Kerala Court October 1987 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.
Mathukutty Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker60
Fathima Beevi, J. 1. The revision-petitioner was prosecuted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as amended in 1976 (shortly, the Act) for sale of insect infested coriander seeds in his grocery shop. The petitioner was convicted under Section 16(i)(a) read with Sections 7(i) and 2(i-a)(f) of the Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The appeal preferred was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. 2. In revision before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the Full Bench decision in Food Inspector v. Prabhakaran, 1982 Ker LT 809 : (1983 Cri LJ 81) (FB) pressed for an acquittal. It was felt that the decision in Prabhakaran's case (supra) required reconsideration. The Criminal Revision Petition has accordingly come up before us on reference. 3. The Food Inspector purchased from the petitioner 450 grams of coriander seeds for purpose of analysis, on 21-2-1980. The sample was received by the Public Analyst on 6-3-1980. In Ext. P 6, the report dt. 21-...
Labour Enforcement Officer Vs. Abdul Khader
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-1987
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ1042Ker
Balakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal arises from the judgment in S.T.C. No. 147 of 1982, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasaragod.2. The accused was a railway contractor and he entered into a contract with the railway in respect of the work of earth cutting for laying additional railway lines at Kasaragod Railway Station which according to the prosecution was a scheduled employer within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The prosecution allegation is that the accused did not display notice showing the minimum rates of wages and failed to maintain Muster roll of the workers at the spot and to maintain register of wages and also failed to issue wages slips to workers and thereby committed offence under Rules 26(1), (2), (5) and 25(2) of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950.3. On the side of the prosecution three witnesses were examined and Exts. P 1 to 10 were marked. The accused contended that he had maintained necessary registers and muster...
B. Geetha Rani Vs. Controller of Examinations, University of Calicut
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker216
K. Sreedharan, J.1. The point that arises for decision is whether the petitioner passed the Pre-Degree Examination conducted by the University of Calicut before she secured admission for B.A. Degree Course in June, 1982. She took the Pre-Degree Examinations in April, 1981 and Septermber, 1981. In April 1981, she appeared for the Examination with Register No. 47408. She secured 85 marks but of 300 in Part-I English, 60 out of 150 in Part II Second Language Hindi, Subjects taken by her in Part III Optional were World History, Indian History and Economics. She got 60 marks out of 150 for World history, 38 marks out of 150 for Indian History and 53 marks out of 150 for Economics. Since she did not secure 40% of the total marks in Part I English, she failed in English. By Securing 60 marks out of 150, i.e. 40%, she came out successful in Part-II second language, Hindi. For World History she got 40%, viz, 60 marks out of 150. For Indian History she failed having secured 38 marks only out of ...
M. Abdul Karim Vs. P.K. Nabeesa and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker258
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J. 1. Appellant is the defendant in O.S. 69 of 1976 of the Prl. Sub Court, Parur. Plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of past maintenance. The trial Court decreed maintenance to plaintiffs 2 and 3, the minor children of the first plaintiff. Maintenance was refused to the 1st plaintiff, divorced wife of the defendant. Plaintiffs filed appeal, A.S. 190 of 1980. The Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and awarded maintenance to the 1st plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month with 6% interest from the date of the suit. 2. Defence contention is that the wife does not rely on any specific agreement regarding past maintenance between her and her husband and therefore on that sole score the claim is only to be rejected. Counsel relied on para 278 of the Mulla's Principles of Mahomedan Law where it is stated that if the husband neglects or refuses to maintain his wife without any lawful cause, the wife may sue him for maintenance, but she is not entitled to a...
S. B. Sankar Vs. State of Kerala and Another.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-1987
Reported in: (1988)72CTR(Ker)9; [1988]171ITR689(Ker)
P. C. BALAKRISHANA MENON J. - This original petition is by the managing trustee of the Sree Kombai Subramania Swamy Koil Devasthanam, Madurai. The Devasthanam is a religious and charitable trust situated outside the State of Kerala. The trust owns a cardamom estate in Udumbanchola village in the State of Kerala. The entire income of the trust is to be utilised for religious and charitable purposes in connection with the affairs of the Devasthanam situated in Tamil Nadu. Thus the entire income of the estate situated in kerala and owned by the trust is to be spent for religious and charitable purposes in Tamil Nadu.The agricultural income derived from the estate was exempted from levy of agricultural income-tax for the periods up to 1973-74, but from 1973-74 onwards, the income from the cardamom estate is subjected to levy of agricultural income-tax for the reason that under the amended provisions of section 4(1)(b) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, such income spent for religious and ...
Thambi Vs. Mathew and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-24-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker48
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. This second appeal by the plaintiff is against the dismissal of his appeal by the lower appellate court consequent on the dismissal of L A. No. 758/1980 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of the delay of 3 days in filing the appeal. It comes up before a Full Bench on reference made by Varghese Kalliath J. for the reason that M. P. Memon J. had in C. R. P. No. 318 of 1983 (the decision later reported in (1987) 1 Ker LT 543) declined to follow the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Chandrika Amma v. Mohammed 1984 Ker LJ 525 : (AIR 1984 Ker 198) in preference to an earlier decision of a Division Bench in Chakkuvarkey v. Devassy Kathanar AIR 1962 Ker 104. M. P. Menon J. had also dissented from the view expressed by Viswanatha Iyer J. in Kunhiraman v. Rossy 1979 Ker LT 718. Kalliath J. in a very illuminating order of reference has dealt with the points of view expressed in the two Division Bench rulings of this court referred to ab...
K.K. Somanathan Vs. K.K. Ramachandran Master and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-24-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker259
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J. 1. In the general election to the Kerala assembly held on 23-3-1987 ten candidates including one Mr. Cyriac John and respondents 1 to 3 contested for the No. 30 Sultan's Battery seat. Real contest was between first respondent and Mr. Cyriac Joha First respondent won by a margin of over 4,000 votes. Petitioner, an elector and the election agent of Mr. Cyriac John, seeks to declare the election of the first respondent void on various grounds. After the trial of the case started, at a time when the petitioner was partly examined as P.W. 1, first respondent wanted maintainability of the petition for want of cause of action to be heard preliminary and as agreed to on behalf of the petitioner also, the examination of P.W. 1 was suspended and the matter heard. 2. But at the time of argument the learned counsel for the petitioner took objection to the preliminary point being heard, seeking authority from the decision in Balwan Singh v. Lakshmi Narain, AIR 1960 SC 770. T...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. H.H. Gouri Parvathi Bhai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-24-1987
Reported in: (1988)71CTR(Ker)61; [1988]173ITR355(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The following two questions have been, at the instance of the Revenue, referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in view of the fact that the Land Board not having questioned the validity of the gift to the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and fact in coming to a different conclusion based on suppositions and surmises and in deleting the value of 2.3 acres from the net wealth of the assessee in the two assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and in fact in finding that ' she has no legal right over this property. So, under these circumstances, it is not a~pro-perty at all and, therefore, it is not an asset' and are not the above findings wrong, unreasonable, based on suppositions and surmises, irrelevant, unwarranted and without jurisdiction ' 2. The Tribunal, by it...
Her Highness Setu Parvati Bayi, Maharani of Travancore Vs. Commissione ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-23-1987
Reported in: (1988)68CTR(Ker)189; [1988]170ITR197(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J. 1. The following two questions have been, at the instance of the assessee, referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the gross interim dividend declared by M/s. Nirlon Synthetic Fibres & Chemicals Ltd., Bombay, before the valuation date, i.e., on March 25, 1975, but encashed alter the valuation date, was an asset includible in the net wealth of the assessee for the assessment year 1974-75 ?2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the grossdividend and not the net dividend, i.e., interim dividend declared less tax deducted at source, is to be included as the value of the asset in the net wealth of the assessee for the assessment year 1975-76 ?'2. The assessee held shares in M/s. Nirlon Synthetic Fibres & Chemicals Ltd., Bombay. In th...
H.H. Marthanda Varma Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-23-1987
Reported in: (1988)67CTR(Ker)326; [1988]170ITR202(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The following three questions have been, atthe instance of the assessee, referred to us by the Income-tax AppellateTribunal, Cochin Bench :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that only the discounted value of the gross dividend declared by Nirlon Synthetic Fibres & Chemicals Ltd. on September 30, 1975, but falling due on July 5, 1976, and July 5, 1977, was includible and not the net, dividend ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the tax deducted at source from the dividends cannot be excluded in determining the market value of the deferred dividends declared ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the interest due and payable by Nirlon Synthetic Fibres and Chemicals Ltd. on the deferred dividend on July 5, 1976, and July 5, 1977, under the provisions of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »