Kerala Court February 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.
Kerala Leprosy Patients Organisation Committee Vs. State of Kerala and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-05-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ker344
K.A. Nayar, J.1. This writ petition is filed by way of public interest litigation. The prayer in the petition is for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from prohibiting begging in Ernakulara District, for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refrain from interfering with the 'fundamental right of begging' and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the heavy damages to the leper patients and other beggars for the suppression of personal liberty and illegal confinement of the leper patients.2. The District Collector, functioning as District Magistrate, issued a order under Section 133(1)(i) and (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for removal of public nuisance by beggars, drug addicts and prostitutes. That order was issued on receipt of the report of the Assistant Collector, Muvattupuzha, and of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi, that the beggars, drug addicts and prostitutes are roaming in Ernakulam District and most of them are car...
Maluk Mohamed Vs. Capital Stock Exchange Kerala Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-05-1991
Reported in: [1991]72CompCas333(Ker)
K.A. Nayar, J. 1. This original petition is for a writ for quashing the registration of the first respondent-company under the Companies Act, andthe certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies for commencement of the business, for a direction to the respondents not to grant recognition as a recognised stock exchange, for a direction to respondents Nos. 14 and 15 to investigate exhibit P-2 complaint and to ensure that no trading in securities is done on the floor of the first respondent, and also for a direction to respondents Nos. 11 to 18 to prosecute the offenders.2. The first respondent is, admittedly, a company registered under the Companies Act. Under Section 12 of the Companies Act, any seven or more persons, or where the company to be formed will be a private company, any two or more persons, associated for any lawful purpose may, by subscribing their names to a memorandum of association and otherwise complying with the requirements of the Companies Act for registration, fo...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Seeyan Plywoods
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-05-1991
Reported in: (1991)97CTR(Ker)289; [1991]190ITR564(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'the 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 holding that the assessee is entitled to the exemptions under Sections 80J and 80HH for the subsequent years even though it is not entitled to the exemption in the earlier years ?'2. The respondent, an unregistered firm, is an assessee under the Income-tax Act. We are concerned with the assessment year 1977-78 for which the accounting period ended on March 31, 1977. The assessee deals in manufacture and sale of plywoods, veneers, etc. During the assessment year, it claimed deduction under section 80HH and Section 80J amounting to Rs. 23,251 and Rs. 10,617, respectively. The Income-tax Officer, by his order dated January 30, 1980, held that the assessee is not entitled to the deductions claimed under Sections 8...
T.N. Janardhanan Pillai Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-05-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ436
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. In this appeal against conviction, I do not propose to go into the facts or evidence because I am satisfied that the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge acted irregularly in shutting out defence evidence.2. After the prosecution evidence was over, the appellant was called upon to enter upon his defence. He filed a schedule of three witnesses. They were summoned and all of them appeared on 22-9-1990. Two of them are PWs 5 and 8, who were already cross-examined. The appellant wanted to further cross-examine PW 5 for some purpose, including confrontation with Ext. P 18. On the ground that the appellant could have cross-examined the witness with reference to Ext. P 18 on the previous opportunity, Special Judge disallowed further examination and discharged the witness. The purpose of further examination of PW 8 was to prove some documents. Since these documents were not relied on by the prosecution, that witness was also discharged without permitting examination.3. R...
Food Inspector, Pattambi Circle Vs. K.P. Gokuldas and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Ker204; 1991CriLJ1278
Sukumaran, J. 1. The statutory flavour of Flavoured Milk as that term is employed in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 comes up for determination by the Full Bench. The issue has arisen in two food adulteration cases, one from Neyyattinkara and the other from Ottappalam. Different Judges of this Court have differently reacted; the conflict is reflected in the differing approaches and conclusions reached by the courts below, in almost similar situations. The accused were convicted in one case but acquitted in another. Subsequent to the judgments in the two cases, this Court pronounced on the identical point in Food Inspector v. Aboobacker, 1986 Ker LT 1117. It was held that rose milk is not milk or flavoured milk, that no standards have been prescribed for rose milk, and that prosecution based on adulteration for the short fall in standards cannot succeed. The correctness of the decision was doubted by other Judges and accordingly the question has come up in reference before...
The Food Inspector, Cannanore Municipality, Cannanore Vs. M. Gopalan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Ker240; 1991CriLJ1783
Sukumaran, J. 1. The Food Inspector, Cannanore filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate there a complaint against two persons for offences punishable under Section 16 (la) and (ii) read with Section 2(1 a) and (m) and Rules 44 and 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Rules framed thereunder. Cows milk was the food involved in the case. The first accused was convicted and sentenced, while the second one was acquitted. The appeal of the first accused was successful. The Sessions Judge upset the conviction and sentence solely on the ground that there was not a rigorous adherence to the requirements of Rule 7(3) of the Rules. The factual details of the finding are : a sample was taken on 24-11-1981 and forwarded to the public analyst who received it on 26-11-1981. The report of analysis dated 23-12-1981 was received by the Local Health Authority on 11-1-1982. Reckoning the period from 26-11-1981, the date of receipt of the sampe...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Valiya Aryan Bhattathiripad
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR89(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law for the decision of this court.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in law and in fact in holding that there is no joint family system in existence on the passing of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family (Abolition) Act, 1975, since the family is defunct on the date of the assessment order ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in law and in fact in holding that assessments are null and void ?' 2. The respondent/assessee was the karta of a Hindu undivided family. We are concerned with the assessment year 1977-78, for which the relevant valuation date was 31-12-1151 (Malayalam Era), corresponding to August 15, 1976. It is seen that the assessee filed a return of net wealth. An assessment was made on the basis of the return submitted by the assessee. In the first...
State of Kerala Vs. Sebastian Jacob
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2636
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. Appeal is by the State challenging the acquittal of the first accused. In C.C. No. 54 of 1987, he was tried by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram along with the second accused for having committed criminal misconduct as defined in Section 5(1)(d) and made punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in furtherance of their common intention. During trial, second accused died and the charge against him abated. Respondent was acquitted.2. Respondent was working as Secretary 'in the Taluk Co-operative Consumer Store Limited, Chenganacherry (the Store) on deputation. Second accused was the Business Manager under him. On 7-2-1983, respondent issued Ext. P8 to the second accused authorising him to get 100 quintals of boiled rice from the Chenganacherry unit of the Civil Corporation (Corporation) on behalf of the Store for distribution to the card-holders through Maveli Stores. Though the Store had no funds, the amount of Rs...
State of Kerala Vs. Baby Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2257
P.K. Shamsuddin, J.1. This appeal is filed by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the Court of Sessions, Kottayam in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1986.2. Respondent-accused was charged for offences punishable Under Sections 449 and 302, IPC. The court below after trial held that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing that the accused committed the offences beyond reasonable doubt and in that view, acquitted the respondent. That is under challenge in this appeal.3. P.W. 5 is the son of Kunjupennu alias Thressia, now deceased. On 6-11-1984, he went for his work at about 6-15 a.m. At that time, his mother and the accused were in their house at Thachapuzha bhagom in Elikulam Village. He returned at about 10-30 p.m. after work and found Kunjapennu lying dead in a room with a cut injury on her throat. The accused is of the same age as that of P.W. 5 and they were friends. The house of the accused was situated only 400 feet away from the house of deceased. On seeing his m...
Joseph Zacharia and ors. Vs. Joseph Kuriakose and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ker103
T.V. Ramakrishnan, J.1. A.S. Nos. 188 and 284 of 1984 are appeals filed respectively by defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 247 of 1982 on the file of the Sub Judge, Kottayam. The plaintiff is the 1st respondent in both the appeals. Plaintiff has also filed a cross appeal in A.S. No. 188 of 1984.2. Plaintiff filed the suit on the basis of Ext. A1 pronote and Ext.A2 agreement styled as Sammathapathram. Ext.A1 is dated 16-11-1974 and was executed by the first defendant in the name of plaintiff. Ext. A2 is dated 12-7-1979 and was executed jointly by the plaintiff and 2nd defendant. Admittedly the promissory note was executed for and on behalf of the 2nd defendant. It was towards money due to the 2nd defendant from first defendant that the promissory note was executed by plaintiff has alleged that the promissory note was in his possession from the very beginning with the consent and knowledge of the 2nd defendant. It is his further case that as per Ext. A2 agreement executed jointly by the plai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »