Kerala Court August 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.
Bharathi Amma and ors. Vs. Kumaran Peethambaran and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-11-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker88
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. Plaint A schedule property, covered by Ext. A1 mortgage in favour of the first defendant, is 45 1/2 cents. B Schedule 20 cents forming part of A schedule was sub-mortgaged by the first defendant to the plaintiff under Ext. A2 in 1961. C schedule is the balance 251/2 cents in the possession of the first defendant. After purchasing the equity of redemption from the jenmies in 1967 under Ext. A3, plaintiff sued the first defendant for redemption in O.S. No. 277 of 1970. After reference to the Land Tribunal, the claim of tenancy put forward by the first defendant was accepted and the suit dismissed. The decree was confirmed in appeal, evidenced by Exts. B1 and B2. There was no second appeal. Under the Debt Relief Act, the first defendant filed O.P. No. 11 of 1971 to redeem F,xt. A2 sub-mortgage for B schedule property against the plaintiff. The claim of the plaintiff for fixity of tenure under the Land Reforms Act was rejected after reference to the Land Tribunal reser...
Maniyan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-11-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2515
K.G. Balakrishnan, J. 1. The appellant was tried by the Sessions Court, Kottayam for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. He has been convicted by the Sessions Court for the offence under Section 304 Part II, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for a period of 7 years.2. Deceased Chandikunju is a tea shop owner. On 6-7-86 he had gone to his parents' house as he wanted some financial assistance from his father. He had his supper from the family house and he returned to his place of abode in the evening. He had to walk through a field bund. There were cocunut trees in the field bund, and some of them were used for toddy tapping. It is alleged by the prosecution that on his way back deceased Chandikunju stealthily consumed some toddy from the 'matom' (an earthern pot kept on the tree for collecting toddy) kept in one of the trees. By about 10.30 p.m. he reached his house and told his wife (PW 5) that he had taken supper from his father's house and so saying ...
Mathen Mathai Vs. General Manager, K.S.R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-1989
Reported in: 1990ACJ73; AIR1990Ker92
Bhat, J.1. Appellant herein represented by his son and next friend filed claim petition before the M.A.C. Tribunal, Alleppey seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident on the allegation that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle, namely, K.S.R.T.C. bus KLX 1705. The driver remained ex parte. K.S.R.T. Corporation and the State Insurance Officer denied rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and alleged that the accident occurred because appellant was walking without caring for his own safety and crossed the road negligently. They also contended that the petition was not maintainable inasmuch as provisions of Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to proceedings before the Tribunal. They challenged the quantum of compensation claimed. The Tribunal upheld the contentions of the respondents and dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal.2. One of the main ...
Pankaj Agencies Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-1989
Reported in: [1990]77STC14(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. Identical questions of law arise for consideration in these two cases. The revisions are filed by an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (in short, 'the Act'). They are filed against a common order dated 8th December, 1987, rendered by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in sales tax appeals Nos. 530 and 531 of 1984, for the assessment years, 1982-83 and 1983-84. The assessments relate to the period April to November for the year, 1983-84, and the assessment for the whole year, 1982-83. Both are provisional assessments. 'Nirma' is a widely marketed washing powder. The petitioner (assessee) is engaged in the sale of 'Nirma'. The sole controversy that arises for consideration is whether 'Nirma' can be taxed under entry 82 of the First Schedule to the Act, or will it attract liability only at the general rate under Section 5 of the Act ?2. Entry 82 of the First Schedule to the Act provides as follows ; 'Goods in respect of which single point tax is leviable...
Mathew Mathai Vs. General Manager K.S.R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-1989
Reported in: II(1989)ACC550
Bhat, J.1. Appellant herein represented by his son and next friend Sled claim petition before the M.A.C. Tribunal, Alleppey seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident on the allegation that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle, namely K.S.R.T.C. bus KLX 1705. The driver remained ex-parte. K.S.R.T. Corporation and the State Insurance Officer denied rashness of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and alleged that the accident occurred because appellant was walking without caring for his own safety and crossed the road negligently. They also contended that the petition was not Maintainable inasmuch as provisional of Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to proceedings before the Tribunal. They challenged the quantum of compensation claimed. The Tribunal upheld the contentions of the respondents and dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal.2. One of the Main c...
Paramu Radhakrishnan Vs. Bharathan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-09-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker146
1. Plaintiff is the appellant. His suit for injunction to restrain the defendant from trespassing into the plaint schedule property was dismissed by the Munsiff and it has been confirmed by the District Judge. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule property having an extent of 7 1/2 cents which is a purambokc land is in his possession for the past 20 years, that he has made valuable improvements in it, that he has constructed a building and that he has been residing there. Defendant contended that the property belonged to Paramu, father of the plaintiff and the defendant, that as per the will Ext. B1 three cents of property on the eastern side has been allotted to him and that he is in possession of the same. It is conceded by the defendant that 4 1/2 cents of property is in the possession of the plaintiff.2. Learned District Judge held that the defendant is a co-owner of the property along with the plaintiff and so the plaintiff is not entitled to the injunction prayed ...
George Paul Puthuran Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR438(Ker)
K.A. Nayar, J.1. As required by this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, referred the following questions of law at the instance of the assessee :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that an appeal lies to the Tribunal from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under Section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was no mistake apparent from the record in the original orders passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and consequently in cancelling the rectification orders ?' 2. The matter arises out of the wealth-tax assessments for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 for which the valuation dates are August 16, 1966, August 16, 1967, and August 16, 1968, respectively. Assessments for the years 1967-68 and 1968-69 were originally completed on March 31, 1970, and ...
Sales Tax Officer and ors. Vs. Ragam Plastics and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-1989
Reported in: [1990]77STC313(Ker)
K. A. Nayar, J.1. The respondents in the original petition are the appellants. The petitioners in the original petition are small-scale industrial units set up after 1st April, 1979. They are registered dealers engaged in the manufacture of plastic bags and covers and rigid PVC pipes and selling the same. The main raw material for the manufacture of plastic bags, covers, etc., is the plastic granules which is taxable at 8 per cent under entry 145 of the First Schedule to the Sales Tax Act. The assessees' units were entitled to the benefits of the Government Order S.R.O. No. 968 of 1980 under which all small-scale industrial units set up after 1st April, 1979, are entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax on the turnover of the sale of goods produced and sold by them for a period of five years from the date of commencement of sales of such goods by them subject to the limit prescribed therein of which we are not concerned. Therefore, the goods manufactured and sold by the assessee...
Secretary, K.S.E.B., Trivandrum Vs. M. Sainaba and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-07-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker50; MANU/KE/0009/1990
ORDERVarghese Kalliath, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition raises the question whether a suit is maintainable against the Electricity Board and Authorities thereunder for taking certain action which is said to be mala fide and without proper authority. The suit was instituted for a mandatory and a prohibitory injunction for directing the defendants to remove the two electric posts already put up in the plaintiffs property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from drawing up electric line through or across the plaintiffs property. The suit was resisted taking several contentions. One of the contentions raised is that the suit is not maintainable. This question was considered as a preliminary issue and the Court found that the suit is maintainable. Now the 1st defendant, the Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum has filed this Civil Revision Petition.2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the provisions contained in Section 56 of the E...
Smt. T.K. Santha and ors. Vs. Smt. A.G. Rathnam and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-04-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker69
P. Krishnamoorthy, J. 1. Second Appeal No. 80 of 1983 is by the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 83/76 of the Sub Court, Badagara (originally filed as O.S. No. 160/75 on the file of the Munsiff s Court, Payyoli). Second Appeal No. 107 of 1983 is by the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 in O.S. No. 34/75. O.S. No. 83/76 is for specific performance of an agreement of sale and O.S. No. 34/75 is a suit for partition. The subject-matter in both the suits being the same, they were jointly tried. In order to understand the controversy in the appeals it is necessary to state the facts. I shall refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the partition suit viz., O.S. No. 34/75. The suit property in the partition suit belonged in common to three persons Dr. Raghavan, Sri Kanaran and Sri Kunhikannan who purchased the same under the sale deed Ext. Al dated 17-7-1957 for a consideration of Rs. 300/-. Under Ext. B44 sale deed dated 15-2-1966, one-third right of Kunhikannan was assigned to one Mohan-das, Adv...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »