Kerala Court December 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.
Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. K. Meenakshy Kanikan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-1991
Reported in: [1994]81CompCas490(Ker)
G.H. Guttal, J.1. The question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner, a scheduled bank as defined in the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, is 'a corporation' or 'any other financial agency not being a private agency' within the meaning of Clause (c) of Section 3 of the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Clause (c) of Section 3 of the Act lists the entities to whom the Act does not apply. The question arises out of the facts stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 below.2. I. The facts.--The petitioner instituted Suit No. 280 of 1976, for recovery of Rs. 71,836.66 secured through mortgage of lands of the respondents. A final decree was made. In E. P. No. 182 of 1979, the property of the respondents was brought to sale. However, the respondents filed E. A. No.414 of 1981, for postponement of the sale under Rule 83 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it was dismis...
Mary W/O Thomas and anr. Vs. Mathew Joseph and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ker305
ORDERL. Manoharan, J.1. Defendants 2 and 4 in O.S.No. 161 of 1987 are the revision petitioners. They filed LA. 1329 of 1988 stating that the maintainability of the suit has to be heard as preliminary issue. Additional issue No. 4 is as to the maintainability of the suit. Lower Court found that the said issue concerns a mixed question of law and fact which requires evidence and hence has to be tried along with the other issues. The said order is under challenge in the Civil Revision Petition.2. Suit for declaration of the plaintiffs right of easement of way over the plaint B schedule property, for a mandatory injunction to remove the obstruction created by defendants 2 and 4 in the B schedule property, and for a prohibtory injunction against the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff plying lorry through the B schedule property. One of the contentions of defendants 2 and 4 in their written statement was, after document dated 18-6-1983, plaintiff has no right or title over the plaint ...
K.K. Pavithran Vs. P.K. Gopalan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-16-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ999
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J. 1. First respondent filed O.P. (MV) 917 of 1980 before the 5th respondent, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Eraakulam claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him due to an accident involving jeep KLZ 3640 belonging to the petitioner and driven by the 2nd respondent. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by Exh. P-3, judgment dated 7.8.1991, passed an award for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with 6 per cent interest against the petitioner and the second respondent. Thereafter the petitioner filed a review petition before the Claims Tribunal. As the petitioner could not produce the driving licence of the second respondent before the Claims Tribunal, it held that the entire amount awarded has to be paid by the petitioner and the second respondent. Petitioner's contention is that as he could produce the driving licence of the second respondent the petition is that the liability can only be on the third respondent insurance company and considering the fact that t...
Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-1991
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR110]; (1995)IIILLJ703Ker
Balakrishnan, J. 1. The petitioner is a manufacturer and distributor of drugs, pharmaceutical, food products and laboratory chemicals. Medical representatives are employed by the petitioner for the purpose of canvassing sale of products. One T.L. Kuriakose was a medical representative of the petitioner-company. Being a medical representative he was required to call on doctors, hospitals, stockists, chemists and druggists and to take efforts to canvass, promote and push sales of the company's products. In exercise of the powers and discretion vested in the petitioner-company under the terms of appointment, the petitioner used to transfer the medical representatives from one centre to another, in February, 1980 white Kuriakose was working as medical representative at Calicut he was transferred to Bijapur in the State of Karnataka. Kuriakose wanted to remain in the home State. So he applied to review the transfer order, but his application was rejected and he was informed that in the even...
J.M.F. Sea Foods, Alleppey and ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., A ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ker202
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. Suit was one for money due under an insurance policy. The brief facts are these:2. First plaintiff is a partnership. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are partners of first plaintiff. Plaintiffs are the owners of a fishing vessel named Seagull. Syndicate Bank was the financiers of the vessel and at the instance of the financiers, the vessel was insured with the defendant -- the National Insurance Company -- for Rs. 1,50,000/-. The defendant issued a policy.3. Plaintiffs' case is that the vessel was anchored near Alleppey Port on 12-2-1980, after the day's fishing operation. On 13-2-1980, the crew of the vessel wanted to take the vessel for fishing. They found the vessel missing and they immediately reported the matter to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs informed this matter to the defendant, Police and Port Authorities on 13-2-1980. It is alleged that the plaintiffs made extensive enquiries at Quilon,Thottappally, Cochin etc. Plaintiffs came to know lat...
Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-1991
Reported in: I(1992)ACC701; 1992ACJ707
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed the suit for compensation against the Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi, Central Railway and Southern Railway for non-delivery of certain goods entrusted to the railway for transportation. Plaintiff claimed a total amount of Rs. 1,63,926.07 as damages. According to the plaintiff, the total value of the goods consigned and entrusted with the railway was Rs. 1,02,496.77. Plaintiff added along with that amount, an amount of Rs. 58,255.54 towards interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum on Rs. 97,092.57 for the period from 5/1980 to 8/1983. Further, the plaintiff claimed an amount of Rs. 2,837.21 as interest at the rate of 18 per cent on Rs. 5,404.20 for the period from 10/1980 to 8/1983. Plaintiff also added some incidental expenses like T.A. and D.A. for the plaintiff's employees, an amount of Rs. 236.55 and notice charges Rs. 100/-. Thus the plaintiff claimed a tot...
Seariah Varghese Vs. Varghese Marykutty and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-1991
Reported in: II(1991)DMC262
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant. Defendant is the husband of the 1st plaintiff. The 2nd plaintiff is the minor child of the 1st plaintiff and the defendant.2. Suit was one for return of the streedhanam amount paid to the defendant by the parents of the 1st plaintiff. According to the 1st plaintiff, on the date of betrothal, the father of the 1st plaintiff promised an amount of Rs. 22.000/- and 16 sovereigns of gold ornaments as streedhanam for his daughter, the 1st plaintiff and the father agreed to pay Rs. 12.000/- on the date of betrothal and the balance of Rs. 10,000/- within one year after the marriage. It was also agreed that the gold sovereigns will be given at the time of marriage. The marriage took place on 13,11.1977.3. The further case of the 1st plaintiff is that as promised, Rs 12,000/ was given on the betrothal day by the father and the gold sovereigns were givenon the date of marriage. The balance amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid on two occasions...
C. Narayanan (Writer) and Etc. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2860
K.T. Thomas, J. 1. This is a case is which a Sub Inspector was shot dead inside his police station. The crucial question involved here is whether he shot himself dead or was shot at by one of his subordinates in conspiracy with others in the police station. Sessions Court found that he was shot dead by one of his subordinates. One Head Constable and two Constables (out of seven persons arraigned as accused in the trial court) were convicted and sentenced for murder and also for certain other allied offences. Other accused were acquitted. The first three appeals are those preferred by the convicted accused. Union of India filed one appeal for enhancement of sentence from imprisonment for life to death penalty and another appeal against acquittal.2. The scene of occurrence was the Sub Inspector's room in Panur Police Station. The date of occurrence was 12-3-1981 at 11-55 a.m. The facts of this case are simple, but evidence is much. Three different agencies have handled the investigation ...
Travancore Chemical and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-1991
Reported in: [1993]199ITR484(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The questions referred for our consideration are compartmentalised as follows :' R. A. No. 177 : 1. Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in holding that a sum of Rs. 13,036 spent by the assessce on a pilot project for the manufacture of phosphorus is capital expenditure and not entitled to deduction Is not the said expense incurred for research and development of the assessee's business and hence a revenue expenditure liable to deduction R. A. No. 178 : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the researchexpenditure of Rs. 4,048 on phosphorous project cannot be considered to be revenue expenditure and, therefore, cannot be allowed as a deduction R. A. No. 179 ; 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 5,58,597 received by the assessee by way of refund of excess electricity duty accrued to the...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›