Kerala Court July 1985 Judgments
T. Shanmugham Pillai Vs. N. Rajaraman
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker173
Sukumaran, J. 1. A time-worn question -- whether a document is a lease or a licence --. arises in this second appeal also. The Courts below have concurred to construe Ext. Al dt. 7-9-1959 as a licence. In so doing they have been considerably, if not entirely, influenced by the decision of this Court reported in Velayudhan Kesava Panicker v. Ibrahim is mail Sail, (1963) 1 Ker LR 453. The Courts below could not be found fault with in adopting such a course, when a binding decision interpreting a document with essentially similar provisions had been rendered by this Court. The correctness of the decisions was doubted by one of us (Balakrishna Menon J.), and that led to the case being placed before a Bench of this Court. 2. The document Ext. Al is termed as a 'Vadaka Cheettu', and relates to 1200 sq.ft. The rent stipulated is Rs. 20 per month and the period is one year. There are provisions in the document which enable forfeiture of the arrangement in the event of consecutive defaults in t...
Tag this Judgment!Hema Vs. S. Lakshmana Bhat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker130
ORDERU.L. Bhat, J.1. Revision petitioner is the wife of the respondent. They are governed by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act'). They were married on 24-8-1975 and lived together till December, 1979. Thereafter, they have been living apart. Each has his/her own explanation for the present state of affairs.2. Husband filed H.M.O.P.4/1983 seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Act and the wife filed written statement resisting the petition. On 5-7-1983 she filed LA. 957/1983 claiming maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month and also Rs. 2,000/- as expenses for conducting the case from the husband. Husband resisted the application and the learned Subordinate Judge disposed of the application directing the husband to pay maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month from 5-7-19.83 and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as expenses of the proceedings. The wife, being dissatisfied with the quantum awarded, has filed this revision.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Abdul Nazar and anr. Vs. P.K. Mohammed Kutty, Drug Inspector and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1534
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. Petitioners are the accused in S.T.6 of 1985 pending before the Special Judge, Trichur. That case was instituted on a complaint filed by the 1st respondent, Drug Inspector. The complaint is for offences punishable under para 21 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1979 read with Sections 3 and 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. the prayer is for quashing the proceedings in S.T. 6/85. The simple question for consideration is whether the Special Judge is competent to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector and proceed with the case.2. Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act 10 of 1955) reads:No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by a person who is a public servant as defined in Section 21 of the I.P.C. (45 of I860). 3. The Essential Commo...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1222
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. The appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence entered against the appellant (accused) by the Sessions Judge Palghat in S.C. 58/1980. The appellant was found guilty under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case is that Devaki Antherjanam, a widow was residing alone at Kizhakkekalam in Trippalamunda amsom and that accused who is one of the sons of Kesavan Namboodiri (brother-in-law of the deceased) went to her house on 19-6-1980 at about 9 a.m. and inflicted injury on her head with a chopper resulting in her death. Immediately after the incident, accused confessed to P.W. 1 that he committed the murder of Devaki Antherjanam. P.W. 1 went to the police station and lodged the first information statement. Accused who went to the police station was arrested by P.W. 18, Sub Inspector. P.W. 18 took the accused to his house and as pointed out by him M.O. 8 thorthu was seized. P.W. 19,...
Tag this Judgment!Bishop of Kottayam and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-16-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker126; [1989]65CompCas48(Ker)
Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.1. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 45(1) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (Act 10 of 1949), the Government of India claimed moratorium on the Bank of Cochin from the close of business on the 27th of April, 1985 till 28th August, 1985.2. The petitioners receive foreign contribution through some of the branches of the Bank of Cochin and have registered themselves under Section 6 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976. They thus maintain accounts in some specified branches of the Bank. The petitioners are, however, prevented from operating these accounts and withdrawing any amounts while the moratorium is in force. They have therefore filed these writ petitions for appropriate reliefs.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these cases, Shri M. I. Joseph, raised only two contentions: --(1) The moratorium ordered under Section 45(1) of the Banking Regulation Act cannot affect the authorisation granted to the Bank und...
Tag this Judgment!Ramathal Vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-16-1985
Reported in: 2(1986)ACC309
K. Sukumaran, J.1. This appeal unfolds the tragedy of a helpless widow who lost her two sons, and also her suit for damages. She had come from Tamil Nadu and eking out her livelihood by doing odd jobs, and residing near Edappally in the house of PW 5. The tragic incident happened at eight in the night near an important junction in the National Highway wherefrom the road leading to Edappally Railway Station branches off. A bus was already parked on the eastern side of the road for facilitating the passengers to alight and mount the bus. Fast passenger bus, KLV 3325, belonging to the 1st defendant K.S.R.T.C. and driven by the 2nd defendant, was proceeding from the northern side to Ernakulam. It overtook the stationary bus at the junction. The two boys of the plaintiff were crossing the road on their way home. It was then that they were run over by the bus. One died on the spot and the other on the way to hospital. The request for compensation, fixed in a modest sum of Rs. 20,000/-, was r...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kalpaka Enterprises (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-1985
Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Ker)160; [1986]157ITR658(Ker)
Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.1. The question of law referred to us for the opinion of this court reads thus :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the provisions of Section 79 place a bar only on the carry forward and set off of losses and not of unabsorbed depreciation or unabsorbed development rebate '2. The assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested. For the relevant year 1975-76, there were nine shareholders of the company for the accounting period ending on March 31, 1975. None of these shareholders was a shareholder on March 31, 1974.3. For the assessment year 1974-75, an amount of Rs. 61,754 was computed to be carried forward, under three heads :Rs.(i)unabsorbed depreciation21,815(ii)unabsorbed development rebate17,186(iii)business loss22,7534. The Income-tax Officer, relying on Section 79 of the Income-tax Act, refused the relief of carry forward of any of these 'losses'. On appeal, the...
Tag this Judgment!Abdulla Haji Vs. Food Inspector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1193
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1.This is a petition under Section 389 of the Cr. P.C. The petitioner had been charged for a bailable offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. He was acquitted by the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tellicherry. However, reversing the order of acquittal, this Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to imprisonment for a term of six months and to a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The petitioner now seeks suspension of that sentence pending appeal to the Supreme Court.2. Opposing the petition, counsel for the respondent Shri. K. J. Joseph submits that where a person is convicted by the High Court, a petition under Section 389 Cr. P.C. is not maintainable as there is no further right of appeal under the statute. This argument is supported by the Director of Public Prosecution whom we have heard on the construction of this Section.3. Section 389 reads as follows:389. Suspension of sentence pending the appeal; release of appellant on...
Tag this Judgment!Popular Kuries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-1985
Reported in: [1986]159ITR519(Ker)
Bhaskaran, C.J. 1. The Cochin Union Bank, Trichur, was a company registered under the Companies Act and was carrying on the business of banking and kuries. It stopped its banking activity, making it over to the Federal Bank Limited, on August 17, 1964, ; some selective assets and liabilities also were transferred to the Federal Bank Limited. Subsequently, the owners of the business of the Cochin Union Bank carried on business, confining themselves to kuries only under the name and style 'The Popular Kuries Limited'. Before the transfer of the business of the Cochin Union Bank, one of the employees had misappropriated certain sums. Ultimately, the High Court gave a decree for Rs. 28,185 payable from out of the assets of the employee, who had, in the meantime, died. The assessee, the Popular Kuries Limited, wrote off a sum of Rs. 20,838 as a bad debt in the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1963-64. That claim was, however, disallowed both by the Income-tax Off...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. E.N. Sreedhara Kamath
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-11-1985
Reported in: [1986]160ITR23(Ker)
K. Bhaskaran, C.J. 1. Having heard the counsel for the Revenue and the counsel for the assessee, we are satisfied that there is no ground for compelling a reference under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Wealth-tax Officer completed the assessment accepting the valuation furnished by the approved valuer, based on what is called by the Revenue as the land-cum-building value. Subsequently, it would appear that the Wealth-tax Officer came across an observation in the internal audit report in which it was suggested that it being a commercial building, it ought to have been valued by capitalising the rental income. The Tribunal havingdisagreed with this approach made by the Wealth-tax Officer, this writ petition has been filed to compel a reference of the questions of law alleged to arise out of the order of the Tribunal.2. It is the admitted case that the building in question has been rented out from a date about 11/2 months prior to December 31, 1975, the date on which the v...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »