Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1992ACJ782
K.K. Usha, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri in O.P. (M.V.) No. 306 of 1986. The appellants herein are the driver and owner of the lorry involved in the accident. First respondent is the injured who filed the O.P. claiming compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner in the O.P. has filed a cross-objection claiming enhancement of the compensation as awarded to him by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.2. The injured was carrying on the business of buying and selling ash. The accident had occurred on 22.1.1977 when the injured was travelling in a lorry belonging to the 2nd appellant carrying a load of ash from Palakkad to Perinthalmanna. Due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st appellant, the lorry capsized at a place called Amminikkad on Perinthalmanna-Manjeri Road and the claimant sustained very serious injuries. He had to undergo prolonged treatment. Exh. A-3 certificate would show that his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1991)99CTR(Ker)36; [1992]196ITR887(Ker)
K.K. Usha, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law is referred for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction in respect of the sum of Rs. 1,85,232 under Section 35B(1)(b)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'2. For the assessment year 1981-82, the assessee, a processor and dealer of cashew kernels, claimed before the Income-tax Officer weighted deduction in respect of commission payments made to five foreign agents amounting to Rs. 2,02,712 under Section 35B(1)(b)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Under the above provision, deduction can be claimed if the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively on maintenance, outside India, of a branch office or agency for the promotion of sale, outside India, of such goods, services or facilities. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee holding that the assessee did not mai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : II(1991)ACC631; 1993ACJ203
G. Rajasekharan, J.1. M.F.A. No. 525 of 1985 is by insurer and the other appeal is by owner and driver of the autorickshaw No. KLC 5298.2. On 5.12.1981, at about 4.15 p.m. the claimant (1st respondent in both appeals) was travelling in the autorickshaw bearing registration No. KLC 5298. When the autorickshaw reached near the Thiruvangad over bridge, it capsized and the claimant sustained fracture of the left leg and other injuries. He was taken to a private nursing home run by Dr. Ummorkutty and there from to the Medical College Hospital, Calicut, where he underwent in-patient treatment for 10 days. Even after the discharge he was treated in V.P.V.S. Hospital, Calicut, till 24.2.1982. After that he underwent treatment in Madras and Manipal and even now he was suffering from those injuries. On these allegations a sum of Rs. 91,209.26 was claimed.3. The owner and driver together filed a written statement contending that there was no negligence on the part of the driver and that a pedestr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1992Ker179
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. Petitioner is the sole respondent in Ext. P2 complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before the first respondent (Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ernakulam). Ext. P3 is the notice issued by the first respondent to the petitioner under Section 13 after receiving Ext, P2 complaint. This original peition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution requesting that an appropriate writ may be issued to the first respondent quashing Exta. P2 and P3 on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to entertain Ext. P2 and issue Ext. P3. Second respondent entered appearance and filed objection.2. The question now to be considered is whether the original petition is maintainable or not. For deciding that question I am not going into the controversy whether the allegations in Ext. P2 will constitute a consumer dispute entitling the first respondent to exercise jurisdiction. If the petitioner has a case, as alleged in this O.P., that the first respondent is not having jurisd...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1992Ker136
ORDERK. Sreedharan, J.1. Petitioners in these Original Petitions challenge the proceedings initiated by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act for acquiring lands belonging to them for the Neyyattinkara Municipality. Issues raised in these petitions are identical. Therefore I consider it advantageous to dispose of them by a common judgment.2. O.P. 4518/89 was filed by two petitioners. First petitioner filed statement dated 14-12-1990 to the following effect:'I have decided not to challenge the acquisition of my property. Hence it is essential in the interest of justice to vacate the stay in C.M.P. No. 13073/89 with regard to myproperty and allow me to withdraw my challenge against the acquisition of my property.'Thus the second petitioner alone is interested in O.P. 4518/89.3. The Neyyattinkara Municipality passed a resolution on 29-7-1976 to acquire three acres 90 cents of property in various survey numbers in Neyyattinkara village for constr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1992Ker12
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. Authorities, under Section 9 of the Kerala Agricultural University Act (Act, for short), include the General Council and Executive Committee. General Council consists of (i) ex officio members, (ii) elected members, (iii) members nominated by Chancellor, and (iv) other members. Elected members are from nine distinct constituencies. One of them is four members elected by the teachers other than Deans of Faculties from among themselves. Among members nominated by Chancellor, one category is two agricultural scientists. Petitioner is one such member nominated to the general council as an agricultural scientist. But he is also a teacher. Respondents 3 and 4 are teachers, but they became members of general council not by nomination like petitioner, but by election by teachers from among themselves. Executive committee, which is the chief executive body (equivalent to syndicate), consists of ex officio members and other members. Other members in the executive commit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1992CriLJ570
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. These two criminal references have been referred to the Division Bench, as it was felt that the decision in State v. Moidu, (1990) 2 Ker LJ 202 : 1991 Cri LJ 800 is in conflict with the decision of the Full Bench reported in Moideenkutty Haji v. Kunhikoya, (1987) 1 Ker LT 635 : 1987 Cri LJ 1106.2. In criminal reference No. 5/90 the question that arises for consideration is whether in a complaint filed under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act) the Magistrate should conduct enquiry contemplated under Section 202(2) of the Criminal P.C. (for short the Code) and commit the case to Sessions Court or whether the Sessions Court empowered under Section 36D to try cases under the N.D.P.S. Act itself is competent to take cognizance of the offence as if it is a court of original jurisdiction. The learned single Judge in State v. Moidu, (1990) 2 Ker LJ 202 : 1991 Cri LJ 800 held that in a prosecution for offences pu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1992Ker310
ORDERM.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Revision petitioner is the . respondent in O.P. 20 of 1987. The First Additional Munsiff, Trichur permitted the respondents herein (petitioners in the O.P.) to deposit the amount of Rs.2,000/- as stipulated in Ext. A-2 will in the Court and allowed the revision petitioner (respondent in the O.P.) to withdraw the amount.2. The contention of the revision petitioner is that no provision in the Indian. Succession Act enables a party to approach the civil- court to make deposit of any amount meant for a legatee under a Will and the Court below was not justified in allowing the respondents to make the deposit before the Court. The case of the respondents is that Lakshmikutty Amma, sister of their father executed a Will and registered it before the Trichur Sub-Registry Office, that as per the Will the property belonging to Lakshmikutty Amma in Sy. No. 122/1 in Viyyar village was given to them, their brother Ravi Chandran and sister Bhagyalakshmi and that an amoun...
Tag this Judgment!