Kerala Court January 1991 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. O.T. Alexander
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR30(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. 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 assessee is entitled to the deduction of the provision for the payment of purchase tax ?'2. The respondent, an individual, is an assessee under the Income-tax Act. We are concerned with the assessment year 1981-82. Annexure-A assessment order dated September 13, 1984, for the year 1981-82, sent along with the statement of the case, shows that the accounting period ended on December 31, 1980. So, the previous year for the assessment year 1981-82 should be January 1, 1980 to December 31, 1980. The assessee pleaded that he is entitled to make a provision in the sum of Rs. 3,21,256 towards purchase tax liability for the year. It was allowed by the Income-tax Officer. In proceedings under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act (suo motu revision) by the Commissioner of ...
State of Kerala Vs. Naduveettil Viswanathan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1501
P.K. Shamsuddin, J.1. This appeal is filed by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the Court of Sessions, Kozhikode in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1986. Respondent accused was charge sheeted for offences under Sections 449, 392 and 302, I.P.C. The Court below acquitted the accused of all the offences.2. An old and affluent lady by name Manikkam, possessed of jewels and cash, was residing in her house at Beypore amsom, Naduvattam desom. The occurrence took place in the night of 29/30th November, 1985 at about 2 a.m. On the morning of 30-11-1985, one Venu went to P.W. 1 Jayadevan, nephew of deceased and told him that Manikkam died. On receipt of this information, P.W. 1 went to Manikkam's house and found Manikkam lying dead in the Veranda. He also found a gold chain of 11/2 sovereign and two rolled gold bangles worn by deceased missing. He went to Meenchanda Police Station and gave Ext. P1 first information statement, which was recorded by P.W. 21 prepared Ext. P1(a) first (info...
Treesa Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1920
K.T. Thomas, J.1. Deceased Vincent was a young advocate whose practice was mainly in the District Centre, Ernakulam. His death was suspected to be a murder. After investigation his wife was indicted for the murder and also for giving false information regarding the incident in order to screen herself from legal punishment. The Sessions Court acquitted her of murder charge, but convicted her for the offence under Section 201 of the Penal Code and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. She filed the appeal challenging the conviction and sentence.2. When the appeal was heard by a learned single Judge of this Court, it was contended for the appellant that the offence under Section 201 of the I.P.C. cannot be found without establishment of the main offence. The State has not filed any appeal against acquittal for the main offence. However, revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been initiated by the learned single Judge against the order of acquittal. We heard arg...
The Food Inspector Vs. M.V. Alu and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2174
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. Appellant is the Food Inspector. In S. T. No. 36 of 1988 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad, he prosecuted three persons. Third accused is the manufacturer. Second accused is the dealer and the first accused is the salesman of the second accused. First accused was absconding and the case against him was split up. The sample involved is Roja Sugandha Supari powder. Ext. P. 19 certificate from the Central Food Laboratory and Ext. P-17 report of the public analyst, which was superseded by Ext. P-19, are to the effect that the sample is adulterated because it contains saccharine, which is a prohibited item. Second accused was tried for having dealt with and sold the adulterated food item and that too without licence and the third accused was tried for its manufacture and distribution. All accused were acquitted. Grounds of acquittal included violations of Sections. 10(7) and 11. The Magistrate was also of the opinion that there cannot be any question of adu...
S. Karunambran and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ker316
ORDERK.A. Nayar, J. 1. This writ petition is for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P4 order reducing the commission due to the petitioners as illegal, unjust and wrong, for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the commission to the petitioners at the rates prescribed in Ext. P2 revision including the arrears collected from the date of Ext. P2, and also for a direction to dispose of Exts. P5, P6 and P7 representations.2. Petitioners are handicapped persons incapable of doing normal wage earning work. They have taken advantage of the benefit offerred to them by the Government of India for running public telephone booth on a commission basis. For this purpose, they entered into an agreement, Ext. P3 is the pro forma of the agreement entered into between the petitioners and the Government of India. The 1st clause of the agreement reads as under:'l. The part of the second part hereby confirm that he/she gone through the Indian Telegraph Rules and agrees to abide by the rules...
E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Premier Timber Supplies
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1991
Reported in: [1991(63)FLR861]; (1993)IIILLJ886Ker
Jagannadha Raju, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation the first respondent in Insurance Case No. 73 of 1983 against the judgment dated 24.10.1985 in I.C. No. 73 of 1983 on the file of the Employees' Insurance Court, Alleppey.2. The appellant, a partnership firm running Premier Saw Mills and Premier Timber Supplies filed Insurance Case No. 73 of 1983. It is a contention of the applicant that Premier Saw Mills is an establishment covered by the ESI Scheme, and that contributions are being remitted by the applicant regularly. It is claimed that the Premier Timber Supplies is a different and separate unit, and the effort of the first respondent to treat it as part and parcel of Premier Saw Mills and cover the employees of the Premier Timber Supplies is not proper. It is also claimed that the Insurance Inspector's claim regarding non-payment of contribution towards certain amounts is not correct. These amounts are classified as labour charges, and they a...
Raheeda Vs. T. Prakash and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1991
Reported in: 1(1996)ACC447
U.L. Bhat J.1. On 10.5.1983, appellant Rasheeda, minor then aged 31/2 years along with her elder sister Safia was standing on the southern side of the road leading from In kkur town to Irikkur bus stand in front of Government Dispensary. At that time bus KLN 5709 belonging to the first respondent, insured by the third respondent and driven by the second respondent came from east to west and hit Rasheeda causing injuries. She was taken in a jeep to Government Hospital, Irlkkur, from there to District Hospital, Cannanore and finally to Medical College Hospital, Calicut. An operation was performed on her. Her right leg was amputated at that time. She was discharged on 10.8.1983. Even subsequently she was taken on several occasions to Medical College Hospital for treatment. She was in crutches at the time of filing the petition and unable to move because of pain. She had become permanently disabled. Alleging that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the b...
Smt. Kamalu Itty and ors. Vs. Asst. Dist. Industries Officers and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-17-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Ker405
ORDERK.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The petitioners are promoters of the society formed for the benefit of harijans. They however are not harijans. Clause 6(1) of the Bye-laws of the society provides that the membership is restricted to harijans who arc unemployed and capable of doing work and residing within the jurisdiction of the society. To put it differently only harijans who are unemployed and residing within the jurisdiction of the society can aspire to become members of the society.2. Having come to know that the petitioners are not harijans though they had married harijans, the Registrar of the industrial Co-operative Societies issued notice to the petitioners calling upon them to show cause as to why they should not be expelled from the membership. Ext. P4 is the reply the petitioners gave to the show-cause notice. The Registrar was not satisfied with the explanation and this resulted in the issuance of Ext. P5 order which is under challenge in this O.P.3. The learned counsel ...
Nanu Vasudevan Vs. Kalikarthiayaniamma and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Ker253
Sukumaran, J. 1. Section 32 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act has been interpreted differently byjudges of this Court. The conflict of views and the resulting confusion, understandably dim the vision of those having the duty to decide. Justice Kader noted the discomforting discord in the judicial opinion and made an order of reference on 21-3-1984. We have to, and therefore proceed to, answer it. 2. The section which generated discord in judicial voice appears simple, at any rate at the first blush. Let us extract it : 'During the pendency of an application for determination of fair rent before a Land Tribunal, no Court shall entertain any suit for eviction of the applicant from the holding to which the application relates, or pass any order of injunction prohibiting him from entering the holding or pass any order staying the proceedings before the Land Tribunal.' 3. The first interpretation came from Krishna Iyer, J. when he was sitting in this Court : Kadir Mohammed v. Augusthy Varghese...
State of Kerala Vs. Mohanan Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-1991
Reported in: II(1991)DMC10
Thomas, J.1. As Chandrika, a housewife, committed suicide by burning herself, her husband is indicted for 'dowry death'. Sessions Court, before which he was tried for the offence, acquitted him. This appeal by the State is in challenge of the said order of acquittal.2. Marriage between the accused and Chandrika, was solemnised on 25.1.1984. Parents of Chandrika gave her fifteen sovereigns of gold in the form of ornaments besides cash worth Rs. 5,000/- at the time of her marriage. Within six months, an item of landed property (fifty cents in extent) was also transferred in her name as party of her dowry Husband and wife and their little child were living together in a building constructed by him. Though they received some more financial help from Chandrika's parents for construction of the house, they incurred some debts before completion of the house construction. So, the couple wanted the landed property to be disposed of to raise funds in order to clear off the liability. They used t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »