Kerala Court October 1992 Judgments
Atlas Transport Co. (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-1992
Reported in: 1993ACJ875
G.H. Guttal, J.1. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 challenge the legality of the order of the Additional Sub-Judge, Kochi, dated 24.1.1991 in O.S. No. 250 of 1990 whereby he held that his court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.2. The plaintiff No. 1 is the insurer of the goods of the plaintiff No. 2. The defendant No. 1, Atlas Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd., has its registered office in New Delhi and branch office at Mattancherry, Cochin. The defendant No. 2 is the branch office at Cochin. The plaintiff No. 2, Sreekrishna Oil Industries, entrusted 119 tins of coconut oil, each tin weighing 15 kilograms, to the defendant No. 2 for transporting them to Cuttack in Orissa. The defendant No. 2 accepted the consignment for carriage and carried it in lorry bearing No. TDO 9956. On 19.5.1987 the lorry met with an accident. A hundred tins containing oil weighing 1,500 kg. were totally destroyed. The value of the oil so lost is Rs. 47,200/-. The suit is for recovery of the value of the lost oil...
Tag this Judgment!Neelakantan Omana and ors. Vs. Neelakantan Raveendran and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ker196
G. Rajasekharan, J.1. Plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of shares in the firm, rendition of acconts, evolving a scheme and consequentialreliefs are the appellants.2. One Neelakantan and Krishnan -- two brothers -- acquired the plaint schedule land and started a tile factory there in 1950. They invested in equal shares and they were sharing the profits equally. On 9-3-1957 Neelkantan died. Karthiyayani, plaintiffs I, 3 and 4 and the defendants are the widow and children of Neelakantan. On 12-8-1957, the widow and children of Neelakantan and Krishnan together entered into a partnership agreement a (Ext. A 1) stipulating the terms and conditions under which the business is to be run. The business was being carried on under the provisions of Ext. A 1 and share of profits taken by the parties. Krishnan was to be the manager during his lifetime as per the terms of Ext. A 1. Krishnan died leaving behind his widow Ammakunju and son Sugathan. They, on 28-12-1981 assigned (Ext. A2) their shar...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Ramakrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-1992
Reported in: [1993]202ITR997(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The question referred for the opinion of this court, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue, reads as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal is right in law in holding that the order of the Income-tax Officerunder Section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is invalid and withoutcompetence ?' .2. The facts leading to the reference are simple. The assessment year concerned is 1975-76. The respondent was assessed to tax under the Act for that year by order dated July. 18, 1977. The advance tax paid by him on the basis of his estimate under Section 212 fell far short of the amount of tax found due on final assessment so that he became liable to pay interest under Section 215 of the Act. But the Income-tax Officer did not advert to this aspect while completing the assessment and omitted to charge the interest. He discovered the mistake later when he purported ...
Tag this Judgment!Neeli and ors. Vs. Padmanabha Pillai Narayana Pillai and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-1992
Reported in: 1993ACJ188; [1993]77CompCas62(Ker)
Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. This reference is made to a Full Bench by a Division Bench of this court by order dated August 29, 1988, for consideration of the correctness of the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Vilasini v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation [1988] 1 KLT 915, and other cases following it or taking the same view. The said Division Bench in Vilasini's case [1988] 1 KLT 915, had taken the view that Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is retrospective in application and was applicable to cases of accidents occurring prior to October 1, 1982, the date on which Section 92A came into force. The Division Bench, which has referred this matter to the Full Bench, has referred to the conflict of decisions in the various High Courts and thought that, prima facie, Vilasini's case [1988] 1 KLT 915, requires reconsideration.2. Before we go into the main question, we shall briefly advert to the facts and findings in the referring order. One Damodaran died in a motor...
Tag this Judgment!Chennamangalam Nair Samajam Vs. Sarada
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-1992
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ150Ker
Shamsuddin, J.1. The petitioner is a Charitable Society registered under the Tranvancore Charitable Societies Act. The Society started some commercial activities and is running chitties. First respondent was employed as Head Clerk under the petitioner. On April 18, 1988, she was suspended pending enquiry into certain irregularities alleged against her. A domestic enquiry was conducted in which she was found guilty of misconducts alleged. Accordingly, she was dismissed from service by order dated October 3, 1989.2. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, she filed an appeal under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. The Appellate Authority constituted under the said Act allowed the appeal and directed the 1st respondent to be reinstated within 30 days of the receipt of the gist of the order. It was further ordered that if the first respondent was not reinstated within the stipulated time, she was entitled to Rs. 22,689/- as compensation, notice pay and back-wages together wi...
Tag this Judgment!Prince George Vs. Govt. of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-1992
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ686Ker
Usha, J.1. An Advocate practicing in the Thrissur Bar is the petitioner herein. He was appointed as Additional Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor, Thrissur for a period of three years under Government order dated October 7, 1991. The challenge in this original petition is against termination of his service as Addl. Government Pleader and Addl. Public Prosecutor, Thrissur before the expiry of the term of appointment.2. Ext. P1 order of appointment would show that the appointment was subject to the terms and conditions provided under the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978. Rule 9 of the above Rules provides that the term of appointment of a person appointed as Addl. Government Pleader and Addl. Public Prosecutor shall be for a period of three years. But Rule 17 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules, the Government may terminate the appointment of any Government Law Officer, other...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Krishan Vs. Krishnan S/O Kizhakkumbrath Arumugha Tharakar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-23-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ker134
K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J.1. The main aspect to be considered in this appeal is whether an agreement to sell immovable property by three co-owners can be specifically enforced against one of them in respect of his share.2. Plaintiff in O.S. 213/85 before Sub-Court, Palghat is the appellant. The suit was filed by him against the defendant seeking specific performance of an agreement executed by defendant and his two brothers on 12-8-1982 by which they agreed to sell the plaint schedule property for a total consideration of Rs. 1,45,200/- of which an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was received on the date of the agreement. Major portion of the property was also put in possession of the plaintiff, and the executants undertook to evict the tenant in occupation of the buildings. The sale was agreed to be completed by 30th of August, 1983. A further sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- was also paid. In the meanwhile one Achuth Bhaskar filed a suit against defendant and his brothers as O.S. 190/83 seeking to rest...
Tag this Judgment!Nataraja Pillai Vs. Regional Joint Labour Commissioner and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-22-1992
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ674Ker
P.K. Shamusuddin, J.1. The petitioner was the employer of the third respondent. According to the third respondent, he was under the service of the petitioner for the period from February 1, 1984, to December 30, 1989. According to the petitioner, the third respondent was in his service only for the period from May 27, 1986, to December 8, 1989. It is also the case of the petitioner that without informing him, the third respondent absented from duly with effect from December 8, 1989, and, thereafter, nothing was heard about him and on enquiry, it was found that he is engaged as a Foreman in the Thankam Match Industries.The petitioner was served with a copy of application submitted by the third respondent before the second respondent claiming gratuity to the tune of Rs. 7,200. Exhibit P-1 is the formal application. The petitioner submitted an objection, Exhibit P-2. Thereafter, the third respondent filed a replication. The third respondent wasexamined on August 8, 1992, He also filed the...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Employees Union Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-1992
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ580Ker
K.A. Nayar, J.1. In these batch of Original Petitions, the points raised for consideration are the same. The grievances voiced in the petitions are also identical. All the petitioners are aggrieved by the amendment made to the Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 amending Rules 50, 51 and 54 with effect from April 1, 1992 by notification dated March 27, 1992, by which the wage ceiling for coverage under the Employees State Insurance Act (for short 'the Act') is enhanced from Rs. 1,600/- per month to Rs. 3,000/- per month and the rate of employers contribution with effect from April 1, 1992 is reduced at 4% of the wages payable to the employees instead of 5% and the employees' contribution is fixed at 1-1/2% of the wages payable instead of 2-1/4%. This amendment was given effect to from April 1, 1992. The Act and coverage were admittedly there even before the amendment was made. The effect of the amendment is, persons who were getting wages, excluding remuneration for overtim...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Vs. Valliyammal and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-19-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1179
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. The second defendant in a suit for recovery of maintenance filed by the respondents herein, is the appellant in this appeal. The first respondent claimed to be the wife of one Chidambaran Nayanar and respondents 2 and 3 claimed to be his children through the first respondent. The first respondent had earlier initiated proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code against Chidambaran Nayanar wherein Chidambaran Nayanar disputed the status of the first respondent. After trial the contentions of Chidambaran Nayanar were overruled and it was found that the first respondent was the wife of Chidambaran Nayanar and that she was entitled to an order for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order for maintenance marked as Ext. A1 in this proceeding was passed in her favour.2. While the said proceedings were pending Chidambaran Nayanar purported to execute a gift in respect of the only property held within the State in fav...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »