Kerala Court July 1986 Judgments
K. Vasanthakumar and Etc. Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1307
ORDERK. Sreedharan, J.1. Same questions of law arise in these two revision petitions. So they are disposed of by this common order. Accused in S.T. 2875/85 on the file of the Judicial II Class Magistrate's Court, III, Kozhikode is the petitioner in Crl. R.P. No. 313/86. He was the conductor of stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KRZ 594. A petty case was filed against him for offences under Rules 70 and 243, Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules read with Section 112, Motor Vehicles Act 1939. The substance of the allegation was that while the said bus was operating service on 20-7-85 with the petitioner as conductor, it reached Corporation bus stand at 11.30 A.M. instead of 11.40 A.M. which is the schedule time and that the petitioner was not having in his possession his conductor licence. Summons to the accused was issued on 4-10-85 directing him either to appear before court on 15-1-86 or to pay a sum of Rs. 75/- either in cash or by money order in case he pleads guilty. The petitioner opted to co...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Antony Vs. Thandiyode Plantations P. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-29-1986
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas553(Ker)
John Mathew, J. 1. The petitioner in Company Petition No. 68 of 1980 is the appellant. He is hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner'. That petition was filed under Section 155 of the Companies Act for rectification of the register of members of the first respondent company, namely, Thandiyode Plantations P. Ltd., South Wynad. According to the petitioner, he and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 entered into an agreement in November, 1973, evidenced by exhibit A-1, for carrying on the business of arranging for sale of estates and dividing the profits. By exhibit A-l, they also agreed to take over the first respondent company and the understanding was that they would purchase the entire company. Another agreement was entered into between them evidenced by exhibit A-2 on January 22, 1975, for purchase of all the shares of that company. Meanwhile, all the three of them were spending amounts for the improvement of the estate, after they got possession of the estate on October 1, 1974. The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Devadasan Dayalal Vs. Collector of Customs and Central Excise and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-1986
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC345; 1986LC558(Kerala); 1986(26)ELT728(Ker)
R. Sukumaran, J.1. The petitioner landed in the Trivandrum Air Port on 6.12.1985. He had come from Abu Dhabi. He had with him varieties of goods : cassettes and cameras, cigarettes and liquor, bed and bracelet and the like. Not per se objectionable. Duty has to be and has been paid for the value exceeding the permissible limit. According to the Customs, he had something more; and of an objectionable type; gold biscuits weighing 2088 grams, and of a probable market value of Rs. 4,32,216.2. The petitioner had a different version about it; he disputes the mahazar wherein the seizure of the gold biscuits is indicated; he disputes the statements signed by him, as, according to him, they were obtained under coercion and pressure.3. It is not disputed that the petitioner has been arrested, that he has been produced before the court trying the economic offences, and that the proceedings there continue to be pending.4. The authorities have with them the passport of the petitioner. It was seized...
Tag this Judgment!Food Inspector Vs. P. Subramonian
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ333
Padmanabhan, J.1. The Food Inspector, Palghat Municipality has come up in appeal against the acquittal of the respondent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palghat in S.T.C. No. 9 of 1981. The complaint filed by the appellant was for violation of Rr. 44(g) and 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules read with Section 7(i) and made punishable Under Section 16(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for having manufactured for sale and sold adulterated ice-candy in the form of stick.2. Acquittal was on the sole ground that the sample is not an item of food as defined in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and hence even though it contained prohibited ' sweeteners, no offence is made out. That finding was based on the principles laid down in a Single Bench decision of this Court in Babu v. Food Inspector, Tiruvalla Municipality, 1981 Ker LT 75 : 1981 Cri LJ NOC 109. That case also dealt with adulteration in respect of ice-candy. It was held therein:it is cl...
Tag this Judgment!Nanikutty Amma Kamalamma Vs. the Trivandrum Permanent Bank
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-23-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker163
ORDERVarghese Kalliath, J.1. This revision petition concerns a question of limitation. The respondent herein filed a suit O.S. No. 20 of 1960 for recovery of money. The trial Court decreed the suit on 5-7-1966. This decree was enforceable only against the defendants 1 to 12, 14 and 16 and their assets. The plaintiff was not satisfied with the said decree. He filed an appeal against that decree and in that appeal the plaintiff claimed a decree against all the defendants in the suit namely defendants 1 to 34 and also against the assets of all the defendants. In appeal the trial Court decree was confirmed. It was on 24-10-1972.2. The Counsel for the plaintiff tells me that execution of the decree was sought in the year 1976. But later the execution petition was not prosecuted. Now the plaintiff has filed E. P. No. 29 of 1980. This is dt. 19-4-1980.3. The 4th defendant-revision petitioner contended that the execution petition is barred by limitation. The execution Court rejected the conten...
