Kerala Court June 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.
Palliyali Mustafali Vs. Nechithodan Subair and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-07-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ225; AIR1992Ker295
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. This appeal raises a question of limitation. A minor, represented by the guardian, is the appellant. The minor filed an application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for compensation for the injuries he sustained in a motor accident. He was represented by his next friend, guardian. Appellant claimed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the injuries he sustained. The claim was made on different counts.2. The Tribunal, after assessing the evidence in the case, determined the compensation payable to the appellant at Rs. 20,000/-. But the Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that the application was filed beyond the statutory period allowed for filing the claim petition. Before us, there is no serious controversy as to the reasonableness of the quantum of compensation.3. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal grievously erred in holding that the application has been filed out of time and that it is barred by limitation. Section 110A(3...
Musthafali Vs. Subair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-07-1991
Reported in: 1(1992)ACC621
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. This appeal raises a question of limitation. A minor represented by the guardian, is the appellant. The minor filed an application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals for compensation for the injuries he sustained in a motor accident. He was represented by his next friend/guardian. Appellant Claimed Rs. 50,000/ - as compensation for the injuries he sustained. The Claim was made on different counts.2. The Tribunal after assessing the evidence in the case, determined the compensation payable to the appellant at Rs. 20,000/-. But the Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground mat the application was filed beyond the statutory period allowed for filing the Claim petition. Before us, there is no serious controversy as to the reasonableness of the quantum of compensation.3. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal grieviously erred in holding that the application has been filed out of time and that it is barred by limitation. Section 110A(3)...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Manjeri Kovilakam Interim Management Co ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-1991
Reported in: [1992]194ITR483(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 assessee (the group of 33 individuals) could be assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1971-72 ?'2. The respondent-assessee is a 'Marumakathayam' family in the erstwhile Malabar area. It possessed large properties, movable and immovable. Up to the assessment year 1968-69, it was filing the returns in the status of a Hindu undivided family. It was assessed in that status. There was a registered agreement dated July 16, 1961, whereby the members of the family decided to become separate. The matter of division was agreed to be referred to an arbitrator. The said agreement was modified by a later agreement dated March 22, 1962. The arbitrator rendered the award on September 11, 1967. In the award, it wa...
Ambika Chitaranjan Vs. B. Vijayamma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-1991
Reported in: II(1991)ACC415
Varghese Kalliath J.1. Appellant is the owner of an ambassador car. The 1st respondent was going from Peroorkada to Attukal Temple in a flat car Appellant's car driven by the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal, come from opposite direction. It was driven at a high speed. The driver was not able to control and avoid an accident. It hit against the car in which the 1st respondent herein was travelling. The 1st respondent sustained injuries. She filed a claim petition, under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act. She claimed a total compensation of Rs. 61,800/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 55,800/-.2. Appellant is aggrieved by the award. It is to be noted that the Tribunal found that the driver of the car of the appellant was rash and negligent in contributing the accident, even though there was some negligence on the part of the driver of the fiat car. The fact discloses a case of composite negligence. The terminology of composite negligence may not indicate all the consequences, ...
Essakkyal Nadar Michayel Nadar Vs. Sreedharan Babu and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ker200
1. Second defendant in O. S. 390 of 1976 of the Munsiffs Court, Neyyat-tinkara is the appellant. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 filed the suit originally for declaration and partition. Subsequently it was amended for recovery of possession of plaintiffs share also. The trial Court held that plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession of half share of the plaint schedule property with mesne profits. This finding has been confirmed by the Sub-Judge, Trivandrum. While confirming the preliminary decree the second defendant was allowed reimbursement of Rs. 100/- spent by him for taking Ext. B6 release deed.2. The property originally belonged to Kumaran Panicker who gifted the same in 1123 M.E. to his children viz., plaintiff's mother, first defendant, Kamalakshi and Bhavani. Plaintiffs' mother purchased 1/4 share of the first defendant. She thus became entitled to half share in the property. Second defendant purchased the rights of Kamalakshi and Bhavani and obtained half right in the property. Third ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.T. Antony and Sons
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-1991
Reported in: [1992]194ITR23(Ker)
K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for decision by this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no penalty could be levied under Section 271(1)(c) read with the Explanation to that, section ?'2. The respondent assessee is a registered firm having business in jewellery. Originally, it was carried on by one P. T. Antony. From April 1, 1968, his major sons were taken as partners and the business was converted into a partnership. The then managing partner, P. T. Antony, died on July 14, 1970. The reference is in respect of the assessment year 1970-71 for which period the return was filed by Sri P. A. Jose, son of Sri Antony. For this year of assessment, the assessee had originally filed a return showing an income of Rs. 1,45,992. The assessing authority determined the assessable income at Rs. 1,47,700 and tax was levied thereon. Subsequently, the assessm...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kumaran and Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-1991
Reported in: [1992]194ITR85(Ker)
K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J.1. The following two questions of law have been referred to this court at the instance of the Revenue :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and in fact in finding that the liability to pay the kist and interest is not at all obliterated by the Kerala High Court judgment ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law and in fact in reversing the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and in holding that the assessee should be allowed deduction of the entire amount of Rs. 14,79,808 ?2. The assessee is a registered firm. They were abkari contractors. We are concerned with the assessment year 1982-83 for which the relevant accounting period ended on March 31, 1982. During the year, the appellant was a successful bidder in bidding 14 arrack shops. The total kist payable for those shops was Rs. 24,16,900. The appellant paid only Rs. 10,51,413 as on t...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vasanthara Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-1991
Reported in: I(1992)ACC200; 1992ACJ250
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. This is an appeal by the insurance company against an award in O.P. (MV) No. 58 of 1985 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Quilon. The only point pressed before us by the appellant is that the insurance company's liability is limited to Rs. 50,000/-. Now the award is for Rs. 1,52,250/- with 6 per cent interest from 2.8.1979 and the direction in the award is to recover the amount' from the insurance company. Claimant made a statement that the vehicle involved in the accident was under insurance cover and that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation awarded.2. The insurance company, though appeared, did not take a specific plea in its written statement that the liability of the insurance company is a limited liability. Counsel for the appellant submitted that before the Tribunal the insurance company had produced a copy of the policy. It has not been marked. Though it has not been marked, we have examined that copy. It has to be re...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Smt. T.M. Sajilatha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-1991
Reported in: [1994]210ITR976(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 two questions of law for the decision of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that 'the firm had no goodwill' and is not the order of the Tribunal vitiated also for non-consideration of relevant 'tests' and materials ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that retirement of the assessee from the firm does not involve transfer of property amounting to a gift chargeable to tax, as no question of giving up any right to share the future profits or the goodwill arises when such a right has come to an end the moment the assessee retired ?' 2. The respondent was a partner of a firm, K.K. Kunhandi, T.V. Govindan and Co., Trichur. We are concerned with the assessment year 1977-78, for which the accounti...
Managing Partner, Subaida Cloth Stores Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-1991
Reported in: (1992)IILLJ777Ker
K.A. Nayar, J.1. It is agreed by counsel on both sides that this case is covered by the decision in O.P. 10634 of 1987.2. Petitioner in this case is the Management who dismissed one of the employee viz. Sri K. Ramakrishnan, Salesman, with effect from September 16, 1982. The dismissal of Shri K. Ramakrishnan was referred by the Government to the Labour Court, Kozhikode for adjudication. The Labour Court numbered the same as I.D. No. 10 of 1985 and tried the validity of the disciplinary enquiry as a preliminary issue. It held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management was defective, as no proper charge had been framed by the management against the workman before the dismissal and the charge framed was very vague. Though the Enquiry Officer framed charges and examined witnesses to prove those charges, the Labour Court held that the Enquiry Officer is incompetent to frame charges and hence evidence cannot be relied on. He also found that the details of the second charge were als...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›