Kerala Court December 1992 Judgments
Chellamma Kamalamma and ors. Vs. Narayana Pillai Prabhakaran Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ker146
Jagannadha Rao, C.J. 1. The question referred to this larger Bench is one of great importance in respect of the rights of inheritance to females governed by the Marumakkathayam law in Kerala. The question is whether Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which deals with succession to females continues to be in force and operative notwithstanding the commencement of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Joint Family Abolition Act, 1975'). A learned single Judge of this Court in Madhavi Amma v. Kalliani Amma, (1988) 2 Ker LT 964 and a Division Bench of this Court in Bhaskaran v. Kalliani, (1990) 2 Ker LT 749, have taken the view that the above-said Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 continues to be in force notwithstanding the Joint Family Abolition Act, 1975. It is the correctness of the said decisions that falls for consideration before us. 2. The basic facts are not in dispute and are as follows: The property in qu...
Tag this Judgment!Malayala Manorama Company Limited Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-16-1992
Reported in: 1993(44)ECC145
K.A. Nayar, J.1. The facts of the case are simple and the law appears to be complicated by the conflicting decisions of this Court as well as other High Courts. Since conflicting views were expressed by two Division Benches of the Court in the decisions in Ramakrishna Mills (CBE) Ltd. v. The Asst. Collector of Customs 1987 KLJ 248 and Aluminium Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1987) 1 KLT 653, the case is referred to the Full Bench. 2. The question which arises for consideration is that when goods are exempted by a notification issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act from the whole of customs duty on the date on which the ship carrying the goods from a place outside India entered the territorial waters, whether cancellation or modification of the exemption notification before the date of presentation of the bill of entry in the case of goods entered for home consumption under Section 46 will fasten liability on the importer to pay duty prevalent on the date on which entry inwards ...
Tag this Judgment!Khushboo Enterprises Vs. Forest Range Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-15-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1100
L. Manoharan, J.1. This petition is to quash the proceedings in C.R. No. 35 of 1992 taken under Section 51(1) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). Petitioner contends that the charge is not maintainable as 'sandalwood oil' is not a 'forest produce'. In support of the said contention, petitioner relied on the decision of the learned single Judge in Cri. M.C. No. 832 of 1992 (Annexure XV) wherein the learned single Judge held that sandalwood oil is not a forest produce.2. When this matter came up for admission before another learned single Judge, his Lordship doubted the correctness of the decision in Cri.M.C. No. 832 of 1992 (Mohammed Ali v. Forest Range Officer, (1992) 2 Ker LT 502) and expressed the view that the matter has to be considered by a) Division Bench. That is how this came up before us. 3. Brief facts required for the disposal of the petition are as follows:Petitioner is a dealer in essential oils like Citronella Oil, Sandalwood Oil etc. Pursuant to an orde...
Tag this Judgment!Avaran Koya Vs. Mariyam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-15-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1118; I(1994)DMC205
Sreedharan, J.Counter petitioner in M.C. 196/1991 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Nadapuram is the petitioner. That petition was filed by respondent herein invoking the provisions of Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as 'the 1986 Act', claiming maintenance and a reasonable and fair provision under the Act. She filed that petition on the allegation that she is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. Petitioner herein, who was the former husband, disputed the competence of that Court to take cognizance of the petition on the ground that the divorced woman has no residence within its territorial limits. By Annexure-E order dated 19.10.1992, the learned Magistrate took the view that petitioner before him resides in her maternal house, which is situated within its territorial limits and hence competent to entertain the petition. That order is under challenge.1. In the petition fi...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Ltd., Palai Vs. Philomina Mathew and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-1992
Reported in: 1993ACJ1166; AIR1993Ker226; (1999)IIILLJ251Ker
Jagannadha Rao, C.J. 1. This reference to a Full Bench raises important questions under Sections 94, 95(1)(b) and its two provisos and under Section 95(2)(b) and also under Sections 110-A and 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The appeal itselfarises out of a claim allowed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in which the competent authority made the owner of the vehicle as well as the Insurance Company liable in a sum of Rs. 51,256.20. The appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 read with Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The respondents-claimants before us are the legal representatives of the workman as also the owner of the vehicle. 2. The facts of the case briefly are that the deceased, one John Mathew fell from the top of a stage carriage bus belonging to the respondent-vehicle owner while the vehicle was stationed at the Municipal Bus Stand at Palai. He fell down at 5 a.m. on 13-12-1984 and was ...
Tag this Judgment!Saramma Kozhy Vs. Mathai Koshy
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ker271; I(1993)DMC527
Jagannadha Rao, C.J. 1. This is an application under Section 17 for confirmation of the decree of divorce passed by the learned District Judge, Pathanamthitta dated 20-8-1992. The O.P. itself was filed under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act by the wife against the husband. Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act reads as follows :'17. Confirmation of decree for dissolution by District Judge.-- Every decree for a dissolution of marriage made by a District Judge shall be subject to confirmation by theHigh Court. Provided that no decree shall be confirmed under this section till after the expiration of such time, not less than six months from the pronouncing thereof, as the High Court by general or special order from time to time directs. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-wife submits that the period of time mentioned in the proviso to Section 17 is not mandatory, and that this Court has discretion to confirm a decree for dissolution even before this expiration of six months from the...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Roy George and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-1992
Reported in: II(1993)ACC259; 1993ACJ343; [1993]77CompCas134(Ker)
Jagannadha Rao, C.J. 1. This reference to a Full Bench has been made by a Division Bench of this court doubting the correctness of the judgment of another Division Bench in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Thankamani [1984] ACJ 791 (Ker). The learned judges felt that the above decision could not be treated as good law in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd, v. Jugal Kishore [1988] 63 Comp Cas 847 and M.K. Kunhimohammed v. P. A. Ahmedkutty [1988] 64 Comp Cas 7. The point in these cases related to the defences that are open to an insurance company under Section 96(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The appeal before us is by the National Insurance Company Limited. Of course, during the course of the hearing of this appeal, learned counsel for the respondents has sought to sustain the award passed by the Tribunal on certain other grounds.2. The facts of the case are as follows : The deceased, who was aged 57 years at the time of the accident, was kille...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Celine and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-1992
Reported in: I(1993)ACC445; 1993ACJ371
Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. This reference to a Full Bench has been made for a decision on the correctness of the Division Bench ruling in United India Insurance Co. ltd. v. Surendran Nair [1990] 1 KLT 10. The point in issue is whether in view of the provisions of Section 96(2) and (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, it is open to the insurer to rely on a 'reservation clause' in the policy and then to raise all the defences open to the insured against the third party, in an action for compensation filed by the third party. The respondents-claimants contend, on the basis of the ruling in Surendran Nair's case [1990] 1 KLT 10, that, notwithstanding the existence of any 'reservation clause' in the policy, it is not permissible for the insurer to either contend that there is no negligence on the part of the insured or that the quantum of compensation awarded against the insured is excessive even when the quantum is within the statutory limits in Section 95(2). It is true that the ruling in Sur...
Tag this Judgment!Remia and anr. Vs. Sub-inspector of Police and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1098
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. Regarding the death of one Sulaiman, a complaint has been filed by his mother, widow and brother before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tanur (in Malappuram District). In the complaint it is specifically mentioned that they suspect one Ali to have murdered Sulaiman on 21-6-1992 at Sharjah in United Arab Emirates. Ext.P3 complaint, according to the petitioners, was not accepted by the Sub-Inspector of Police on the ground that the alleged offence was committed out side India. Petitioners have, therefore, filed this Original Petition for directing the aforesaid Sub-Inspector to prepare an FIR and register the crime on the basis of Ext. P3 complaint and to commence investigation.2. Learned Government Pleader contended that the Sub-Inspector of Police has justification because no police in this State can enquire into the offence committed beyond the territories of India.3. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') says that every offence shall...
Tag this Judgment!O.K. Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-1992
Reported in: [1993]202ITR523(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. This case is at the instance of an assessee to income-tax. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, 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 Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 39,368 being the sale price of import entitlements was assessable as income under Section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The order of reference is dated December 13, 1983.3. The assessee is an unregistered firm. It is dissolved. The matter relates to 1978-79. It is seen that the partners of the firm are served with notices. But the printing charges have not been remitted for printing the papers. Notice sent to the partner was not claimed. It has been returned. The matter was posted for orders. This Bench posted the matter for disposal on December 3, 1992. That is why it has come up for disposal today.4. This is a case where the reference is made by the A...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »