Kerala Court March 1992 Judgments
P.C. John Vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-1992
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ71Ker
ORDERT.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. Petitioner is the son of one P.O. Chacko, who was a driver in the respondent Corporation. Chacko died on February 18, 1986 after serving the Corporation as a driver for more than twenty years. There was a suit among the heirs of Chacko namely O.S. No. 182 of 1987 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kanjirappally in which a decree was passed on September 29, 1987 declaring the petitioner as the person entitled to claim compassionate appointment in the Corporation under the dying-in-harness scheme. Petitioner applied accordingly for appointment in the respondent Corporation pursuant to which he was called for an interview in the year 1988, and being found fit, included in the select list for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. He is Serial No. 2 in the list of peons selected for appointment under the scheme.2. Since the appointment was not forthcoming despite his inclusion in the list, the petitioner made request for immediate appointment to whi...
Tag this Judgment!Susamma Thomas and ors. Vs. Narayana Kurup and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-1992
Reported in: I(1992)ACC607; 1992ACJ1034
G.H. Guttal, J. 1. The claimants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Thomas Philip, impugn the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alleppey in O.P. (M.V.) No. 330 of 1984, whereby the learned member of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 58,760/- as compensation against the petitioners' claim of Rs. 10,00,000/-.2. In this judgment the parties are referred to by their nomenclature ir the original proceedings before the Tribunal. Petitioner No. 1 is the widow of the deceased. Petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the children of the deceased. Petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 are the parents. Respondent No. 2 is the K.S.R.T.C. whose vehicle was driven by respondent No. 1 at the relevant time. On 19.2.1984 at Pullad, the deceased, then aged 39 years and employed on a monthly salary of Rs. 1,032/-in Malayala Manorama was knocked down and killed by the vehicle owned by the respondent No. 2.The deceased had planned to emigrate to the U.S.A. with his wife and children. The petitioner No...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Satheesan Vs. the Advocate General, High Court of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-06-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ker22
ORDERK. Sreedharan, J.1. Petitioner, an Advocate practising in the High Court, challenges the election of the third respondent as member of the Kerala Bar Council. Contention raised by the petitioner is that third respondent is a Full-Time salaried employee of the Kerala Law Academy, Law College, Thiruvananthapuram and so, he is not entitled to contest the election as a practising Advocate.2. The averments made by the petitioner are to the following effect. Bar Council of Kerala framed rules for the conduct of elections, known as 'The Bar Council of Kerala Elections Rules, 1970'. These Rules do not provide anything regarding the disqualification for being chosen as a member of the State Bar Council. Rule 7 provides that no person shall be entitled to seek election unless his name is in the Electoral Roll. Nomination paper insists on a declaration by the candidate that,--'I have not incurred any of the disqualifications for being a member of the Council as stated in the election rules.'...
Tag this Judgment!Raveendra Kamath Vs. V.A. Dholakia and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-06-1992
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR479]; (1992)IILLJ555Ker
K.S. PARIPOORNAN, J.1. Second respondent in Original Petition No. 6923 of 1991 is the appellant in this writ petition. The petitioner and first respondent in the original petition are the respondents herein. The appellant is an ex-workman of the first respondent herein (petitioner in the original petition-a company). The second respondent herein (first respondent in the original petition) is the Labour Court. The appellant was charge-sheeted by the petitioner for various items of misconduct. A domestic enquiry was conducted. Finding that the explanation of the appellant is unsatisfactory, and based on the enquiry report, the appellant was dismissed from service on December 16, 1987. The appellant raised an industrial dispute. It was referred to the Labour Court, Emakulam. By Exhibit P-4, dated September 18, 1990, published in the Kerala Gazette, dated March 19, 1991, the Labour Court directed the company to reinstate the appellant with back-wages, continuity in service and other attend...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. Panni Kunhappa
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-06-1992
Reported in: [1992]195ITR588(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Kerala Agricultural Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode, 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 is right in holding that the provisos coming under Clause (f) of Section 10(1) are applicable only to that clause or to the entire Section 10(1) ?'2. The respondent is an assessee to agricultural income-tax on the files of the Additional Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Taliparamba. We are concerned herein with the assessment year 1975-76 for which the accounting period ended on March 31, 1975. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer, by order dated February 9, 1981, determined the total agricultural income of the respondent/assessee at Rs. 26,831.50. Thereafter, he gave an exemption of one-sixth of the income for the share income from the firm already assessed, amounting to Rsr 24,851.50, and the exemption...
Tag this Judgment!iswara Bhat Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-03-1992
Reported in: (1992)104CTR(Ker)392; [1993]200ITR238(Ker)
K. S. Paripoornan, J. 1. At the instance of an assessee, the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Trivandrum, has referred one question in I.T.R. No. 104 of 1981 and three questions in I.T.R. No. 585 of 1985, . for the decision of this court. They are as follows :I. T. R. No. 104 of 1981 :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax is right in law in holding that the principles of [1980] KIT 276 ( Commissioner of Agrl. I. T. v. Chutlikkan Parameswara Bhat : [1980]125ITR28(Ker) ) are not applicable in the instant case ?'I. T. R. No. 585 of 1985 :' 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Commissioner was right under law in exercising his powers under Section 34 of the Act, after an inordinate delay of 13 years from the date of the assessment order and after 12 years from the date of directions issued by the Honourable High Court?2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the decision of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›