Kerala Court June 1992 Judgments
P. Damodaran and ors. Vs. State Represented by S.i. of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-29-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ404
ORDERM.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. This is a petition to grant permission to compound the offence as the matter is settled out of Court. First petitioner is the accused in C.C. 173 of 1987 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court. Tellicherry. The other petitioners are the de facto complainants.2. The case against the first petitioner (accused) is that he collected-amount from the other petitioners promising them to arrange visa and thereafter he failed to do so or to refund the amount. Accused was convicted for offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Tellicherry in Crl.A. 70 of 1990. Crl.R.P. 694 of 1991 filed by the accused was dismissed by this Court on 7-4-1992. The present petition has been filed on 12-6-1992.3. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether compounding of offences could be done when conviction and sentence against...
Tag this Judgment!N. Mani Vs. the Regional Transport Officer, Thiruvanathapuram and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-26-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ker37
ORDERB.M. Thulasidas, J.1. It is alleged that on 22-1-1987 the officers of the Motor Vehicle's Department seized the petitioner's vehicle KBT 2792 for the arrears and the same was entrusted with the third respondent, Sub-Inspector for Police, Vattappara Police Station, for safe custody, which is evidenced by Ext. P1, He was in great financial difficulties and therefore could not pay the tax arrears or take steps to get the vehicle released. On 16-12-1991 he moved an application before the first respondent to grant him exemption from payment of tax. But his application was rejected by order dated 17-12-1991, copy of which is Ext. P2. In doing so, the first respondent relied upon the notification, a copy of which is Ext. P3, Aggrieved by Ext. P2, the petitioner submitted a representation, copy of which is Ext. P4, to the Minister for Transport and it has not been disposed of so far. According to the petitioner, Exts. P2 and P3, 'in so far as it excludes motor vehicles held in public cust...
Tag this Judgment!Kunnath Abdul Salam Abdurahiman Ustad and anr. Vs. K.N. Muhammadali
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-26-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ4079
ORDERM.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. This is a petition to quash the complaint. Petitioners are the accused 1 and 2. The respondent (complainant) filed the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Payyannoor as C.C. 12 of 1992 alleging that Al had told complainant that he has a property at Peringom for sale, that the complainant, A1 and A2 went to the property, that after inspecting the property complainant agreed to purchase the property for Rs. 6,00,000/-, that Rs. 100/- was paid as advance, that he went to Abudabi and from there he sent draft in the N.R.I. account for Rs. 6,58,823/-, that he issued two cheque to A1 and that A1 had drawn the cheque amount. It is the specific case of the complainant that the property was purchased in the name of A1 and thus he committed offences under Sections 403, 405, 406 and 420 read with Section 34, of the IPC.2. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case. Contention of the accused is that no prima facie case has been establis...
Tag this Judgment!Hajee P.M. Meeranan and anr. Vs. P. Venugopal, Special Officer, Kanjir ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-26-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ364
ORDERM.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in S.T. 919 of 1991 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanjirappally. They seek to quash the complaint, chiefly on the ground that the complaint filed by the Kanjirappally Municipality cannot be sustained as the complainant-Municipality is no longer in existence.2. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the complaint filed by the Municipality survives when that body is no longer in existence. In other words, can the Panchayat which steps into the shoes of the Municipality prosecute the complaint under the Municipalities Act? Admittedly Kanjirappally Municipality has ceased to exist and now it is only a Panchayat. If that be so, the complaint under Sections 228, 320, 247, 248 and 357 of the Municipalities Act cannot be continued by the Panchayat, Kanjirappally Panchayat cannot be termed as the successor of the Municipality for the purpose of pursuing the criminal complaint. Offences made out under th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re; Brunton and Company (Engineers) Ltd. (In Liquidation).
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-26-1992
Reported in: (1992)108CTR(Ker)245
ORDERG. H. GUTTAL, J. :In this report Official Liquidator seeks an order that a sum of Rs. 1,44,720 paid by him as advance tax for the asst. yr. 1990-91 be refunded. Reliance was placed on this Courtss order dt. 12th November, 1990 on Report No. 65 in which the Court ordered that the Official Liquidator need not file income-tax returns for the period subsequent to 12th November, 1990. Nor has he paid any tax ?2. Learned counsel for the IT Deptt. opposes any order of refund. In my opinion he is right in this opposition. It is open to Official Liquidator to ask for refund after the assessment of the income of the company for the year 1990-91 is completed. Therefore, in partial modification of the order of this Court dt. 12th November, 1990 in report No. 65, I permit the Official Liquidator to file income-tax return for the asst. yr. 1990-91 and thereafter apply for refund of the income-tax paid.3. Except this no order on this report....
Tag this Judgment!Thomas Cherian Alias Saji Vs. Nisha Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ker19
Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 20 of the Indian Divorce Act. The petition was filed by one Thomas Cherian alias Saji, who is the husband of the respondent, Mrs. Nisha Thomas. At the time when the petition was filed in the District Court by the husband on 25-9-1989 he was living at Kaloor in Cochin, while the respondent, his wife, was living in Switzerland.2. The petitioner and the respondent were married on 10-9-1987 in India. Subsequently, they went to Kumarakom near Kottayam where it is said that the respondent persistently resisted sexual relationship. It is further alleged that even thereafter the respondent did not permit sexual intercourse. It is stated that the respondent used to speak very fervently of her love to Mr. Ottino, whom she told was her intimate friend. Subsequently, the respondent left for Switzerland on 20-9-1987 leaving the petitioner at Kaloor. It is the case of the petitioner that when she left for Switzerland, she promised that she wou...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Sreedharan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1992
Reported in: (1992)106CTR(Ker)12; [1993]201ITR1010(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The assessee, K. Sreedharan, was a partner in two firms, Sreedharan & Co. and Kavitha Trading Company. He was also associated with the company M/s. Sreedharan & Co. (P.) Ltd., in which there appeared five cash credits of Rs. 50,000 each on January 1 and 5, 1980, March 15 and 28, 1980, and Rs. One lakh on March 3, 1980, aggregating to Rs. 3 lakhs. In completing the assessment under the Income-tax Act for the year 1980-81, the assessing authority held that these credits have not been satisfactorily explained by the assessee and, accordingly, treated them as his income liable to tax. The assessment was affirmed in first appeal, but on second appeal, the Tribunal, by its order annexure C, accepted the assessee's explanation in relation to these credits and deleted the amount from the assessment.2. The assessee's explanation for these cash credits was that he had substantial receipts from the firms, Sreedharan & Co. and Kavitha Trading Company, during the assessme...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Private Motor and Mechanical Workers' Federation Vs. State of K ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1992
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ401Ker
K.A. Nayar, J.1. This petition is to quash Exhibit P-2 order of the Government refusing to refer industrial dispute to adjudication. The petitioner is a trade union representing the workers employed in the second respondent's establishment. It is stated that S. Muralecdharan Pillai was permanently employed in the bus No. KRQ 5812 owned by the second respondent and the second respondent denied employment to him on September 4, 1987, arbitrarily. The District Labour Officer on October 14, 1987, November 3, 1987, December 8, 1987, December 26, 1987, March 14, 1988, and March 22, 1988, called joint conferences of the parties to consider the issue of denial of employment to Muraleedharan Pillai. Since no settlement was arrived at, a failure report has been sent as required under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provides that if any industrial dispute exists or apprehended, the Conciliation Officer may hold conciliation proce...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sreedharan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR973(Ker)
K.A. Nayar, J.1. For the assessment year 1984-85, the petitioner was assessed to income-tax. Exhibit P-l is the assessment order. In computing the income of the petitioner, the Income-tax Officer made the following additions to the petitioner's income :(Rs.) (a) Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act.1,20,000(b) Addition for insufficient drawings10,928(c) Unexplained investment in Ramananda Textiles10,000(d) 4/5ths share of agricultural income of minor sons and wife11,2602. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the petitioner filed a revision. Exhibit P-2 is the revisional order. The revisional authority accepted the claim of the petitioner to exclude the addition of 4/5ths share of agricultural income of minor sons and wife. The revisional authority has not accepted the contention of the petitioner in respect of the addition to the petitioner's income under the heads (a), (b) and (c) mentioned above. The petitioner, therefore, filed this writ petition challenging ex...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Khairunnissa Ebrahim
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR903(Ker)
T. L. Viswanatiia Iyer, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( ' the Act ' ), at the instance of the Revenue consequent on the directions issued by this court in O. P. No. 5694 of 1983 :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the sum is not assessable for the assessment year 1976-77 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that 'no benefit' can be said to have arisen to the assessee under the agreement ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in not considering the question also under Section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The assessee, Khairunnissa Ebrahim, is the proprietrix of Ama Sea Foods, engaged in the processing of sea foods which are exported. She owed a sum of Rs. 10,1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »