Kerala Court July 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.
Excel Rubber Products Vs. Addl. Collector of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-1989
Reported in: 1989(25)LC523(Kerala); 1989(44)ELT629(Ker)
K.T. Thomas, J.1. This Original Petition is in challenge of Ext. P8 order passed by the second respondent under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The demand made on the petitioner by the first respondent was in a sum of Rs. 76,544.40, as per Ext. P1 Order. The petitioner challenged Ext. P1 order before the second respondent by filing Ext. P2 appeal. It was during the pendency of the said appeal that an application for waiving the requirement of pre-deposit was submitted, on which Ext. P8 order has been passed. As per Ext. P8, petitioner is required to pay a sum of Rs. 20,0000/- on or before 31-7-1989.2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has not considered the abject financial stringency of the petitioner, even though Ext. P8 order mentions that the Departmental Representative has instructions to the effect that the petitioner firm has only 25 cents of land at Kothamangalam in Kerala valued at Rs. 25,000/- app...
Poovalappil David and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-26-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ2452
ORDERK. Sreedharan, J.1. Petitioners are Manager and Managing Partner respectively of 'Blue Diamond' theatre at Calicut. Sub-Inspector, Nadakavu Police Station and Probationary Sub-Inspector attached to that Station found the airconditioning unit attached to the theatre switched off while film was being exhibited in the theatre. Thereupon they registered a case for offence Under Section 420, r/w Section 34, I.P.C. After proper investigation they laid charge before Court for the said offence. Petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the charge Under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.2. A copy of the charge filed before Court is produced along with this petition as Annexure C. The averments made therein clearly bring out the ingredients of cheating as envisaged by Section 420, I.P.C.3. Learned Counsel representing the petitioners submits that the averments made in the charge will not in any circumstance spell out the ingredients of Section 420, I.P.C. Learned Counsel proceeds to stat...
Soman Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-26-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ2484
ORDERK. Sreedharan, J.1. Petitioner is convict No. 1015 detained in the Open Prison, Nettukaithiri. he is undergoing imprisonment for life. He went on parole in 1988. At that time he look with him all the money earned by him by way of wages. Therefore he could not purchase remission during 1988. After return he wants to purchase remission of the eligible days of 1988 with the earnings of 1989. This prayer of the petitioner was not conceded by the jail authorities. So he has sent a petition to this Court seeking redress of his grievance.2. Rule relating to remission in lieu of wages is contained in Kerala Prisons Rules 1958. Rule 384-A dealing with the same is in the following terms:If a prisoner wishes to have remission of sentence in lieu of wages, he may purchase the remission at the rate of 25 np. per day subject to the condition that not more than 30 days special remission by the Superintendent of the jail and 60 days by the Inspector-General of Prisons shall be so granted to any o...
In Re: Audit Report of the Travancore Devaswom Board, for the Year 196 ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker27
Paripoornan, J.1. The Examiner of Local Fund Accounts (Audit) submitted a special report relating to the audit of special funds of the Travancore Devaswom Board, insofar as it pertained to the Sabarimala Improvement Fund, for the period from 17-11-1967 to 31-3-1976. This was done in response to the orders of this Court dated 4-1-1975 (Letter No. 33/CMP/75). In paragraph 20 of the report, the audit has dealt with printing of Jyothi (Deepadakshina) Tickets, in paragraph 21 distribution of Ayyappa Jyothi (Deepadakshina) Tickets and in paragraph 22, regarding the shortage noticed in the stock of unsold Sabarimala Improvement Fund and Jyothi (Deepadakshina) Tickets received back from individuals/committees etc., and in paragraph 23 regarding the collections made by issue of tickets and protures to individuals and committees.2. When the matter came up finally before a Bench of this Court, the Division Bench, by order dated 27-3-1987, dealt with paras 20 to 23 of the Audit Report and passed t...
George Joseph Fernandez and ors. Vs. Government of India and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ker328; 1990(27)ECC237; 1989(24)LC712(Kerala)
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. Petitioners are trading in 'Outboard Motors' which they import from foreign countries and sell to users in India. Outboard motors are used for fitment with fishing boats and hence their consumers are the fishermen operating such boats for fishing operations. Duty is levied on such outboard motors under the Customs Act at the time of clearance when they reach Indian Ports. The Government of India, in exercise of power under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, issued notification dt. 27-4-1988 exempting outboard motors imported into India by 'any State Fisheries Corporation' from customs duty leviable in excess of the amount calculated at the rate of twenty five per cent ad valorem and also from the whole of the additional duty thereon payable under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The said notification is challenged in these original petitions on the ground that the exemption so granted is discriminatory, arbitrary and hence illegal. According to the petitioners, the c...
T.M. Suresh Vs. Food Inspector and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ2550
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Revision petitioner is the 2nd accused in S.T. 55 of 1986 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. He was found guilty under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 6 months and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal filed by him ended in dismissal.2. The main contention raised by the revision petitioner is that the first respondent (complainant) has not adduced any evidence other than the oral evidence of P.W. 1 to establish that Rule 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules has been complied with. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner relied on State of Maharashtra v. Rajkaran 1988 SCC (Cri) 47 and contained that failure to prove the despatch of sample and memorandum in Form VII by adducing evidence, vitiates the prosecution and the conviction is liable to be set aside on that ground. In view of the decisions of this Court in Food Inspector v. Velayudh...
Radhakrishnan Nair Vs. the Food Inspector and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ713
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Food Inspector launched prosecution for offence under Sections 2(1)(a)(m), 7(1) and 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against the accused Somanathan Nair. When the Food Inspector was about to be examined, he submitted a report before the Court that Somanathan Nair is not the person from whom the milk was purchased. In the report he stated that, the petitioner is the person who sold milk to him and the petitioner supplied false name and address to him. The learned . Magistrate accepted the report of the Food Inspector and discharged Somanathan Nair and impleaded the petitioner as the accused. Trial Court found him guilty. The appeal (Crl. A.26 of 1986) filed by him was dismissed by the lower appellate Court.2. Contention of the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate went wrong in substituting him in the place of accused Somanathan Nair mentioned in the complaint and for that there was clear lack of jurisdiction as the Prevention of Food Adult...
C.V. Jayachandran Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker3; (1990)IILLJ517Ker
ORDERChettur Sankaran Nair, J.1. This is the fourth occasion that this court had to consider the right of petitioner to carry on his business, without let or hindrance from 7th respondent and those acting under it. Petitioner is the Managing Partner of a firm 'Sarathy Motors' dealing in two and three wheelers. These are brought in doubledeck lorries from Pune and unloaded in petitioner's show room by skilled workers with the aid of a ramp. According to petitioner, of the 11 workmen, four are trained at 'Bajaj Auto Ltd.'. It is alleged that those acting under the 7th respondent, had been obstructing the work of unloading scooters, from lorries, desiring to do it themselves.2. Petitioner moved this court by O. P. 648/88 complaining of interference by 7th respondent, and by Ext. P1 judgment dated 11-2-1988 a learned Judge of this court directed Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Circle Inspector of Police and Sub Inspector of Police, Quilon to render aid to petitio...
Peramanand Gulabchand and Co. Vs. Mooligi Visanji
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker190
Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The mainpoint on which the fate of the case rests is theconstruction of an agreement between theappellant-defendant and respondent-plaintiffand marked as Ext. A1 in the suit. The trialcourt construed it as a licence. The saidfinding has been challenged in this appeal bythe defendant.2. The plaintiff the owner of a building with municipal No. 9/207 permitted the defendant to use a portion of the building and its premises subject to the terms and conditions contained in Ext, A1 agreement. The portion of the building and premises thus permitted to be used by the defendant is described in the schedule to Ext A1 as follows:'The open yard measuring 10'x 17' in front of the office room together with the said office room measuing 17' x 7'6' and the godown measuring 46'6' x 15'9' to the south of the office and Pandikasala of the licensors in premises No. 9/207 abutting Beach Road in Nagaram Amsom and Desom, Calicut City.'In Ext. A1 the plaintiff and defendant are respectivel...
Mathew Alexander Vs. Bhaskaran Pillai Sreedharan Pillai and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-1989
Reported in: 1990ACJ898; AIR1990Ker96
Krishnamoorthy, J.1. This appeal is by the petitioner in an application under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The application was for compensation for the personal injuries which he sustained on 13-1-1975. On that day he was travelling in a scooter from Thiruvalla to Chingavanam. While so a car belonging to the 2nd respondent and driven by the 1st respondent came from the opposite direction and knocked him down. He sustaied serious injuries on his legs and consequently his right lelg had to be amputated. He alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. The petitioner was aged 35. He was a businessman. He claimed an amount of Rs. 965/- towards special damages and an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards general damages, thus claiming a total amount of Rs. 20,965/- as compensation for the personal injuries sustained by him. The 2nd respondent being the owner of the vehicle was sought to be made vicariously liable and the insurer of the c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »