Kerala Court January 1992 Judgments
Renuka Vs. E.S.i. Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-1992
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR529]; (1994)IIILLJ741Ker
ORDERThulasidas, J.1. These are petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the accused in S.T. No. 227, C.C.No. 92 and S.T. 271 and C.C.No. 190 of 1991 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thnssur. The complaints have been laid for offence punishable under Section 85 of the Employees State Insurance Act. These petitions were heard together.2. One of the main contentions taken in all these cases is as regards the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur, to take cognizance of the complaints. In Crl M.C. 1185/1991 the petitioner has prayed for transfer of C.C.No. 92 of 1991 and ST. 271 of 1991 from the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Trichur to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally, on the ground that S.T No. 322 of 1990 is pending there for non-payment of contribution for the period 1.10.1988 to 31.3.1989. The petitioners in Crl. M.C. 1222 of 1991 have put forward certain grounds to show that the prosecution is a...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Gopalakrishnan Vs. Thachady Prabhakaran and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-30-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Ker314
ORDERK.G. Balakrishnan, J. 1. Petitioner in the election petition has challenged the right of the firstrespondent to lead evidence in support of the recrimination filed by the first respondent Under Section 97 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. Petitioner's counsel prayed that this question may be considered as a preliminary issue before the first respondent is being allowed to lead evidence. Hence I heard both sides on this preliminary question.2. Petitioner has challenged the election of the first respondent from the Kayamkulam Constituency in the general election held on 12-6-1991. In the election petition petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the election of the returned candidate is void and he has sought for a further declaration that he shall be the duly elected candidate. Within 14 days of the date fixed for the appearance of the first respondent, he filed a recrimination Under Section 97 of the Act. In the recrimination h...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kesava Prabhu and Sons
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-29-1992
Reported in: [1992]197ITR618(Ker)
K.S. Pakipoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate 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 learned Tribunal is right in cancelling the cancellation of the registration 'The respondent herein is a firm. It carries on business as general merchants and commission agents. We are concerned with the assessment year 1981-82. For the earlier years, the firm had obtained registration under the Income-tax Act. For the instant assessment year, Form No. 12 was belatedly filed on August 3, 1981. The assessee had sought extension of time for filing the said form. The assessee had not closed the accounts in time. It did not allocate the share income among the partners as stipulated in the partnership deed. The assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act for failure on the part ofthe assessee to file its return of income. In consequence, the In...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary, Changanacherry Taluk Road Bus Thozhlali Co-operative So ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ker191
Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. The correctness of the decision of this Court in Kunhikrishnan Nair v. R.T.O., Malappuram, 1991 (2) KLT 266 (DB), in so far as it stated that the existing operators have a right to be heard before the grant of a permit under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, falls for consideration in this Writ Appeal, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg, etc. v. Union of India, 1991 (4) JT(SC) 447. The Writ Petition, out of which this writ appeal arises, was filed by Mathew Job im-pleading the appellant as the first respondent, and questioning the correctness of the order Ext. P4 dated 6-8-1991 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called the 'STAT'). By that order the STAT allowed the appeal filed by the appellant-society in part, and modified the order of the Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter called the 'RTA') dated 4-7-1991.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The writ petitioner, Mathew Job, is a stage car...
Tag this Judgment!Poulose Vs. R.T.O. Palakkad
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-1992
Reported in: II(1992)ACC70
K.A. Nayar, J. 1. This Original Petition is to quash Ext. P3 notice of the 2nd respondent Under a family settlement, two vehicles along win the permits, viz. stage carriages KRP 7461 and KLH 3283, were decided to be allotted to the brother and sister-in-law of the petitioner. Therefore, joint applications were filed for the transfer. The Regional Transport Authority, at its meetings held on 10-9-1991 and 22-9-1991, allowed the transfer. Exts. P1 and P2 are the orders. Ext P1 says that, 'Heard the applicant No objections. Transfer of permit is granted.' That was in respect of the vehicle KLH 3283. Similarly, Ext. P2 also says, 'Heard the applicant. No objections. Transfer of permit is granted.' That was in respect of the vehicle KRP 7461, under Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, transfer of permit is allowed with the permission of the Regional Transport Authority which granted the permit. Section 82(1) reads as follows:(1) Save as provided in Sub-section (2), a permit shall not be tr...
Tag this Judgment!The Chiveettil Sekharan Nambiar and Ors. Vs. Cheruvazhcheri Kishakkekk ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Ker303
P.K. Shamsuddin, J.1. Defendants 13, 15, 16, 42, 44 to 51, 54 and 55 are the appellants. The suit was for partition of the plaint B schedule property.2. Briefly stated the plaintiffs case is as follows: The property belonged in jenm to the grandmother of the plaintiff Chinna Appissi and her sister Kunchi Appissi and brother Kunhunni Nambiar and they were in possession of the plaint schedule property. On the death of Chinna Appissi, the property vested with the plaintiffs and defendants jointly and they are in joint possession and enjoyment. Defendants 13, 42 and 52 sold some timber trees without the consent of the plaintiff and other defendants. So, a petition was filed before the police and the matter was amicably settled. But still, defendants 13, 14, and 52 were making attempts to cut and sell trees. In the circumstances, plaintiffs sought a partition, but it was not heeded to by contending defendants. It is in these circumstances, the plaintiff sought for partition and separate pos...
Tag this Judgment!T.G. Alamelu Ammal Vs. Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Madras and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Ker253
ORDERK.P. Balanarayana Marar, J. 1. Petitioner is the landlady of the petition schedule property. A lease of this land was granted to Burmah Shell Company by one Achuthan Nair on 30-7-1964. A lease agreement was executed. An amount of Rs. 2,160/- was paid by the lessee and the period of lease was twenty years from 1-12-1963. The Burmah Shell Company was subsequently taken over by Government of India and is now known as Bharat Petroleum Corporation of India. The lease agreement stipulated for payment of quarterly rent of Rs. 270/- for the first 10 years and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 330/- per quarter. 2. The property had been outstanding on kanom demise in favour of Mangot Kalathil tarwad. In partition of that tarwad the property was allotted to the tavazhy of Kunhulakshmi Amma whose rights were purchased by petitioner on 13-5-1975. She had also obtained purchase certificate from the Land Tribunal. The lease by Achuthan Nair was granted while the property was in the possession of Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Thomas Titus Vs. Mrs. Roja Titus and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Ker320; II(1992)DMC441
Varghese Kalliath, J. 1. This is an appeal is a matrimonial cause. Husband is the appellant. He is a Doctor, having very high educational qualifications in medical science. He is a Lecturer in Cardiology in one of the most reputed medical institutions --Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute of Medical Science & Technology. 1st respondent herein is his wife.2. Appellant filed a petition under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce not to declare the marriage between himself and 1st respondent null and void. According to him, there was only a form of marriage which took place on 10th May, 1979 at the Marthoma Syrian Church, Tatabcd, Coimbetore. Both of them belonged to Marthoma Syrian Christian Community. Their marriage was according to the rites of the Marthoma Syrian Church.3. After the marriage, appellant and 1st respondent stayed together at Trivandrum till 10-1-1981. Thereafter in Delhi till 20-6-1983and again at Trivandrum till 19-9-1983. A male child was born to them on 28-5-1980.4. The case of...
Tag this Judgment!Sukumaran and ors. Vs. Akamala Sree Dharma Sastha Idol and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Ker406
K.G. Balakrishnan, J. 1. Defendants in a scheme suit filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure are the appellants in this appeal. The suit relates to the administration of Akamala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple at Mullurkkara in Trissur District. The plaintiffs prayed for dissolution of Ext. A-1 trust deed and also consequential reliefs for framing a scheme for the administration of the temple. Plaintiffs had also alleged certainmisfeasance and mal-feasance in the administration of the temple by the defendants. The Court below did not accept these allegations. However, the Court held that Ext. A-1 trust deed is not legally valid and therefore it was set aside; and the parties on either side were allowed to file application for passing a final decree along with a draft scheme and until such a scheme is settled the Court ordered that the defendants would continue to manage the affairs of the temple. The defendants were also directed to furnish accounts relating to the management o...
Tag this Judgment!Trinity Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-1992
Reported in: [1993]202ITR314(Ker)
K.S. Pari Poornan, J. 1. At the instance of an assessee to income-tax and also the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following three questions of law, for the opinion of this court :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the light of the finding that the assessee had the liability to pay rent from August 11, 1972, and the rent of Rs. 4,000 is quite fair, the Tribunal was right in law in invoking the provisions of Section 40A(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to disallow part of the rent payments made for the period after August 11, 1972 at the rate of Rs. 4,000 per month (2) Whether the Tribunal erred in law and acted beyond the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in deciding and declaring the allowable deduction on account of rent for the period 'even beyond March 31, 1974 (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and under Section 30 of the Income-tax...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »