Kerala Court February 1986 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.
Dasan and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ180
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. The five appeallants were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Trichur: for offences punishable Under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to be hanged by their neck till death for the offence Under Section 302 read with j. Section 149 IPC without awarding any separate sentence for the other offences.'.. The proceedings are submitted for confirmation of the death sentence Under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal procedure.2. The prosecution case is that on account of political enmity they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at about 9.30 a.m. on 24-3-1984 in the Onaparambu bus stop, the common object being to murder Gopalan, President of the Perinjanam Panchayat, committed rioting armed with M.Os. 1 to 5 daggers and stabbed him to death while he was standing on the bus stop. Deceased was a local leader of.the Marxist Communist Party and as its representative he was the local Panchayat Presid...
State of Kerala and anr. Vs. Venmony Panchayat and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-20-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker8
Malimath, C.J.1. This appeal is by the State Government and the Tahsildar, Chengannur, challenging the order made by the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 2795 of 1979. The 2nd respondent made an application to the State Government for assignment of 25 cents of land, which is part of the water course of Achankovil river within the jurisdiction of Venmoney Panchayat. The State Government remitted that application to the Tahsildar, Chengannur. The Tahsildar, Chengannur, notified the application of the 2nd respondent and called for objections. It is in this background that the 1st respondent-Panchayat presented O.P. No. 2795 of 1979praying for a declaration that the entire land comprised in Sy. No. 375/1A of Venmoney village, having been vested in the said Panchayat under Section 82 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), no part of the said land is liable for assignment under the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Act and the Rules made thereunder an...
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. B ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-20-1986
Reported in: 1987(11)ECC96; 1988(33)ELT664(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The only question for decision in this batch of tax revision cases is as to whether rubber cess collected from the assessees who are all manufacturers of different rubber products is liable to be included in their purchase turnover of rubber for the purpose of assessment under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The respective assessing authorities have held that the rubber cess paid by the assessees forms part of their purchase turnover. The purchase turnover of rubber is exigible to tax under entry 38 of Schedule I to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act at the last purchase point. The appellate authority took the view that the rubber cess paid by the respective manufacturers of rubber products is not liable to be included in their purchase turnover and hence directed a fresh assessment deleting the cess. This view of the appellate authority is confirmed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in appeals filed at the instance of the Revenue. The State has com...
Sivaraman Vs. V.C. Narayanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker156
ORDERVarghese Kalliath, J. 1. This is a civil revision petition filed by the defendant in a suit for injunction. The plaintiff is a building tenant of the defendant. The plaintiffs case is that when the tenant plaintiff wanted to install certain machineries in the tenanted premises the defendant attempted to cause some obstructions and that necessitated the filing of the suit. 2. The contention of the defendant is that the suit premises was never in the occupation of the plaintiff and that he is attempting to trespass into the suit premises and to facilitate the trespass into the suit premises he has filed the suit. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff is in occupation of only a chayippu and that he is not in occupation of the shed in question. 3. In order to establish his case, the defendant wanted a commission to be appointed by the court for local inspection. The court appointed a commission and the Commissioner has filed a report on 23-11-1984. The plaintiff filed obj...
Smt. Manikkam Vs. Smt. Kamala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-14-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker72
V. Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.1. When branches of trees overhang the neighbouring soil, can any right accrue, over the land over which they hang, or, to the overhanging itself, by reason of the length of time these branches having been hanging over that land This is the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal by the defendants.2. The plaintiff and the defendant, two women, owners of adjoining lands, unfortunately do not see eye to eye with each other. Admittedly, the branches of the trees standing on the defendant's land are spreading and jutting out above the property owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit complaining that the branches of these trees extending over her land caused nuisance preventing her from constructing any building or using the water in her well.3. The trial Court found that these branches have been overhanging for about 50 years and that the neighbouring landowner has no right by way of easement to allow the trees in her property to ove...
Neelakantan Kamalasanan Vs. Achuthan Vasudevan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-12-1986
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1212
K. Sreedharan, J.1. Complainant in C.C. 47/81 on the file of the Chief Judl Magistrate's Court, Quilon is the appellant in this appeal. The private complaint filed against the accused 3 in number was one for offences punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34,I.P.C Complainant is a Physical Education Teacher employed in the Government High School at Pattazhi. Accused 1 and 2 are the President.and Secretary respectively of the Paramanan-dodayam S.N.D.P. BranchNo. 676 at Maloor. The third accused is the Proprietor of Vijaya Press situated in Pathanapuram Town. The complainant's case is that on 16-3-1981 Ext. P-1 pamphlet was printed by the third accused in his press at the instance of accused 1 and 2 in pursuance of their common intention to defame the complainant, and the copies of the printed pamphlets were distributed by the accused in several parts of the Quilon District including Quilon town. The contents of Ext, P-1 are per se defamatory and that its publication is punishabl...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jacobs
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(Ker)300; [1986]160ITR570(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following questions at the instance of the Revenue, for decision of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act. ' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for the assessment year 1975-76, income by way of royalty received by the assessee from M/s. Jacobs Private Ltd. was assessable under the head ' Business ' (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, for the assessment year 1975-76, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the status of the assessee would be that of a registered firm and not that of an association of persons (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that for the assessment year 1975-76, the Commissioner was not correct in cancelling the registration which had been allowed by the Income-tax Officer ' 2. The assessee was ...
M.P. Shanthivarma Jain, President, M.S.P. Family JaIn Trust Vs. State ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-06-1986
Reported in: (1987)61CTR(Ker)194; [1987]164ITR766(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kozhikode, has referred the following questions for decision of this court under Section 60(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that Section 4 of Act 22 of 1950 as amended by Act 9 of 1974 is applicable for the assessment of the tax for the accounting year 1973-74? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that since the object of the trust being propagation of Jain religion and the service of its followers, the trust is not entitled for the claim of exemption from tax under Section 4 as it stands after the amendment of the Act by the Act 9 of 1974. (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that even the amount sp...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. M. Subaida Beevi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-06-1986
Reported in: (1986)57CTR(Ker)324; [1986]160ITR557(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following questions for decision by this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act:'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the cost of acquisition of in connection with the transfer involved in the compulsory acquisition of the lands ?4. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, Rs.the lands compulsorily acquired should be taken as their market value as on April 1, 1970, as claimed by the assessee or as their market value as on April 1, 1954, as contended by the Department ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, Rs. 25,240 being solatium awarded for the compulsory acquisition of the lands should also be taken as forming part of the consideration for the transfer involved in the compulsory acquisition thereof ?3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the ease, the expenditure incurred by the assessee for getting enhanced compensation sho...
Bhaskaran Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-06-1986
Reported in: (1986)IILLJ346Ker
Malimath, C.J.1. The petitioners entered into a contract of apprenticeship with the first respondent, the Kerala State Electricity Board. When they were undergoing apprenticeship training in pursuance of the said contract of apprenticeship, their services were terminated by the first respondent by exhibit P7 order. The petitioners challenge the said termination in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned single Judge before whom the matter came up for consideration felt that this case involves consideration of important questions of law and has, therefore, referred the matter to the Division Bench.2. Before adverting to the principal contentions urged by Sri M.M. Cheriyan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, we would like to advert to the admitted facts. The admitted facts are: The petitioners entered into a contract of apprenticeship with the first respondent for undergoing training and in pursuance of the said contract, they were undergoing such training. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »