Kerala Court February 1989 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.
Muraleedharan Vs. Principal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-1989
Reported in: (1989)IILLJ119Ker
Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.1. The petitioner is a candidate for admission to the part-time LL.B. (evening course) in the Government Law College, Calicut. 30% of the total number of seats are reserved for the State Government employees. It is the petitioner's case that he is a State Government employee, that he is entitled to one of the 30% seats so reserved and that he has obtained more marks than those persons who are included in that category and he has been wrongly denied admission to the LL.B (evening course). The question for consideration is whether the petitioner is a Government employee entitled to claim one of the reserved seats for admission to the first year LL.B in the Government Law College (evening), Calicut.2. The petitioner was initially appointed in the Public Health Engineering Department of the Government of Kerala. Subsequently he was transferred to the Kerala Water Authority constituted under the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986, Act 14 of 1986. The contention ...
Sivaraman Divakaran and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-06-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1501
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. All the three accused before the Sessions Judge are the appellants before us. Accused 1 and 2 were tried and convicted for murder with the aid of Section 34 and sentenced to imprisonment for life. All the three were also tried and convicted for an offence punishable under Section 201 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 4 years each. The terms of imprisonment were made concurrent for accused 1 and 2.2. Deceased is one Avarachan alias Abraham, brother of the second accused and brother-in-law of the first accused. Third accused is the first cousin of the second accused and the deceased, being the son of their father's brother. PW 1 is the sister and PW 2 is the wife of the second accused. Accused 1 and 2, their mother, deceased Abraham and PWs 1 and 2 were residing together. As usual, at about 6 p.m. on 20-10-1983, Abraham came home fully drunk. His friend PW 6 was also with him. Mother served food to both at his request. Inability of the mother t...
Lakshminarayanan Engineers and Contractors Vs. Secretary, Kerala State ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-06-1989
Reported in: [1989]178ITR230(Ker)
K. SREEDHARAN J. - The petitioner has approached this court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ to the first respondent, the Kerala State Electricity Board, to a refund of Rs. 19,539 recovered from the petitioner towards income-tax as seen from exhibits P-1 and P-2 statements, or in the alternative, to direct the first respondent to furnish to the petitioner a certificate in Form No. 19C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the amounts recovered as income-tax as shown in exhibits P-1 and P-2Notice of this petition was served on the respondents way back in 1985. The first respondent has not cared to file a counter-affidavit disputing the claims made by the petitioner. Counsel representing respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were heard.The short facts germane for the decision of the original petition are as follows : The petitioner secured a contract from the first respondent in 1973 to cut a bye-pass channel at T. I. point along the tail race system to the conflu...
Asuma Cashew Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-1989
Reported in: (1990)84CTR(Ker)198; [1990]182ITR175(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The assessee as well as the Revenue filed reference applications to refer certain questions of law for the decision of this court, which, according to them, arose out of the appellate order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal') in I. T. A. No. 249/(Coch) of 1982 dated December 16, 1983. The Tribunal has referred one question in R. A. No. 45/(Coch) of 1984, filed by the assessee and one question in R. A. No. 128/(Coch) of 1984, filed by the Revenue. We are concerned with the assessment year 1978-79. The accounting period ended on June 6, 1977. The assessee herein was engaged in the business of exporting cashew kernels. It had entered into a contract with a foreign party known as 'Hollander Trading Corporation' for supply of cashew kernels. As per the terms of the contract, the assessee did not export the nuts. It committed breach of the contract. The matter was referred to the arbitration of the Association of Food Distributors, New York, as...
Achamma George Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-1989
Reported in: (1989)79CTR(Ker)205; [1989]180ITR57(Ker)
Sukumaran, J. 1. Taxation of income in the hands of spouses has generated interesting legal questions. Even when the income was earned exclusively by, or by the profit-generating means owned by and at the command of, a person, he might endeavour to make it appear that the income or the income resources, belong to a different person. That would serve the purpose of escaping the tax burden. Human nature being what it is, there will be total loss if the person trusted in that behalf, abuses it. Such a tragic turn would not ordinarily happen, if the arrangement is with one near and dear. Perhaps, the nearest and dearest relationship is that which exists between spouses.2. Transfers of property, with a view to avoid tax, had been made, virtually on the eve of marriage so as to overreach statutory provision nullifying, for tax purposes, such transfers between spouses. Other subterfuges too have been employed for dividing the income and to reduce the impact of the tax. Governments, when alert...
Lakshmanan Sundaram Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1800
U.L. Bhat, J.1. The revision petitioner was originally convicted by the trial Court for offence under Sections 304A and 279, I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under the former count. No separate sentence was imposed under the latter count. The Sessions Judge in Crl. Appeal No. 72 of 1983 set aside the conviction and sentence and remanded the case for completion of the trial after summoning charge witnesses who were not examined and for disposal according to law. Thereafter the remaining charge witnesses were summoned and two of them who were available were examined as P.Ws. 10 and 11. The trial Court convicted the revision petitioner under Sections 304A and 279, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months more under the former count. No separate sentence was imposed under the latter count...
Union Bank of India, Ernakulam Vs. T.J. Stephen and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker180; [1989]66CompCas96(Ker)
Varghese Kalliath, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff. Plaintiff is a Bank. The suit was for recovery of an amount of Rs. 71,986.50. Plaintiff claimed that defendants are liable to pay the said amount.2. There are three defendants in this case. First defendant is the principal debtor. Defendants 2 and 3 guarantors. They have executed a continuing guarantee taking up the responsibility that they will also be liable to pay the amount to the Bank. It seems that the amount was advanced for the purchase of a fishing boat and the boat was also hypothecated by the first defendant to the Bank, by the hypothecation goods agreement dt. 21-8-1970. The defendant did not re-pay the amount due to the Bank. The Bank instituted the suit against the defendants for recovery of the amount found due as per the accounts. There is no serious contention about the quantum of liability. The first defendant did not hold out any serious contentions. After considering the contentions raised by the first def...
Suntex Private Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-1989
Reported in: 1989(22)LC177(Kerala); 1989(42)ELT559(Ker)
V.S. Malimath, C.J.1. This appeal is against the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 6439 of 1984-D. The appellant was issued Notice Ext. PI dated 19-7-1984 by the Collectorate of Customs under Section 124 of the Customs Act, requiring him to show cause why action for confiscation of the goods should not be made. He was asked to file a written statement within the time specified and to appear before the adjudicating officer when the case is fixed for hearing, failing which he was informed that the case will be decided with the evidence on record without any further hearing. This notice was challenged by the appellant in O.P. No. 6349 of 1984 filed on 24th July 1984. That writ petition came up before the learned single Judge on more than one occasion and it came to be admitted on 31st July, 1984. The Collector of Customs however passed a final order in pursuance of the notice Ext. P1 on the 27 the July, 19& as per Ext. P14, confiscating the goods covered by three bilk of en...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›