Kerala Court March 1992 Judgments
Mrs. S. Resleth Vs. Indian Bank and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Ker359
ORDERK.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. The 12th defendant in O.S. No. 75/86 of the Principal Sub Court, Quilon, has filed this petition seeking permission to file the appeal as an indigent person. As part of the enquiry regarding indigency of the petitioner notice was given to the Advocate General and the State has furnished a report to the effect that the petitioner is not possessed of any immovable properties and that she has disposed of any property within two months prior to the date of filing of the application. However, in the report it is statedthat the petitioner's husband is a prominent businessman and he is having an annual income of more than Rs. 1 lakh. In view of the above report it is contended by the respondents that the petitioner is not an indigent person, as she has got financial resources to pay the court-fee. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the indigency of the petitioner is to be decided solely on the basis of her financial capabilities and not on the bas...
Tag this Judgment!Gtc Industrial Ltd. Vs. E.V.P. Abdurahimankutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-27-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1441
ORDERB.M. Thulasidas, J.1. The accused in S. T. No. 103 of 1992 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram, is the petitioner. The revision is directed against the order of the Magistrate dated 30-1-1992 on Crl. M. P. 509 of 1992. The M. C. is filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C. to quash the proceedings in the above case. These were heard together.2. In the complaint filed by the respondent, it is alleged that he inspected the trade premises of one Hamza, near Civil Station, Malappuram, on 22-4-1991 and found him to have 'displayed for retail sale packets containing Chancellor Cigarettes.' They did not bear proper delcarations as required under Rule 17(1)(a) and (b) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packages Commodities) Rules. They were manufactured by the petitioner who had violated Section 39 of the Standards of Weights and Measures and Rule 17(1)(a) and (b) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules and was liable for punishment under ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Narendran and ors. Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-26-1992
Reported in: AIR1994Ker54
ORDERT.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. Petitioners are the President and Vice President of the third respondent Kadampanad Panchayat. Written notice of a no-confidence motion against them was delivered on 5-2-1992 under Section 54(2) of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960. A meeting was convened to be held on 10-3-1992 for consideration of the motion. Notice was given accordingly. But that day happened to be declared a holiday by the Kerala Government to celebrate the success of the State Football team in the Santosh Trophy Football Tournament. The District Panchayat Officer thereupon adjourned the meeting by his proceedigns Ext. P2 relying on the proviso to Rule 3 of the Kerala Panchayats (Proceedings of Panchayat Meetings and Committees) Rules, 1962. Notice was thereafter issued for holding a fresh meeting for consideration of the no-confidence motion on 2-4-1992. Petitioners have come forward with this original petition with the plea that a fresh meeting to consider the no-confidence motion c...
Tag this Judgment!Erinhikkal Parammal Ravindran Vs. K. Roja and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-1992
Reported in: AIR1994Ker67
ORDERG.H. Guttal, J. 1. The principal question for consideration is whether an order rejecting the application for reference of disputed documents to a handwriting expert constitutes 'case............decided' within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By his order dated 27-6-1991 in I.A. No. 1440 of 1991 in O.P. No. 85 of 1987 Under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Talassery, dismissed the husband's prayer for an order directing the wife, to furnish her specimen handwriting for the purpose of comparing them with the disputed letters (Exts. A8 to Al4) alleged to have been written by her to her paramour. He impugns the validity of this order.2. The facts out of which the petition arises are these:O.P. No. 85 of 1987 by the husband is for decree of divorce on the ground that his wife (respondent No. 1) committed adultery with Balakrishnan (respondent No. 2). The petition was filed in 1987. The evidence commenced i...
Tag this Judgment!Ramoo Ramesh Vs. Andhra Bank
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-1992
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR823]; (1992)IILLJ838Ker
Sreedharan, J.1. Petitioner was the Manager of Andhra Bank, Ernakulam Branch. He was in Middle Management Grade III. On the ground of certain irregularities, he has been placed under suspension by Ext. P1 order dated August 29, 1984. That order is under challenge.2. Ext. P2 dated May 7, 1985 is the memo of charges served on the petitioner. By that, 17 charges were levelled against him. Petitioner submitted his written explanation. Thereupon, the charges mentioned in Ext.P-2 were split up.Ext. P10 dated February 10, 1990 contains 5 charges and Ext. P21 dated March 15, 1990, the remaining 12 charges. Bank has initiated steps to get 12 charges mentioned in Ext. 21 enquired into by the Enquiry Officer. That enquiry is, it is agreed at the Bar, virtually over. According to the learned counsel representing the petitioner, the Bank, with ulterior motive, split up the charges and got 12 charges enquired by the Enquiry Officer. In case the Enquiry Officer exonerates the petitioner from responsi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. India Sea Foods.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-1992
Reported in: (1993)110CTR(Ker)190
ORDERT. L. VISWANATHA IYER, J. :This reference is at the instance of the Revenue. The assessment year concerned is 1967-68. The assessee-respondent filed a return of its income on 10th April, 1968 disclosing an income of Rs. 2,75,000 but stating that its accounts were pending finalisation and that the return was only provisional. It was stated that the return will be amended on the finalisation of the accounts. Thereafter, the managing partner of the assessee, who was also the managing partner of two other sister firms, sought settlement of the matters relating to income-tax by filing a petition before the CIT in which he disclosed the wealth position of the partners and of the firms as on 31st Dec., 1958 and 31st Dec., 1967. Discussions as well as correspondence went on between the parties and on 18th Dec., 1968 the assessee furnished a revised return showing the income of Rs. 3,07,428.04. The processing of the settlement proposal continued and eventually an agreement was entered into...
Tag this Judgment!Damodaran and ors. Vs. Shekharan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-20-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ker242
John Mathew, J.1. Defendants 1 to 11 in O.S. No. 273/81, Sub Court, Kozhikode are the appellants. This suit was originally filed as O.S. No. 191/78 before the Munsiff Court, Kozhikode as one for redemption and recovery of possession. The defendants contended that there was only an agreement to mortgage and so the suit for redemption was not maintainable. Thereupon the plaint was amended as one for recovery of possession. When the valuation was accordingly amended, the valuation exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff Court, Accordingly the plaint was returned to the plaintiff, who presented it before the Sub Court. That court granted a decree for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties. That decree was confirmed by a learned Judge of this Court in A.S. No. 355/88. This appeal is directed against the said judgment.2. The plaintiff executed Ext. A 18 (which is same as Ext. B12) agreement dated 19-7-1968 in favour of the 1st defendant and others agreeing to exe...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Financial Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-18-1992
Reported in: 1993(63)ELT16(Ker)
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. This petition is by Kerala Financial Corporation. It seeks to quash Ext. PI demand notice, Ext. PI notice is issued under Section 7 of the Revenue Recovery Act.2. The Deputy Tahsildar has issued the notice Ext. PI stating that the Manager, Kerala Financial Corporation has defaulted payment of an amount of Rs. 77,544.77. According to the petitioner, Ext. PI notice is illegal in so far as the petitioner or the Manager of the Kerala Financial Corporation is not a defaulter and no arrears is due from the petitioner.3. The petitioner's case is that the Kerala Financial Corporation has advanced large amounts to an industrial unit by name Hi-Impress Fibre Glass Industries. Hi-Impress Fibre Glass Industries did not repay the loan as agreed to. So the petitioner has taken proceedings under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. Under Section 29 of the above Act, it is possible for the Financial Corporation to take action against the defaulting industria...
Tag this Judgment!M. Alavi Vs. T.V. Safia
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ker21
ORDERK.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Revision-petitioner (husband) was the respondent in Crl. R. P. No. 85 of 1989 on the file of Sessions Court, Thalassery. The respondent (wife) herein filed an application under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights) on Divorce Act (for short 'the Act') for maintenance during idat period and also for reasonable and fair provision for her future. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, before whom the application was filed, dismissed the application holding that the same is not maintainable. The learned Magistrate was of the view that the petitioner in the application was leading an adulterous life and so she is not entitled to get any relief under Section 3 of the Act. Aggrieved by that order respondent-wife filed revision petition before the Sessions Court, Thalassery. The Sessions Judge reversed the finding and held that the application for maintenance is maintainable and for determination of the quantum the matter was remanded to the trial Court. Agg...
Tag this Judgment!J. Subhash Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-1992
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR561]; (1993)ILLJ273Ker
K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Exhibits P-3 to P-6 and quashing the same.(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act as unconstitutional and ab intitio void.(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring that the provision contained in Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act will not prohibit the petitioner to engage a legal practitioner to defend his case properly before the first respondent.2. The main aspect that arises for consideration is whether an advocate has a right of audience before a Tribunal or a Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act.3. The petitioner is a licensee of toddy shops. Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 are...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »