Kerala Court September 1988 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.
K.P. Ulahannan and ors. Vs. the Wandoor Jupiter Chits (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-06-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker41; [1989]65CompCas178(Ker)
Balakrishna Menon, J. 1. These appeals are against the respective decrees passed by the learned company Judge on the claims instituted by the official Liquidator in Company Petition No. 17/1973 in the matterof the Wandoor Jupiter Chits (P) Ltd. in liquidation. The claims were under Section 446(2)(b) Companies Act, 1956 and related to amounts due from the respective respondents to the company in liquidation on kuries bid and payments received by them. The only plea raised by the respondents-appellants in these appeals is one of limitation. The winding up of the company had commenced on 1-10-1973 and a winding up order was passed on 20-12-1973. The claim in all these cases was filed on 28-12-1978. There is no dispute that the claim was alive on the date of the winding up order. According to the appellants the exclusion of time for the purpose of limitation under Section 458A Companies Act, cannot relate to any period prior to the winding up order.2. The learned Company Judge following th...
R. Saraswathy Vs. P. Bhavathy Ammal and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-06-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker228
ORDERK.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. The plaintiff in a suit for the grant of Letters of Administration of the will annexed to the plaint is the revision petitioner. 2. The trial of the suit, it is said, is virtually over. What remains to be done is to argue the matter. It was at this stage the petitioner moved I. A. 1384/88 for sending Exts. A3 and B1 along with Exts. X1 to X8 to a handwriting expert for his opinion, regardingthe identify of the signature of the testator seen in Exts. B1 and A3, the two wills relied on by the parties in support of their respective contentions. Exts. X1 to X8 are documents which, it is alleged, contain the signature of the testator. 3. The question arising for consideration is : is the opinion of an expert as regards the signature of a testator relevant to decide the issue, whether a will has validly been executed? The point involved in the question is not covered by any direct authority, the learned counsel for the parties say, and therefore the point ...
Suresh Shenoy Vs. CochIn Stock Exchange Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-05-1988
Reported in: [1989]65CompCas240(Ker)
S. Padmanabhan, J. 1. Cochin Stock Exchange Ltd. (the company) is the sole respondent. One of its members who is also a trader in shares is the petitioner. The prayer is to wind up the company on the ground that it is unable to pay its debts. The prayer is opposed mainly on the ground that Rs. 46,143 claimed by the petitioner is not a debt due from the company and that the petition is only a pressure tactic.2. Till August 17, 1987, trading members of the company were directly buying and selling shares in the premises of the company. With effect from August 17, 1987, a settlement procedure was adopted by which the transactions of buying and selling shares and clearance of liabilities were made through the intervention of the company. Settlement period was fixed as 14 days. Settlement is not on the basis of individual dealings. The entire purchases and sales of a member for that period will be taken into account and the balance struck. The company collects and pays on the basis of detail...
K. Chellappan Pillai and anr. Vs. Canara Bank and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-01-1988
Reported in: [1991]71CompCas584(Ker)
Shamsuddin, J.1. Defendants Nos. 1 and 3 in O. S. No. 127 of 1979 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Mavelikkara, are the appellants.2. The suit was filed by the first respondent herein for money due under a cash credit account and mortgage loan account. The first defendant took these loans for expansion of his concern, Elite Radio and Electronic Components at Mararikulam Mini Industrial Estate after executing demand promissory notes, agreement of hypothecations of movables and an equitable mortgage. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are co-obligants. The hypothecation agreement was executed by the first defendant on March 10, 1976. On the same day, all the defendants executed another agreement. The demand promissory note was executed on the next day. The third defendant created an equitable mortgage in favour of the plaintiff. As per the loan account as on August 5, 1976, the first defendant was given financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 17,166.83, and the amount due to the b...
K. Viswanathan Nair Vs. the Drugs Inspector and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-01-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ540
K.T. Thomas, J.1. Appellant is a licensed retailer carrying on retail business in pharmaceutical drug and medicinal formulations in his medical shop 'M/s. Ajaya Medicat' at Pattannakkad. The Special Court (for trial of offences under Essential Commodities Act) convicted him for the offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) Essential Commodities Act, (for short 'the Act') read with Clauses 21 and 22, Drugs (Prices Control) Order 1979 (for short 'the Order') and sentenced him to imprisonment and fine.2. The case was instituted on a complaint filed by a Drugs Inspector against the appellant and his Pharmacist for selling a formulation called 'Sodium Salicylate' for a price much in excess of the maximum retail price permitted by the Order. The trial court acquitted the Pharmacist but convicted the appellant and sentenced him as aforesaid.3. A consumer (P. W. 2) purchased sixty grams of Sodium Salicylate from the shop of the appellant on 7-6-1986 for a price of Rs. 19.20. P.W. 2 had reasons to beli...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›