Tag this Judgment!Annamma Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-1986
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ857Ker
Malimath, C.J. 1. The appellant reached the age of superannuation as per the date of entry entered in her service register on 26.10.1984. Having regard to certain provisions person like the appellant who attained the age of superannuation during the middle of the year are entitled to continue and actually retire from service on the 31st of March. Accordingly, the appellant became due for retirement on 31.3.1985.2. The entry in the service register showing the appellant's date of birth as 26.10.1929 has obviously been made on the basis of the school register which shows that that is her date of birth. The appellant made an application to correct the date of birth in the school records/S.S.L.C. As there was delay in filing that application, the appellant sought for permission to file the application explaining the relevant circumstances justifying such permission being granted. Permission was duly granted by the Government by its order dated 15.3.1984 to the effect that the appellant's a...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. K ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-1986
Reported in: [1986]63STC387(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. These tax revision cases are filed by the Revenue. The same question arises for consideration in all these cases. Counsel appearing for both sides agreed that T.R.C. No. 12 of 1985 may be taken as the main case. It is agreed that the decision rendered in T.R.C. No. 12 of 1985 will govern the other tax revision cases also.2. Respondents in all these T.R.Cs. are the assessees. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. In T.R.C. No. 12 of 1985, the assessment year with which we are concerned is 1978-79. The respondent is an arecanut dealer. Arecanut is taxable under Schedule I, entry 47, at the point of last purchase in the State by a dealer who is liable to tax under Section 5 of the Act. In T.R.C. No. 71 of 1985, we are concerned with copra. Copra is taxable under Schedule II, entry 6, at the point of last purchase in the State by a dealer who is liable to tax under Section 5 of the Act. During the relevant year, the assessee sent the goods ...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Chacko Vs. Mariakutty and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-16-1986
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas340(Ker)
Sivaraman Nair, J. 1. The second respondent in MVOP No. 152 of 1979 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, has filed this appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal completely excluding the insurer from any liability for payment of compensation for the death of the husband of the first claimant and father of claimants Nos. 2 to 8.2. The accident occurred on May 21, 1976, at about 4.00 p.m. on a road leading from a panchayat road to a quarry near Ambalam Thakidi, Meenad village. The accident occurred at a time when a lorry owned by the second respondent who is the appellant before us, and which was being driven by the first respondent before the Tribunal, was being reversed from the panchayat road to the road leading to the quarry. The driver remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The insurer and the insured, the appellant alone, contested the claim advanced by the legal representatives of the deceased claiming an amount of Rs. 1 lakh towards compensation.3. The insuran...
Tag this Judgment!E.C. Saraswathy Ammal Vs. Director of Public Instruction
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-16-1986
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ442Ker
U.L. Bhat, J.1. Petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing principle No. 6 contained in Ext. PI proceedings and Ext P4 order based on that principle. A copy of the O.P. is served on the learned Liason Officer and I have heard both sides.2. Petitioner's claim can be summarised as follows:Petitioner was recruited through the Public Service Commission as High School Assistant and advised for appointment in Palghat District as per advice memo, dated: 9th February 1960. She joined duty in a High School in Perintha-Imanna which was part of the then Palghat Revenue District. In 1960 she sought transfer to Calicut District and as per order dated 2nd June 1960 she was so transferred and posted in a High School in Calicut District. In 1978 she requested for transfer to her original District viz., Palghat District and this was allowed as per order dated 2nd August 1978. From 1959 till recently District was treated as unit as far as High School Assistants were concerned. Since the two transfers ...
Tag this Judgment!Chacko Vs. Mariakutty and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-16-1986
Reported in: II(1987)ACC168
Sivaraman Nair, J.1. The second respondent in M.V.O.P. No. 152 of 1979 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, has filed this appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal completely excluding the insurer from any liability for payment of compensation for the death of the husband of the first claimant and father of claimants 2 to 8.2. The accident occurred on 21-5-1976 at about 4.00 p.m. on a road leading from a Panchayat road to a quarry near Amamhlam Thakidi, Meenad Village. The accident occurred at a time when a lorry owned by the second respondent, who is the appellant before us, and which was being driven by the first respondent before the Tribunal, was being reversed from the Panchayat Road to the road leading to the quarry. The driver remained exparte before the Tribunal. The insurer and the insured, the appellant, alone contested the claim advanced by the legal representatives of the deceased claiming an amount of Rs. 1 lakh towards compensation.3. The insurance co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »