Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1987)IILLJ296Ker
Sreedharan, J.1. Petitioner is fully qualified to be appointed as Lecturer in Political Science in colleges affiliated to the University of Kerala. The 1st respondent is the Manager of a private college affiliated to the University of Kerala. That college receives 100 per cent grant for maintenance from the Government. The salary of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the college is being paid by the State. The 2nd respondent is the Principal of that College The 3rd respondent is one who, according to the petitioner, is un-officially engaged by respondents 1 and 2 to teach Political Science in the College. The petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to appoint him in the vacancy of Junior Lecturer of Political Science which arose during 1986-87. He also prays for a writ of prohibition restraining respondents 1 and 2 from engaging the 3rd respondent to take classes in Political Science in the College.2. The petitioner was employed as a Junior L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1987Ker246
ORDERM.P. Menon, J.1. The controversy is about the scope of O. 23, R. 1. The respondent instituted O. S. 103/80 before the Munsiff's Court, for injunction restraining the defendants from cutting an enjili tree; and the suit was subsequently amended to incorporate a relief for mandatory injunction also, for restoring a thodu the defendants had tampered with. The court dismissed the suit, holding that the tree belonged to the defendants, but observing that the plaintiff should have sued for declaration of title. The plaintiff preferred A.S. 163/82 before the District Court; and soon thereafter, apparently on the basis of legal advice, he filed another suit before the Munsiff's Court -- O. S. 352/82 -- for declaration of title to the property, the tree and also for damages. I. A. 719/83 was then moved in A. Section 163 for permission to withdraw O. S. 108/80, under Order 23, Rule 1, and the learned District Judge granted the permission. This revision challenges the said grant.2. Mr. O.V. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1987CriLJ688
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. This revision raises a nice, but important question as to the interpretation of Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short 'the Act').2. The revision arises from a proceeding Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'). The facts are these : A husband learnt a few months after his marriage that his wife was pregnant at the time of marriage. The wife gave birth to a full grown child about seven months after the marriage. As the husband refused to maintain the wife and child, a claim was made against him by the wife for maintenance allowance Under Section 125 of the Code. The claim was resisted by the husband contending, inter alia, that his marriage was null and void ab initio since his consent for marriage was obtained by fraud in that the wife concealed the vital information from him that she was pregnant through another man. His further case is that the wife had confessed to him later, after marriage, that she was pregn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1987]167ITR338(Ker); [1987]34TAXMAN66(Ker)
T. KOCHU THOMMEN J. - The petitioner is the legal representative of the deceased, Mohammed Issac Haji Moosa Sait. He challenges exhibit P-1 order in so far as it relates to a demand for payment of interest under section 32 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, in the sum of Rs. 81,982 for the period from December 17,1971, to March 31, 1979. He also challenges exhibit P-3 order of the Commissioner of Income-tax affirming exhibit P-1.The Gift-tax Officer completed the assessment on July 27, 1968, respecting the estate of the deceased and the taxable gift was determined at Rs. 4,39,600. The gift-tax payable thereon was determined at Rs. 1,57,450. A demand notice was duly served on the assessee. The assessee was allowed to pay the amount in instalments. He paid a total sum of Rs. 65,000 in instalments. In the meantime, his appeal was allowed by the first appellate authority in part by reducing the gift-tax to Rs. 15,982. As a result of this reduction, a sum of Rs. 48,580 became refundable to the asse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1987)62CTR(Ker)113; [1987]166ITR715(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The following question has been, at the instance of the Revenue, referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the bonus shares issued to and received by the donees in 1967, when the donees were in possession and enjoyment of the shares transferred to them by the assessee in 1961, are,not assessable in the hands of the assessee '2. The assessee in these two cases is the same as the assessee in ITR Nos. 197 to 200 of 1979 (CWT v. Rugmini Achi : [1987]166ITR711(Ker) ). Shares had been transferred by the assessee under the instruments of transfer considered by us in the aforesaid cases. The question which arises in this case is, however, not identical. During the period when the transfer was in force, bonus shares had been issued by the company by virtue of the shares held by the transferees. The question is, whether, subsequent to the retr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1987Ker249
Bhat, J.1. Appellant herein filed an application before the court below for permission to sue as an indigent person. Application was opposed by the second respondent, who contended that appellant has means to pay court-fee and that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of that court and therefore the court has no jurisdiction. The court below upheld the latter contention and rejected the application for 'presentation before proper court', though it was satisfied that the appellant is indigent person. This order is now challenged.2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the court below contravened the scheme underlining the provisions of Order 33of the C.P.C. and that an application can be rejected only for reasons mentioned in Rule 5. Rule 5 does not contemplate rejection of an application on account of lack of jurisdiction of the court. Learned counsel further contended that consideration of the question of jurisdiction would arise only after the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1987]166ITR711(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. Pursuant to the direction of this court in Income-tax References Nos. 197 to 200 of 1979, the following question has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, along with the supplementary statement of the case :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also considering the relevant provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the transfer of shares effected by the assessee in favour of the donees in 1961 with an obligation to retransfer in 1969 (the same has been complied with) is irrevocable and that the shares are not assessable in the hands of the assessee '2. The assessment years in question are 1965-66 to 1968-69. The Wealth-tax Officer in computing the net wealth of the assessee included certain assets being shares in companies transferred by her to her parents-in-law under two instruments both dated March 24, 1961. The very same instruments had been the subject-ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1987CriLJ1257
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. In C.C. 441 of 1981 the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kanjirappally tried three accused for offences punishable under Sections 394 and 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Third accused was acquitted. Accused 1 and 2 were convicted for the offence under Section 394 IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two months.2. Crl.A. 80/83 filed by the second accused was allowed by the Sessions Judge, Kottayam and he was acquitted. Crl.A. 81/83 filed by the first accused was partly allowed altering the conviction under S, 394 to one under Section 379 IPC and reducing the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for two years.3. Crl.A. 377/84 was filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the second accused and alteration of the head of conviction as well as reduction of sentence as against the 2nd accused. Crl. R.P. 57/84 was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1987)62CTR(Ker)109; [1987]168ITR63(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J. 1. The following 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, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the expenditure on maintenance of bungalows owned by the assessee and depreciation thereon cannot be considered under Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that only a portion of the expenditure and depreciation on motor car can be considered properly includible under Section 40A(5) and not the entire expenses? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's decision that there were no capital gains involved in the sale of rubber trees is legally and factually correct ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the subsidy received from the Rubber Board...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : II(1987)ACC436; AIR1988Ker117
Pareed Pillay, J.1. Appellant is the first respondent in O.P. (M.V.) No. 544 of 1979 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trivandrum. The appplicant filed the application for compensation in respect of an accident in which she sustained injuries. The accident is alleged to have occurred on 16-6-1977 at 11.45 a.m. while she was walking along the road. The Tribunal awarded compensation for an amount of Rs. 6,000/-holding that the accident occurred as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the 2nd respondent.2. The parties will be referred to in the judgment by their ranking before the Tribunal.3. The applicant's case is that on 16-6-1977 at about 11.45 a.m. while she was walking along the road she was hit by the scooter driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner and caused her serious injuries including fracture on the right leg. The applicant was admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum for treatment. The first respondent file...
Tag this Judgment!