Kerala Court August 1985 Judgments
Joshy Vs. the State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-23-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ263
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. Crime 100 of 1985 of the Ernakulam Town North Police Station was registered against four accused for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act on the basis of the statement made by one Satheesh Sathyan, Public Relations Manager and power-of-attorney holder, Tharangini Records, Trivandrum.2. Tharangini records claims to be the exclusive producers and distributors of cassettes recorded from the original plates manufactured in the Tharangini records. It is alleged that the accused are reproducing without permission certain cassettes for which Tharangini records is having absolute copyright. In the course of investigation the police searched the premises where the petitioner is running the 'Swathi recording unit' and seized certain articles including equipments purported to have been used for making the infringed copies of records. They are kept in police custody itself ...
Tag this Judgment!Bar Council of Kerala Vs. K.C. Thankappan Pillai and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker1
M.P. Menon, J.1. This writ petition has been placed before us with the following order of the Chief Justice, apparently made in exercise of power under Section 6 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958:--'There is an apparent conflict between the views expressed by two Division Benches ofthis Court with respect to the procedure to be followed by a single Judge while adjourning a matter to be heard and determined by a Bench of two Judges under Section 3 of the High Court Act. The question of law involved in the writ petition also is very important I, therefore, order that the writ petition as well as the order of reference be posted for hearing before a Full Bench of five Judges.'We have heard counsel on the conflicting views about the scope of Section 3, and this order is intended to dispose of the said controversy. The merits of the Original Petition will be considered separately. 2. Section 3 of the Kerala High Court Act empowers a single Judge to exercise the Court's powers under Article...
Tag this Judgment!Advocate General Vs. K. Ramkumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ60
ORDER1. The Advocate-General, Kerala, has filed this petition under Sections 12 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (Act 70 of 1971) against the respondent, a practising Advocate of this Court.. The respondent is also the Managing Editor of a legal journal 'the Kerala Law Notes'. In the issue of the Kerala Law Notes dated 21-11-1984, (Part 39) an article under the caption 'Priority in posting the cases' was written and published by the respondent. According to the Advocate-General the said article contains untrue allegations and averments against the working of the High Court as a whole, and the Judges in particular, and the partiality of the Judges or at least some of them is highlighted, with a view to bring the Judges into contempt in the eyes of the public. It is intended to tarnish the good name of the High Court. The imputations have been made recklessly without justification. The readers of the article gain a feeling that there is a 'favoured few' among the advocates who s...
Tag this Judgment!K.C. Chandy Vs. R. Balakrishna Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-19-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker116
Bhaskaran, C.J.1. According to the petitioner, on May 25, 1985, at a public meeting at Ernakulam, the respondent, then a Minister in the Kerala Cabinet, incited the people to resort to terrorism and to wage a war against the Union of India on the 'Punjab model', to achieve their objectives. On June 4, 1985, the petitioner, who is stated to be a citizen who believes in upholding the sovereignty and integrity of the country, filed this writ for the issue of an information in the nature of quo warranto preventing the respondent from exercising the authority of his office, on the ground that the public speech alleged to have been made by him on May 25, 1985, amounted to breach of oath taken by him at the time of his assuming the office of the Minister, and, therefore, he had forfeited his right to continue in that office. On June 5, 1985, the learned Judge before whom the writ petition came up for admission, ordered issue of notice, making, at the same time, some observations. On the same ...
Tag this Judgment!Nanu Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-13-1985
Reported in: (1986)ILLJ246Ker
Pareed Pillay, J.1. Petitioners in both the Original petitions are police officers whose grievance is that they were not promoted to the Indian Police Service whilst their juniors were preferred Petitioners in OP 4429/83 challenge the inclusion of respondents 5 to 8 in the I.P.S. cadre ignoring their legitimate claims Petitioner in OP 7292/1983 challenges the inclusion of respondents 6 to 8 in the I.P.S. cadre on the ground that they are juniors to him Seniority of additional 9th respondent is admitted by the petitioner Petitioners in both the Original Petitions contended that they have unblemished service, that they have obtained very many awards and that the select committee obviously ignored their claims and selected their juniors2. Petitioner in OP 7292/1983 states that he was promoted as Assistant Commandant, Malabar Special Police on 23rd March, 1968 as per Ext.P6 order that the post isequivalent to the post of Dy. S.P. and that the select committee superseded him and gave him a ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Sarojam Vs. L.i.C. of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-09-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker201; [1986]60CompCas445(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant is the widow of Neelakanta Pillai, who died on 2-4-1974 at the age of 33 years. He was a Local Fund Auditor in the service of the State of Tamil Nadu. He had on 20-9-1973 made Ext B7 proposal for insurance on his life for a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- to the defendant, the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Since his salary was not commensurate with the premium payable, the defendant-Corporation accepted the proposal for insurance on his life for a sum of Rs. 40,000/-. On the same day as Ext. B7, his wife the plaintiff made another proposal Ext. B8 for insurance on his life for a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/-. This proposal was accepted by the defendant. In both the policies the plaintiff is the nominee to receive payment when the policies mature.On the death of Neelakanta Pillai, the plaintiff demanded payment of the amounts due under the two policies. The defendant repudiated the policies as obtained by fraud and on suppression of material fac...
Tag this Judgment!Kalliani Amma and ors. Vs. Kerala Varma Thirumulapad and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-09-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker250
Narendran, J. 1. This second appeal was referred to a IN Division Bench by a learned Judge of this Court. Before the learned Judge the correctness of the decision in Subramanian v. Kunjamma 1983 Ker LT 351 was disputed. The point that arises for consideration is whether an application for resumption by a small holder under Section 18 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 against a mortgagee who is a deemed tenant under Section 4A can be filed after the expiry of six months from 1-1-1970, the date of commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act, 35 of 1969.2. The appellants are plaintiffs 2 to 4 in a suit for resumption filed in 1968. When Kerala Act 35 of 1969 came into force on 1-1-1970 the plaint was amended challenging Section 4A incorporated in Kerala Act 1 of 1964 as unconstitutional. The contention that even if that section was not unconstitutional, the plaintiffs, as small holders, were entitled to resume half the plaint schedule properties under Section 17 of Act 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-07-1985
Reported in: [1985]60STC193(Ker)
Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. The second petitioner is the Managing Director according to the respondents, of the first petitioner-company which is a 'registered dealer' within the meaning of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, for short, the Sales Tax Act.2. By way of arrears of sales tax, employees' provident fund and employees' state insurance, the company had to pay a sum of Rs. 16,01,659.10 to the Government.3. May be that the Revenue was not successful in realising the arrears of tax, etc., from the company, and that perhaps may be the reason for the Revenue to initiate proceedings for recovery of the aforesaid dues from the second petitioner. Accordingly the first respondent served on the second petitioner a notice under Section 65 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, for short, the Recovery Act, calling upon him to show cause why a warrant of arrest shall not be issued against him since the company has failed to remit the said dues. The second petitioner by his reply dated 29th ...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Travancore Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-1985
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Ker)19; [1986]160ITR872(Ker)
Bhaskaran Nambtar, J.1. The State Bank of Travancore has filed this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act for compelling the Appellate Tribunal to refer a question of law to this court after the Tribunal refused to refer the question. This application relates to the assessment year 1977-78. An identical question arose for the year 1976-77 also and the bank had filed an application, O.P. No. 4645 of 1983, for compelling a reference. But that application was dismissed as the question of law raised was concluded, so far as this court was concerned, by its decision in State Bank of Travancore v. CIT : [1977]110ITR336(Ker) .2. When this application came up for hearing, the counsel for the Revenue submitted that as an identical application for an earlier year was rejected, this application also has to be rejected as no question of law arises in view of State Bank of Travancore v. CIT : [1977]110ITR336(Ker) . The Tribunal refused to refer as, in its opinion, no question of la...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›