Kerala Court July 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.
Sudha Vs. K. Chenthamarakshan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-02-1991
Reported in: II(1991)ACC714; 1993ACJ114
G.H. Guttal, J.1. This appeal by Sudha, aged 8 years on the date of the accident, is against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad in O.P. (M.V.) No. 6 of 1985 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,150/- as compensation for the injuries caused to her in the motor accident which occurred on 20.12.1982 as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver who is the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is die owner and respondent No. 3 is the insurer.2. First of all the nature of the injuries need to be noted. That the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 is not in dispute.3. The following injuries were caused by the accident:(1) The lower third of the right leg and the nerves, bones and blood vessels were ruptured.(2) The right foot was hanging down the muscles.(3) Severe crush injuries in the right leg and ankle.(4) Comminuted fracture of right tibia.The evidence shows that the appellant was unable to walk. She los...
K. Rajendran Vs. K.S. Krishnadas and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-01-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ker5
Krishnamoorthy, J.1. These Writ Appeals are against the common judgment of a learned single Judge, reported in Rajendran v. S.T.A.T. (1991) 1 KLT 255. Two questions arise for consideration in these appeals, namely (1) whether a stage carriage permit issued under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 can be renewed Under Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and (2) whether the grounds given for rejecting an application for renewal of a permit Under Section 81(4) are exhaustive or only illustrative. The learned Judge answered the first question in the negative and held on the second question that the grounds given in Section 81(4) for rejection of an application for renewal are exhaustive and not illustrative.2. The appellant in W.A. No. 34 of 1991 was the petitioner in O.P. No. 10080 of 1990 and he was operating 9 stage carnage services on different routes. When the period of the permits of 4 stage carriages was nearing expiry, he applied for renewal of those permits before the Regional Tr...
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. C ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-01-1991
Reported in: [1993]88STC84(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. The common question arising for consideration in all the three revision cases reads :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the amount of transport charges is not includible in the purchase turnover of sugarcane ?'So far as T.R.C. No. 164 of 1987 is concerned, there are two other questions and they are :(1) 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the respondent-assessee is entitled to claim exemption on the turnover of rectified spirit, denatured spirit and methylated spirit under the provisions contained in the Notification S.R.O. No. 402/64 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the purchase turnover of firewood is not liable to tax under Section 5A(1)(c)(sic) of the Act at the hands of the assessee ?'The second question above in the light of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›