Kerala Court November 1992 Judgments
Jayabharat Printers and Publishers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-09-1992
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ373Ker
P.K. Shamsuddin, J. 1. In this original petition, the petitioner challenges Exhibit P-2 award passed by the first respondent A dispute between the petitioner and Shri K. Suresh Kumar was referred to the first respondent by the Government for adjudication.2. It is the case of the workman that he was appointed as a Binder in the printing press on December 3, 1985, on a monthly salary of Rs. 400 and later the salary was increased to Rs. 500 and while he was thus working, on October 10, 1987, his service was terminated without giving either any notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation. It was alleged that the workman had more than two years' uninterrupted service and the management cannot terminate his service without complying with the mandatory provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is also the workman's case that while he was working continuously under the management, the management used to issue fresh appointment orders at periodical intervals ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Srivilas Cashew Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-1992
Reported in: [1993]199ITR686(Ker)
1. This is an application under Section 261 of the Income tax Act, 1961, for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment of this court in Income tax Reference No. 171 of 1988, dated August 12, 1991 (Srivilas Cashew Co. v. CIT : [1992]196ITR887(Ker) ). Construing the provisions of Section 35B(1)(b)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, this court took the view that, in order to get the benefit of weighted deduction, it is not necessary that the agent of the assessee outside India should act exclusively for the assessee. The commission paid to the agents outside India would amount to expenditure incurred by the assesses to maintain an agency outside India for the promotion of the sales of the assessee's goods outside India. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner herein that the Karnataka High Court has taken a different view in Chief CIT v. Mysore Sales International Ltd. : [1992]195ITR457(KAR) and, therefore, it is necessary to have an authoritative decision of the...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Santhamma V.N. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-1992
Reported in: 2(1993)ACC336
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The third respondent-insurer in O.P. (MAC) No. 290/83, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam is the sole appellant in the appeal. The claimants before the Tribunal are respondents 1 and 2 herein. Respondents 1 and 2 before the Tribunal (the owner and driver of Bus bearing Registration No. KLO 4311) are respondents 3 and 4 herein. The claimants filed the application for compensation on account of the death of one E.S. Gopala Pillai on 15.12.1978 in an accident while he was returning home by the aforesaid vehicle KLO 4311. It was alleged that the driver drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and thereby lost control of the vehicle and as a result of the accident deceased Gopala Pillai sustained fatal injuries. The deceased was getting a sum of Rs. 5646/- per mensem as senior Accountant at the District Treasury, Kottayam. He was only 42 years old, at the time of his death. He had good chances of promotion as Superintendent, D.T.O. etc. The first claimant w...
Tag this Judgment!Suseela and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-1992
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ573Ker
Mathews P. Mathew, J.1. The Original Petition is filed by the 1st petitioner along with her children claimed to have been born out of her wedlock with the deceased S. Sahadevan who was a Police constable under the State Government. The 4th respondent is stated to be the 1st wife of deceased S. Sahadevan and respondents 5, 6 and 7 are the children of deceased Sahadevan born out of the first wedlock, Sahadevan died in harness on March 18, 1982. On the demise of Sahadevan, both petitioners and respondents 4 to 7 claimed terminal benefits under the service rules. As a matter of fact, respondents 4 to 7 have filed a suit, namely O.S. 424/86 before the Munsiffs Court, Trivandrum for a declaration that they are respectively the legal wife and children of deceased Sahadevan. Petitioners were defendants 1 to 3 in the said suit. That suit ended in compromise as evidenced by Ext. P1 copy of the compromise decree. The compromise decree provides inter alia that:'(1) the 4th respondent is the legall...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sudha and ors. Vs. the Superintendent, Open Prison and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2630
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. Petitioners are the kith and kin of some of those who are languishing inside the prison walls for over a decade now. Their thirst for freedom has reached the brim, but they think that the jail authorities are unhelpful. Petitioners have taken up their cause.2. According to the petitioners, the prisoners, whose cause they espouse, have already undergone incarceration for more than 14 years including 'earned jail remissions' as well as the 'set off' of the remand period against the sentence. Petitioners, therefore, plea that it is high time that the Jail Advisory Board (for short 'the Board) should be apprised of the cases relating to those prisoners so that the Board can consider the question of their release. A writ of mandamus is also prayed for the direct Government of Kerala to pass orders on the recommendation of the Board.3. All the prisoners involved in the Original petition are convicts of the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, but wer...
Tag this Judgment!V. Sivalingam Vs. Dakshinamurthy and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-03-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ker83
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, J. 1. The question for decision is whether the appeal is filed in time. The judgment of the trial court was pronounced on 21-12-1991. The application for copy was made on 24-12-1991. The copying sheets were called for on 27-1-1992. They were produced on 30-1-1992. The certified copy was ready on 31-3-1992. The date fixed to appear for receipt of copy was 31-3-1992 and it was delivered to the appellant on 31-3-1992 itself. The appeal was filed in this court on 27-6-1992. If we go by the above entries, the appeal was filed on the 92nd day and hence there is a delay in filing this appeal. But, it is contended on behalf of the appellant that he is entitled to the exclusion of 3 clear days from 27-1-1992 in view of Rule 242 of the Kerala Civil Rules of Practice. In other words, he contends that though the copying sheets were called for on 27-1-1992 and he produced them only on 30-1-1992, he does not lose the 2 days in between since he had 3 days time to produce th...
Tag this Judgment!T.P. Pappachan Vs. P.O. Joy
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-03-1992
Reported in: [1994]79CompCas488(Ker)
Ghettur Sankaran Nair, J.1. Invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner seeks to quash the complaint in C.C. No. 806 of 1990 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Perumbavoor. He relies on a decision of a learned judgeof this court in Bhageerathy v. V. Beena [1992] 2 KLT 31 ; [1993] 76 Comp Cas 684, to contend that if there is no averment in the complaint that the cheque was dishonoured because of insufficiency of funds in the account of the drawer, a charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, will not lie. He submits further that the allegations will not constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Act. Insufficiency of funds is a matter of evidence. Allegations do not always do service for evidence, and lack of allegations does not always indicate lack of evidence. The entire case of the prosecution need not verbatim enter the complaint, warp and woof.2. The decisions of a Division Bench of this ...
Tag this Judgment!Mary Francis Vs. Kesavan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-03-1992
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ1247Ker
Shamsuddin, J.1. The petitioner is a lady doctor who after retirement started a Hospital and Nursing Home at Kollam. It is the petitioner's case that the 1st respondent was appointed as a watchman at their residence. On the other hand, the case of the 1st respondent is that he was appointed as a watchman of Hospital and Nursing Home. The 1st respondent filed an application before the 2nd respondent under Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act claiming that he was in service from 1975 to 1989. The petitioner filed a written statement denying the allegation and contending that the first respondent being a domestic servant would not come within the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act. The case was posted for evidence and the first respondent was examined. He also filed a witness schedule Ext. P-1. While application was pending, the 1st respondent filed an application seeking to summon the petitioner who is the opposite party as a witness for and on behalf of the 1st respondent. The...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›