. The following question has been, at the instance of the Revenue, referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the cancellation of registration for the assessment year 1966-67 and cancellation of continuation of registration for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1972-73 was without jurisdiction and improper ?'2. When these cases were first heard by a Division Bench, a doubt arose as to the ambit of the power under Section 186 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (the 'Act'), and they were accordingly referred to a Full Bench.3. The assessee is a firm of seven partners. The partnership is evidenced by an instrument dated December 10, 1963. The object of the firm is to carry on the business of manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products. At the time of execution of the document, C.V. Cyriac, party No. 6, was aged only seventeen years and was, therefore, a minor represented by his father and g...
P.V. Chandran Vs. Malabar and Pioneer Hosiery P. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-16-1984
Reported in: [1985]57CompCas570(Ker)
Paripoornan, J.1. This is an application under Section 155(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner purchased 705 equity shares in the first respondent-company from the second respondent. The first respondent is a private limited company, incorporated on October 13, 1966, having its registered office at Kallai Road, Calicut. By Ext. B-1 (A-2) dated November 10, 1981, the first respondent-company was informed by the second respondent about the sale of 705 shares to the petitioner and requesting the transfer of shares in the name of the petitioner. By Ext. B-2 (A-3), dated-December 1, 1981, the first respondent rejected the said request relying on Article 33 of the articles of association of the company. The petitioner avers that by Ext. A-4, dated February 14, 1982 (Ext. A-4 (B-3)), the second respondent wrote to the first respondent expressing a desire to dispose of the shares at the price of Rs. 100 fixed by the company to a member of the company and desired to take urgent steps ...
Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. Vs. T.M. Jaleel and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-16-1984
Reported in: (1985)ILLJ176Ker
K. Bhaskaran, Ag. C.J.1. We find a merit in these two appeals.2. M.F.A. No. 33 of 1984 and M.F.A. No. 34 of 1984 are directed respectively, against the orders in E.I.C. No. 82 of 1982 and E.I.C. No. 83 of 1982 on the file of the Employees' Insurance Court, Alleppey. In both the appeals the appellant is the Hindustan Insecticides Ltd., hereinafter referred to for the sake of convenience as the principal employer'. The 1st respondent in each case is a contractor to whom loading and transport work under the appellant has been entrusted; and for the sake of convenience they would, hereinafter, be referred to as 'immediate employers'.3. The contribution under the Employees' Insurance Act (the Act) due in respect of the employees employed under the immediate employers to the Employees' Insurance Corporation (the corporation) had not been deducted by the principal employer from the wages of the employees in question or for that matter from the bills of the immediate employers. It would appear...
M. George Bros. Chitty Fund Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-1984
Reported in: [1984]150ITR333(Ker)
Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. The assessee in all these cases is a firm. It is carrying on the business in running chitties as defined in Section 3(2) of the Travancore Chitties Act, 1120, for short 'the Chitties Act'. This business of the assessee is controlled by the provisions contained in the Chitties Act.2. The relevant years are the years of assessment 1970-71, the accounting year ending December 31, 1969, the year of assessment 1973-74, the accounting year ending December 31, 1972, the year of assessment 1974-75, the accounting year ending December 31, 1973, the year of assessment 1975-76, the accounting year ending December 31, 1974, and the year of assessment 1972-73, the accounting year ending December 31, 1971.3. In all these cases, the only question that arises for consideration is whether 'veethapalisa' as defined in the Chitties Act received by the assessee is income in its hands, liable to be taxed under the I.T. Act, 1961, for short 'the Act'.4. Facts are few and identical ...
Kochu Pennu Appi Pennu and ors. Vs. Kalyambi Nanan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ker66
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The only question in this second appeal relates to the effect of conflicting decisions on a plea of res judicata.2. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. The suit is for redemption of Ext. A2 mortgage and for recovery of possession of the plaint property 84 cents in extent.3. The property belonged to one Vaili Easwari, On her death her minor children represented by their legal guardian executed Ext. A2 mortgage dt. 27-7-1123 to one Kurumba. There is no dispute that the equity of redemption now vests in the plaintiffs as per sale deed Ext. AI dt. 22-2-1962. There is also no dispute that the mortgage rights now vest in the 1st defendent under Ext. A3 assignment dt. 18-6-1124. The suit is resisted by defendants 1 and 2 contending that thetransaction Ext. A2 is a lease and not a mortgage. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that Ext. A2 evidences a transaction of lease and not a mortgage. The appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »