Kerala Court February 1992 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. H.H. Maharani Sethu Parvathi Bayi (by L ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-1992
Reported in: [1993]199ITR625(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The Revenue is the petitioner herein. The petition is filed under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The respondent is an assessee on the files of the Income-tax Officer, 'D' Ward, Trivandrum, We are concerned with the assessment year 1976-77 for which the accounting period ended on March 31, 1976. In this petition, the Revenue prays for a direction to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, ' the Tribunal') to refer to this court the following three questions of law, specified in paragraph 8 of the original petition:' 1, Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that there is a mistake apparent from the record and in rectifying its order? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, does the case of the Supreme Court in : [1985]156ITR509(SC) have direct application to the case ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, should not the Tribunal have pier...
Tag this Judgment!Asokan Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-1992
Reported in: I(1993)ACC318; 1992ACJ477
K.A. Nayar, J.1. This writ petition is to quash Exh. P-2, order of the second respondent. The petitioner sustained injuries on 11.11.1989 when he was hit by an auto-rickshaw driven by the 4th respondent. The 5th respondent and the 6th respondent are the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle KLY 5960. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, 2nd respondent, on 16.1.1991. That application was dismissed by the second respondent. Exh. P-2 is the order. The accident admittedly occurred on 11.11.1989. Any petition will have to be filed within six months. There is power for the Tribunal to condone the delay. That power is only for six months. In short, the application had to be filed within one year from the date of accident.2. Admittedly, application was filed on 16.1.1991 and therefore under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the application is barred by limitation. Hence the application was liable to be dismissed and that is ...
Tag this Judgment!Kuzhiyaramadiyil Madhavan Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-1992
Reported in: 1994CriLJ450
L. Manoharan, J.1. Accused was charge-sheeted under Sections 447 and 302, I.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge, Manjeri found him guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 447 and 302, I.P.C., convicted him and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302, I.P.C. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence under Section 447, I.P.C. Accused has preferred this appeal against the said conviction and sentence.2. Cheeru Amma (deceased), aged 65 was residing along with her daughter at Pakkarathkunnu in Karuvambram amsom, desom of Ernad Taluk. In the evening of January 22, 1987 PW 1, a customer of PW 3 whose tea shop is on the south-east of the house compound of Cheeru Amma went to the tea shop for paying dues; finding PW-3 away to his house he (PW-1) went to the house of PW-3, paid the amount, and when he reached the road that runs in front of the house compound of Cheeru Amma he saw accused in her compound and herself protesting that the accused should not enter her ...
Tag this Judgment!D. Asokan Vs. State and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-1992
Reported in: II(1992)ACC230
K.A. Nayar, J. 1. This writ petition is to quash Ext.P2 order of the second respondent. The petitioner sustained injuries on 11-11-1989 when he was hit by an auto rickshaw driven by the 4th respondent. The 5th respondent and the 6th respondent are the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle KLY 5960. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha. 2nd respondent on 16-1-91. That application was dismissed by the second respondent.Ext.P2 in the order. The accident admittedly occurred on 11-11-1989. Any petition will have to be filed within six months. There is power for the Tribunal to condone the delay. That power is only for six months. In short the application had to be filed within one year from the date of accident.2. Admittedly application was filed on 16-3-91 and therefore under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the application is barred by limitation. Hence the application was liable to be dismissed, and that is what the Mot...
Tag this Judgment!Leelamma Vs. Dilip Kumar Alias Kochaniyan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ker57
ORDERChettur Sankaran Nair, J. 1. O.P. No. 1074/87 is a petitionfor declaration of nullity of marriage, while O.P. No. 1470/92 is a petition for restitution of conjugal rights.2. Petitioners in OP 1074/87 and OP 1470/92 will be referred as the wife and husband, in that order hereinafter. The parties met in December, 1985 and the wife consented to marry the husband, in the belief that he was a Christian, born of Christian parents, belonging to an ancient family, that belief having been induced by the husband by making a representation to that effect. The parties were married on 2-3-1986 at the St. Sebastian's Church, Thodupuzha according to the rites of the Syrian Catholic community.3. After marriage, they lived together for a while at the wife's place, and then moved tothe husband's parental home. It was only then that the wife realised that the husband was an Ezhava, baptised into Christianity recently, and that his parents were Ezhavas and not Christians, as he had represented. The w...
Tag this Judgment!L. Venkatesh Naik and anr., Etc. Etc. Vs. Assistant Collector, Special ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Ker383
ORDERK.A. Nayar, J.1. Even though elaborate arguments have been advanced in this case, I feel the question 10 be decided falls within a narrow compass, for it is admitted that the factual details of the different cases need not be gone into. In all these cases, there had been violations of the Gold (Control) Rules against which prosecutions have been launched under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (Act 45 of 1968) and the Rules framed thereunder. For violation of the Act and the Rules, criminal complaints have been filed and the same is pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. In some cases charges have been framed and in others charges have not been framed. The Gold (Control) Act 1968 (For short 'the Act') was repealed with effect from 6-6-1990. It was only a simple repeal and was not followed by any re-enactment. The only question is whether the criminal cases pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) can be continued....
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Rai Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2871; I(1992)DMC446
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. A case fratricide. Accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his elder brother Narayana Rai by shooting him with a gun on 12-10-1989 at about 5 p.m. The learned Sessions Judge, Kasaragod found the accused guilty under Section 302 and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.2. P.W. 1 younger sister of the accused Narayana Rai (deceased) lodged Ext. P-l first information statement before P.W. 14. Crime was registered by P.W. 14 and the investigation was undertaken by P.W. 15 Circle Inspector. Venue of the occurrence is the veranda of the house owned by the accused where he and his brother (deceased) were residing with their families along with P.W. 1. P.W. 8 doctor conducted autopsy and issued Ext. P-6 postmortem certificate. P.W. 15 held inquest. Ext. P.4 is the inquest report which is attested by P.W. 6, P.W. 5 is a brother of the accused apd the deceased who proved motive for the crime.3. Prosecution relies on the evidence of P.W....
Tag this Judgment!E.M. Ahmu Vs. P.S. Ramalingam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ker33
ORDERK.P. Balanarayana Marar, J.1. Has the appellate Court in an appeal from an order granting ad interim injunction power to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits This is the precise question that arises in this civil revision petition.2. Elections were recently held in this State for electing members to the District Congress Committee, Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee, Mandalm Committee etc. Elections were proposed to be held in Thrissur District also along with the election in the other Districts. Elections to Booth Committees and elections of the Presidents of those committees and delegates to block committees were conducted on 19-1-1992. The election to the D.C.C. and K.P.C.C. by the members of the block committees so elected was scheduled to be held on 28-1-1992. In the meantime revision petitioner filed the suit O.S. 149/92 before Sub-Court,Thrissur seeking an injunction restraining the respondent, the Returning Officer from conducting the elections to the K.P.C.C. and D.C.C...
Tag this Judgment!K.C. Suresh Vs. Director of Lotteries and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1992
Reported in: [1993]199ITR266(Ker)
K.A. Nayak, J. 1. The petitioner's case is that he was lucky in a lottery but unlucky with the Income-lax Department. He purchased a lottery ticket, Jai Mathrubhumi lottery ticket Number JK 242705, from the fourth respondent. He was the lucky winner to gel the first prize which carries rupees five lakhs and a new Maruti car. Hut when he received the money, he got only an amount of Rs. 1,47,803.50 as against the announced prize. That was because of the deduction made by the respondents applying the provision of Section 194B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. He has no case that the Department made a mistake in computing the amount of income-tax. His case is that tax ought not to have been collected in respect of the Maruti car treating it as income. The definition of income includes not only money payment but also the value of any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not and, therefore, the deduction made by the Income-tax Department cannot be challenged. If there is any d...
Tag this Judgment!Mytheen Kunju Abdul Salam Vs. Mohammed Kasim Ismail and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-20-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Ker257
Shamsuddin, J. 1. Petitioner in O.P, (Lunacy) No. 159 of 1980 on the files of the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram is the appellant. 2. Appellant filed the above application under Sections 40, 41, 42, 62 and 63 of Indian Lunacy Act IV of 1812 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), seeking to declare that his father's sister, Pathummal Beevi Kunju is a lunatic and to appoint the petitioner as the guardian of her person and properties. There is also a prayer in the petition to declare that the decree passed in O.S. NO. 91 of 1975 on the file of the Munsiffs Court, Nedumanged is void and will not bind the lunatic or her properties. The application was dismissed by the learned District Judge stating that questions were put to her by him and on a perusal of the answers given by her, he was not satisfied that she was of unsound mind. In this M.P. Appeal, appellant has challenged the order of the court below. 3. The aforesaid Pathumal Beevi Kunju is a widow. The father of the petitioner was ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »