Kerala Court September 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.
Sugunan Vs. University of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-1984
Reported in: (1985)ILLJ376Ker
M.P. Menon, J.1. By Ext. P 1 notification dated 1st March, 1982 the Kerala University invited applications from qualified candidates for appointment to the post of Reader in Chemistry. The petitioner and the 4th respondent applied; and the Selection Committee consisting of the Vice Chancellor, a Syndicate member, two experts from outside and the Professor of Chemistry (in the Kerala University) selected the 4th respondent for the post. The petitioner challenges this selection on the ground that the 4th respondent was not sufficiently qualified for being considered, either at the time the notification was issued or at the time the selection was made.2. Under the Regulations framed by the Academic Council of the University, a person could be appointed as Reader in Science only if he possesses the following qualificatioas;-(i) A First Class Master's Degree or a Second Class Master's Degree with not less than 50% marks of an Indian University or an equivalent qualification of a foreign Uni...
Govinda Menon Vs. Muhammed Unni Haji and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1036
ORDERV. Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.1. Scope of the remedy that is available to a party against a combined order, after a joint trial as contemplated under Section 210, Criminal P.C. arises for determination.2. A police complaint, C.C. No. 23/78 was made by the Circle Inspector of Police, Kunnamkulam, against three persons while there was a private complaint C.C. No. 84/77 in respect of the very same offence, but against four persons. The two cases were clubbed together as provided under Section 210 of the Code and all the accused were acquitted.3. The private complainant happened to the P.W.I in the police complaint. He filed a revision before the Sessions Court, Trichur, for setting aside the acquittal in the police case.4. The lower court found that the complainant had a right of appeal even in respect of the police complaint as both cases were disposed of by a common judgment and under Section 210 both the cases should be deemed to have been instituted on a police report.5. Section 210 pr...
C.T. Mathew and anr. Vs. Govt. of India, Home Dept. (C.i.B.) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1316
ORDERV. Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.1. Has the High Court powers to grant anticipatory bail in respect of offences committed beyond its territorial jurisdiction? This, in short, is the question that arises for consideration in these two applications. 2. The Calcutta High Court has in B. R. Sinha v. State 1982 Cri LJ 61 taken the view that the High Court within whose jurisdiction the person resides is competent to grant anticipatory bail, even though the offence is alleged to be committed outside its jurisdiction. The Karnataka High Court in L. R. Naidu v. State of Karnataka 1984 Cri LJ 757 has followed the Calcutta view. The Delhi High Court in two decisions, Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab 1980 Cri LJ 1174 and Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab 1981 Cri LJ NOC 159 holds that when offences are alleged to be committed in two States, the High Courts in both the States have the necessary power to grant anticipatory bail. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has in Ravinder Mohan v. State of Punjab 198...
Ramakrishnan Vs. K. Musalikutty and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ630
ORDERM. Fathima Beevi, J.1. The revision petition is directed against the final order in M.P. 11/1983 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ottappalam. The revision petitioner is the respondent in the proceedings initiated Under Section 133, Cr.P.C., for the alleged obstruction caused by the petitioner to a pathway. Respondents 1 to 19 filed a petition before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nattukal alleging that a public pathway is running through the eastern side of the petitioner's property from south to north and joining the Nattukal Kottapuram Panchayat road and that the petitioner has obstructed the pathway by putting up a fence. It was alleged that the said pathway was being used by the people of the locality.2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a preliminary order Under Section 133(a), Cr.P.C., on 2-8-1983. The petitioner appeared before the Court below on 7-9-1983 and denied the existence of a public pathway and the obstruction of the same by the petitioner as alleged by responden...
K.G. Narayanankutty Vs. T.E. Sekhara Menon and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-25-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ570
ORDERV. Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.1. Heard counsel on both sides.2. In this revision arising out of proceedings initiated Under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no dispute that the tank in question is a public tank. It is already concluded by the decision of the Madras High Court reported in Chathunni v. Appukuttan AIR 1945 Mad 232. When the right of the public is thus already concluded by a decision of a competent court, there is no justification or necessity to invoke the powers Under Section 137(2) of the Code for a fresh decision by a civil court. Section 137(2) can apply only to those cases where there is no concluded decision by a competent civil court regarding the existence of a public right and reliable evidence in support of such denial is produced before the Magistrate. A decision of a civil court already rendered declaring or denying the right of public in respect of land, forecloses the remedy Under Section 137(2) of the Code. The complexities of a civil ...
The Sales Tax Officer Vs. Sankaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-20-1984
Reported in: [1986]61STC370(Ker)
K.K. Narendran, J.1. The short point that arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether the inordinate delay, in making an assessment to sales tax in a case remanded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, by itself will vitiate the assessment. In this writ appeal, the Sales Tax Officer, the respondent in the original petition filed by the assessee, challenges the judgment of the learned single Judge allowing the original petition and quashing the assessments.2. The appellant assessed the respondent to sales tax for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 by orders dated 16th February, 1967, and 15th February, 1967, respectively. The respondent filed appeals against the assessments. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the assessments and remanded the cases to the appellant for fresh disposal as per order dated 6th March, 1968. Thereafter, only by orders, exhibits P4 and P6, dated 28th July, 1981, assessment was made. The respondent challenged the above orders bef...
Komu Haji Hysrose Haji Vs. Moosakutty Bava
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-19-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ker126
K.K. Narendran, J. 1. The plaintiff in a suit on accounts is the appellant in the Second Appeal. The short facts of the case shorn of unnecessary details are : The plaintiff-appellant is a dealer in provisions and the defendant-respondent was an employee in the shop from 1956 onwards. In November 1969 the respondent ceased to he an employee of the appellant. While in employment the respondent used to purchase goods on credit and also take loans from the appellant. The amounts thus due from the respondent used to be adjusted from his salary. As per the accounts on 30-11-1969 some balance was due to the appellant. The suit was filed for the recovery of the above balance from the respondent as per accounts. 2. The respondent filed a written statement denying liability and also contending that the suit was barred by limitation. 3. The trial court found the accounts as genuine but rejected the appellant's contention that the same was a mutual, open and current account and held that it was A...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.C. Menon
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-19-1984
Reported in: [1986]157ITR40(Ker)
Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench., has referred the following questions, at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, to this court for its opinion :'(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, Rs. 94,329 being the additional compensation awarded to the assessee in respect of his land acquired, by the judgment of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam, rendered after March 31, 1973, could be considered as an item of asset held by him on the relevant valuation dates for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74?(ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the right to claim additional compensation was only a right in the nature of a right to sue and hence could not be considered as an item of asset held by the assessee on the relevant valuation dates ?'2. The only point that arises for consideration is whether or not extra compensation awarded by the civil c...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›