Kerala Court July 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.
Janardhanan Pillai Appukuttan Nair and ors. Vs. Bhagavathykutty Amma R ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker303
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff within three years of her attaining the age of majority. She challenges Ext. Al dt. 31-3-1975 executed by her parents, during her minority, in favour of the first defendant and his wife. The main contention of the plaintiff is that the sale by her parents was without obtaining the sanction of the court as required under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. That sub-section says :'(2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the Court, -- (a) .......... transfer by sale,........any part of the immovable property of the minor, or (b) ...................,.........' Sub-section (4) says :'No court shall grant permission to the natural guardian to do any of the acts mentioned in Sub-section (2) except in case of necessity or for an evident advantage to the minor.'2. Both the courts found that the sanction of the court as required under Section 8(2) had not been obtained befor...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kesava Prabhu and Sons
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-1987
Reported in: [1988]170ITR505(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. The Revenue is the petitioner herein. The respondent is a firm. It is an assessee to income-tax. The matter relates to the assessment year 1981-82. For the year 1980-81, the Income-tax Officer, after notice to the assessee-firm, cancelled the registration. For the assessment year 1981-82, the respondent was assessed as an unregistered firm. The recalcitrant conduct of the assessee in courting ex parte assessment was noticed by the Appellate Tribunal. It took the view that the assessee was a chronic defaulter in the matter of filing returns. The assessment made on the assessee was affirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. He held that there was failure on the part of the assessee which attracted Section 144 of the Income-tax Act and registration was cancelled for valid reasons. In second appeal, the Appellate Tribunal held that there was, on the part of the assessee, failure as mentioned in Section 144 of the Act. But it took the view that s...
Raghava Nadar Reghu and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1364
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. This appeal concerns a brutal murder. Nelson aged 32 sustained stab injuries with a dagger, cut injuries with a chopper and fatal blows with an iron rod. He has sustained as many as thirty injuries. He succumbed to the injuries. According to the prosecution this unfortunate event happened on 21-3-1983 at 6.45 p.m. The fateful incident commenced from the southern room of the house of the deceased Nelson. It ended in the pathway on the western side of his house.2. The prosecution alleged that the three appellants before us are responsible for the injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased. They were indicted for the offence of murder of Nelson and also for trespass under Section 452 IPC. They stood the trial before the Sessions Court, Trivandrum. They were convicted for the offence of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and for the offence of trespass under Section 452 IPC. The Sessions Court sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment...
Haridasan and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-1987
Reported in: (1988)ILLJ220Ker
Baskaran Nambiar J.1. Training may be a qualification prescribed for appointment; training may be a requirement demanded after appointment. Does the period of training affect the question of seniority under the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (K.S. & S.S.R. for short) This, therefore, is the question posed for consideration in this Writ Appeal.2. The Writ Appellants, Diploma holders in Engineering, were advised by the Public Service Commission for appointment as Instructor Grade II on 8th August, 1966. Both of them joined duty in October 1966. Respondents 3 and 4 did not apply for the post of Instructors, but applied, pursuant to a different notification, for the post of Instructor Trainees. The notification stated that the applications were invited 'for selection for training and sub sequent appointment' as Instructors. They were person appointed to a class, category or selected as trainees and advised for training in July 1966 and were subsequently appointed as Instructor...
Surendranathan Nair and ors. Vs. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer ( ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-1987
Reported in: (1988)ILLJ227Ker
ORDERPadmanabhan, J.1. In the legal battle between the Railway Administration and some of its employees the real issue is not the stake involved but establishment of rights. The employees are interested in getting established their unfettered right to avail of casual leave as they like on any day even for the purpose of launching an agitation against the Railway Administration under which they are working. The interest of the management is in preserving its rights to enforce discipline and ensure proper working of the Railways. So far as each of the employees is concerned, what he is gaining by success or losing by defeat is only a day's wages which may not be more than 50 or 55 rupees. They must have spent many multiples of that figure to fight out this case.2. 28 employees of the Railway Administration are the revision petitioners. Against the management, the employees decided to have an agitation on 2nd January 1979. On 30th December 1978 the petitioners submitted casual leave appli...
A.K.P. Haridas Vs. V.A. Madhavi Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker304
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. The short but interesting and informative question for consideration in this civil revision petition filed by the plaintiff is whether an appeal alone will lie or an application under Order 9, Rule 13 is also maintainable for getting a decree passed under Order 8, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure set aside and the suit restored to file.2. The suit was filed by the revision petitioner for injunction against the respondents. There was an application for temporary injunction in which an order of interim injunction was issued and notice ordered. Defendants entered appearance and filed objection. They also filed an application . for injunction against the plaintiff and produced several documents. Both the applications were disposed of on the merits after elaborate arguments by a detailed order on 7-6-1986. The agreements produced by the plaintiff were challenged as forged documents. Thereafter the case was adjourned for written statement to 30-10-1986. On that day ...
Swamy Brothers Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Assessment) an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-1987
Reported in: [1988]71STC233(Ker)
M.P. Menon, J. 1. The petitioner-firm is engaged in the business of buying and selling coconut oil, coir, copra, etc. Its principal place of business is in Kerala State, but it has also a branch office at Patna in Bihar. Assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act for the year 1973-74 was completed in July, 1975; but it was subsequently noticed that certain 'branch transfers' in respect of which exemption had been granted, were not really branch transfers. It was therefore proposed to rope in this escaped turnover also, and exhibit P1 detailed notice dated 16th March, 1978 under Rule 6(7) of the C. S. T. (Kerala) Rules, was served on the petitioner. The proposal was to bring to tax a turnover of over Rs. 1,00,00,000 which had allegedly escaped assessment, and to levy tax at the rate of 10 per cent, as the transactions were not covered by C forms.2. The petitioner filed exhibit P2 objections on 18th May, 1978 and on 6th December, 1978 another notice (exhibit P3) was served on the firm re...
Manager, H.M. High School Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-1987
Reported in: (1988)ILLJ300Ker
Sivaraman Nair, J.1. These two Original Petitions are filed by the senior-most High School Assistant and the Manager of H.M. High School, Vakathanam. The issue involves the appointment of the Headmaster of the school. The post fell vacant on the retirement on 31st March 1984 of the erstwhile Headmaster Sri. V.I. Abraham. The vacancy had to be filled up under Rule 44 Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Educational Rules (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Rules'). The qualifications for appointment as Headmaster of High Schools are prescribed in Rule 44-A Chapter XIV-A of the Rules. A minimum service qualification of 12 years of continuous graduate service, a pass in the test in the Kerala Education Act and the Rules, and a pass in Account Test (Lower) conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission are the qualifications prescribed for this purpose. Rule 44B(2) provides that, 'persons who attain the age of 50 years will be granted permanent exemption from passing the tests.'2. The petitio...
M. Manick Peter and ors. Vs. K. Surendranathan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-29-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker161
Balakrishna Menon, J. 1. This appeal by the defendants is against the dismissal of their application to set aside the ex parte decree passed in the suit. The suit is for recovery of Rs. 32,000/- with interest on the basis of six promissory notes executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants were duly served with summons in the suit. All the defendants entered appearance on 29-6-1984. No written statement was filed on 6-7-1984 the date fixed for the first hearing of the suit as required by Order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C. The defendants applied for time for filing written statement and the court on 6-7-1984 granted them time till 6-8-1984. The defendants on 6-8-1984 prayed for further time and the court granted time till 19-9-1984 for the defendants to file their written statement. The case was posted to 19-9-1984. No written statement was filed even on 19-9-1984. The defendants and their counsel were absent and the court on the same day pronounced judgment under Order V...
Parthas Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-29-1987
Reported in: [1988]169ITR334(Ker)
K. Sukumakan, J.1. Trusts have fought pitched battles in the tax fields. The law reports present pictures of many such fights between the assessee and the Revenue. Authoritative text books on trusts or charities now devote substantial space for discussion of taxation problems of the trust. Underbill notes :' The law relating to a trustee's liability for such taxes is so massive and detailed that examination of these matters should proceed from the standard works on the various taxes. ' (See Under hill's Law of Trusts and Trustees, thirteenth edn., by David J. Hayton at page 358).2. Yet at page 398, that book itself provides a topic ' Tax Avoidance ' and states :'The question how far the necessary benefit, if financial, may be obtained at the expense of the revenue--how far, in other words, the court will approve arrangements solely or principally designed to save tax --is in some respects a difficult one. '3. Settlement Trusts of Chapman (No. 2) [1959] 2 All ER 47 , Drewe [1966] 2 All ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »