Kerala Court July 1990 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.
Valiyakathodi Mohammed Koya Vs. Ramamoorthy Mohan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC444
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. Appellant is a boy aged 12 years. He met with an accident. It was on 24.2.1984 at about 9.30 a.m. The unfortunate event happened under these circumstances. Appellant was walking along the side of a road. A bus which was stationary was in the process a alighting passengers. A moving bus behind the static bus was trying to go forward. Meanwhile, a car driven by the 1st respondent herein wanted to overtake both the buses. This was done with utmost carelessness and with high speed. In this process, the car hit the appellant and he sustained injuries.2. Respondents 1 and 2 contested the matter by filing a written statement. The case of the respondents is that the accident was unavoidable and it was inevitable. This they said on the basis that the boy-the appellant wanted to cut across the road from the front side of the first bus and he did it suddenly and in that process, the boy collided with the left mud guard portion of the car. The driver of the car stopped the ...
P.C. Gopinathan Nair Vs. Paramu Pillai Appu Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ker16; [1992]75CompCas263(Ker)
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Defendant is the appellant. He challenges the judgment and decree in O.S. 76 of 1979 of the Sub Court, Trivandrum. Plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for realisation of Rs. 12,154/- with 12% interest from the defendant. Plaintiff contended that defendant had borrowed Rupees 12,154/- from him on 18-1-1977 and agreed to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum. Despite repeated demands defendant did not care to return the amount.2. Defendant filed written statement denying the transaction and contending that there was no necessity for him to obtain a loan from the plaintiff, a labourer. The executionof the promissory note is denied by him.3. The promissory note produced along with the plaint was found not admissible in evidence as it was not duly stamped. The suit was decreed on the original cause of action.4. There are sufficient averments in the plaint that the suit is based on original cause of action. As the promissory note was executed by the defendant...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. K.C. Moosa Haji
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR277(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. The matter arises under the Estate Duty Act. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in reducing the value of the teak wood plantation by about 85% despite the offer made by the assessee to have it valued at a higher figure ?'2. The proceedings arise out of the estate duty assessment in respect of the estate of late Shri Kakkodam Mammu Haji. The respondent herein is anaccountable person of the deceased. Kakkodam Mammu Haji died on July 13, 1968. Amongst others private forest lands in Wynad are one of the assets left by the deceased. The deceased had converted 691 acres into teak plantations. Initially, permission was obtained for clear-felling in 1954 of 50 acres. In the subsequent years also, permission was given and the total area cleared was 691 acres. This was covered by tea...
Dadha Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-1990
Reported in: [1991]81STC254(Ker)
D.J. Jagannadha Raju, J.1. This is a revision by the assessee against the order dated 18th April, 1989 in T.A. No. 1173 of 1987 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam. We are concerned with the assessment year 1982-83. The background in which the revision has been filed (briefly stated) is as follows : The revision-petitioner is a dealer in allopathic drugs, tarpaulin, etc. The petitioner, treating the tarpaulin as an unclassified item taxable at multi-point at 4 per cent, collected the tax at that rate from the customers and paid it to the Government. The assessment for the year 1982-83 was made treating tarpaulin as an unclassified item chargeable at 4 per cent. The assessment order was passed on 28th January, 1984. The Deputy Commissioner, Ernakulam, acting suo motu under Section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, invited objections of the petitioner, and then relying upon a clarification issued by the Government in G.O. (R) No. 60/86...
Modi Rubber Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-1990
Reported in: [1991]81STC225(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. These are connected cases. The same assessee is the revision-petitioner in both these revisions. The petitioner is a company carrying on the business of manufacture of automobile tyres, tubes, etc., at Modinagar with the branch office at Ernakulam. One of the products sold by it is rubber flaps. It is stated to be a sheet of rubber used for placing between the metal rim of the wheel and the rubber tube inside the tyre of a motor vehicle so as to give better protection to the tube from damage. These flaps are usually used for heavy vehicles. We are concerned with the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. Originally, the assessments were made treating the rubber flaps manufactured and sold by the revision-petitioner as a rubber product coming within entry 39 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('the KGST Act'), viz., 'rubber products other than those specifically mentioned in the Schedule'. It was so taxed at the point of first sale at t...
Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd., Calicut Vs. Assistant Co ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Ker354; 1991(31)ECC60; 1990LC340(Kerala); 1991LC815(Kerala); 1991(51)ELT270(Ker)
ORDER1. Petitioner seeks to quash Ext. P5 order (in part) made by the 1st respondent confirmed in appeal by Ext. P7 by 2nd respondent, and affirmed in a second appeal, by 3rd respondent Tribunal by Ex. P9. Petitioner claimed exemption from excise duty on 'trade discount'. Petitioner was found eligible to get exemption. However, for the period 1-3-75 and 14-3-76 refund was not granted, on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation. For the succeeding period refund was granted.2. The Department kept the application for refund Ext. P1, pending for a while awaiting decision on a similar claim. By Ext. P2(e) the Appellate Collector, Madras found that duty was not leviable on 'trade discount', in the related matter. Following the decision in Ext. P2(e), refund was allowed, but not for the period between 1-3-75 and 14-3-76, on the ground of delay in making the claim, as already noticed.3. According to respondents, the claim for refund cannot be entertained beyond the period prescribed...
Narayanan Vs. Pushparajini and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ker10
P. Krishnamoorthy, J.Plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for partition and recovery of 5/ 32 shares of the plaintiff in plaint schedule properties. The properties belonged to oneSri. Madhavan, who was the son of Ayyappan. Ayyappan had two wives namely, Kunhimalu alias (sic) Madhavi and Kalyani. Plaintiff is the son and defendants 4 and 5 daughters of Ayyappan through his first wife Kunhimalu. Madhavan is a son and defendants 1 to 3 daughters of Ayyappan through his second wife Kalyani. In 1964, the legal heirs executed a registered partition in respect of the joint properties and the plaint schedule properties were allotted to Sri. Madhavan and his mother Madhavi. Madhavi died in 1970. After her death, her half share also devolved on Madhavan and defendants 1 to 3. Madhavan died in 1975 leaving no wife or children to inherit his properties. The plaintiff, who is a half brother of Sri. Madhavan, has filed this suit for partition and recovery of 5/32 shares in the plaint schedule pro...
The Manager, Corporate Educational Agency, Diocese of Palai and Etc. E ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Ker356
Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. All these original petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, involve a common question as to the right of a religious minority to appoint Headmasters of its choice, irrespective of seniority, in educational institutions established and administered by it. The minority concerned in these cases is Christian community. The minority educational agencies in question, who have established and are administering various educational institutions in the State, have been required by the authorities functioning under the Kerala Education Act, 1958 (Act 6 of 1959) and the Rules framed thereunder, to appoint Headmasters in these institutions in accordance with seniority, as enjoined by Rule 44 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules (the Rules, for short). The contention of the minority educational agencies who have filed these original petitions (except O.P. No. 4795 of 1989) (in some cases, along with their appointee Headmasters) is that Rule 44 makes an inroad ...
T.P.K. Nair Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ker80
1. Plaintiff appeals. He was selected by the Government of India for appointment to a post having the pay scale of Rs. 2,500-3,000, but appointed in another post, as Chairman of the Marine products Export Development Authority in the scale of pay of Rs. 2,000-2,500 fixing his pay at the maximum of Rs. 2,500.00. He says that the Minister concerned offered to appoint him on a pay of Rs. 3,000.00. He worked from 24-1-1973 up to 16-2-1977 and then resigned. While in service, he subscribed to the provident fund, which he claims to be contributory. His claims are:a) Rs. 500.00 per month as salary for the period in service;b) Contributory provident fund amount; andc) Gratuity.2. Contributory nature of the provident fund and entitlement to gratuity are denied on the basis of the Central Government Rules. The alleged offer for Rs. 3,000/- was also denied. Main contention was that the suit is barred by limitation.3. All the claims were found against and the suit dismissed mainly on the ground of...
National Textile Corporation Vs. Pakistan National Shipping Corporatio ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC348
Padmanabhan, J.1. First defendant is the ship owner and carrier of a consignment of 600 bales of cotton from Karachi to Kochi under Ext. A1 bill of lading on 30-9-1981. The vessel reached Kochi Port on 6.11.1981 and the goods discharged by the second week of November. First plaintiff is the consignee and second plaintiff is the insurer. Second defendant is the agent of the first defendant. From the Port, the goods were delivered in lots to the agent of the first plaintiff from November onwards. The last lot was made available for delivery after fumigation on 9.1.1982. At (hat time, 12 bales were found damaged and re-packed in gunny bags. Second defendant was informed and a joint survey conducted by the first plaintiff and second defendant. Shortage of 1, 465.59 kgs. worth Rs. 22, 086.00/- was found. Second plaintiff settled the claim for Rs. 21, 738.40/- with the first plaintiff. Suit is for realisation of that amount with interest and cost.2. Defendants claimed to have discharged the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »