Kerala Court August 1992 Judgments
P. Mohammed Ali and ors. Vs. the Forest Range Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-31-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2019
ORDERM.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. The Criminal Revision Petitions are filed against the common order in C.C. 145 of 1988 and C.C. 148 of 1988 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash O.R. 55/92 pending before the second respondent.2. Contention of the petitioners is that sandal wood oil would not come within the definition of 'forest produce' under Section 2(f) of the Kerala Forest Act. Section 2(f) of the Act defines 'forest produce' thus :'Forest produce' includes --(i) the following whether found in or brought from, a forest or not, that is to say --timber, charcoal, wood-oil, gum, resin, natural varnish, bark lac, fibres and roots of sandalwood and rosewood.3. The question that arises for consideration is whether sandal wood oil is a forest produce. Petitioners contend that wood oil mentioned in Section 2(f) of the Act is an, entirely different category and sandal wood has nothing common with it. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrat...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Mangalam Vs. Velayudhan Asari
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-27-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ker181; II(1992)DMC545
ORDERK.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner in LA. No. 3603 of 1991 in O.P. (H.M.A.) No 379 of 1987, II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, is the petitioner herein. The counter petitioner in the said proceedings is the respondent in this revision. The revision petitioner filed a petition against the respondent for divorce, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petition was filed as early as 11-11-1987. The divorce was sought on the ground of cruelty. Pendente lite, the petitioner (wife) filed I.A. No. 880 of 1989, for directing the counter petitioner (husband) to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per mensem and Rs. 500/- towards the litigation expenses. The court below ordered the petition, as prayed for. In C.R.P. No. 568 of 1991, this court modified the order, by directing the respondent-counter petitioner (husband) to pay an amount of Rs. 200/- per mensum towards maintenance and Rs. 500/- towards the litigation expenses. A sum of Rs. 6,300/-was due on the date...
Tag this Judgment!Bharath Trust Vs. D. Divakara Rao
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-26-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ker88
ORDERK.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 957 of 1983, Munsiffs Court, Cherthala, is the revision petitioner. The suit was filed for recovery of money from the respondent-defendant. The plaintiff is a registered firm. The Managing Partner, Mr. Salim, filed the suit on behalf of the firm. The suit as for recovery of the balance amount of Rs. 859.80 as on 8-3-1980. The defendant had obained a loan of Rs. 10,000/- on 30-3-1976, with an agreement to repay it with 18% interest. For the balance due as on 8-3-1980, the defendant agreed to pay 19% interest. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant gave two postdated cheques on 28-4-1982. The cheques are dated 30-4-1982 and 16-5-1982. The cheques were dishonoured. The plaintiff initiated two criminal cases futilely. In spite of demand, the defendant did not pay the amount due. So, the suit was filed.2. The defendant contested the suit. He pleaded that the suit is not maintainable. The loan from Bharath Trust, the firm, was admitted....
Tag this Judgment!Mathai Brijitha Vs. Thankappan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-24-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ker79
Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. This is a petitioner purported to be filed under Order XLIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for allowing the petitioner to file the review petition as an indigent person. Petitioner was the appellant in the appeal which was dismissed with costs. She had been allowed to file the appeal as an indigent person as she was unable to pay the court fee required for the memorandum of appeal. The court fee payable on the review petition is Rs. 4775/-under Article 5 of Schedule 1 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (Act 10 of 1960). According to the petitioner, she is unable to pay the court fee required for the review petition. She has therefore filed this petition for being allowed to file the review petition as an indigent person. The question is whether this can be allowed, as Order XLIV Rule 1 speaks specifically only of appeals, and does, not refer to review petitions. We may also mention that Order XXXIII, the other provision in the Cod...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kerala Financial Corporation Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-24-1992
Reported in: [1993]202ITR186(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. These are references at the instance of the Revenue. The assessee in all these cases is the same, namely, the Kerala Financial Corporation Limited. The question referred is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the total income before making any deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) ?2. This question is really concluded against the Revenue by the decisions in the assessee's own cases in I.T.R. Nos. 33 and 34 of 1985, and I.T.R. No. 68 of 1989, pertaining to the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80 respectively. In answering those references, this court had followed the decision in Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT : [1989]180ITR323(Ker) as also the decision in I.T.R. Nos. 205 to 208 of 1984 (subsequently reported in CIT v. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (No. 2) : [1990]182ITR67(Ker) ). Th...
Tag this Judgment!P.G. Hariharan and Ors. Vs. Padaril Deceased Kunhambu's Children Balac ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1992
Reported in: AIR1994Ker36
T.V. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The main controversy in this appeal by the plaintiffs centres around a particular clause in a compromise reached between the members of a Hindu family and incorporated in the schedule to the decree passed in terms of the said compromise in a suit O.S. No. 9 of 1951 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's court, Ottappalam (hereinafter referred to as 'the earlier suit'). 2. The present suit out of which this appeal arises is a suit for partition. The plaintiffs claimed half share in the plaint schedule property based upon Exts. A4 to A6 assignment deeds. The property sought to be partitioned is admittedly item No. 1 in 'C' schedule to the compromise in the earlier suit marked as Ext. A1 in the present suit. Relying upon the terms in Ext. A1 it was contended that Gopalan, the plaintiff in the earlier suit had half share in the property. The other half share in the property vested with the members of the sakha of 1st defendant in the earlier suit, consisting of defe...
Tag this Judgment!Anthrayose P.K. Vs. the Senior Inspector of Co-op. Societies and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ker39
Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 7361 of 1992 dated 9-6-1992. The Writ Petition was dismissed in limine, and against the said order the present appeal is preferred.2. The appellant-writ petitioner was a member of the Co-operative Bank, and was a candidate in the election to the Board of Directors to be held on 28-6-1992. His nomination was rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that the name of the Bank had not been written by hand, but a seal had been affixed. The said order of the Returning Officer was challenged in the Writ Petition, and a direction by a writ of mandamus was sought to the Raturning Officer (first respondent) to accept the nomination papers and permit the writ petitioner to contest the election. The learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the petitioner had an alternate remedy by way of raising a dispute before the Registrar ' under Section 69 of the Keral...
Tag this Judgment!Velukutty Achary Vs. Harrisons Malayalem Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1992
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ1118Ker
Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner against the judgment of the learned single Judge in OP 7615 of 1987 dated September 6, 1991.2. The writ petition was filed questioning the orders passed by the second respondent (Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kollam) and of the third respondent (appellate authority) under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said authorities had held that the appellant was not entitled to gratuity as provided in the Act.3. The facts of the case are as follows: The appellant-writ petitioner was initially employed by the first respondent-Company prior to September 1, 1970 and was admittedly retrenched on December 18, 1970. The appellant is a blacksmith. However, subsequent to the retrenchment, it appears that the Company was engaging the appellant for wages whenever there was work. The evidence was that whenever there was such work, a notice was being put up in the notice board and the appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Velukutty Achary Vs. Harrisons Malayalam Limited
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1992
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ188Ker
Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner against the Judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P.7615 of 1987 dated 6.9.1991.2. The writ petition was filed questioning the orders passed by the second respondent (Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kollam) and of the third respondent (appellate authority) under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Thesaid authorities had held that the appellantwas not entitled to gratuity as provided inthe Act. 5 3. The facts of the case are as follows: The appellant-writ petitioner was initially employed by the first respondent-Company prior to 1.9.1970 and was admittedly retrenched on 18.12.1970. The appellant is a blacksmith. However, subsequent to the retrenchment, it appears that the Company was engaging the appellant for wages whenever there was work. The evidence was that whenever there was such work, a notice was being put up in the notice board and the appellant used to attend to that wo...
Tag this Judgment!Dhurunal Chhotalal Patel Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1992
Reported in: 1993(46)LC113(Kerala)
S.P. Kurdukar, J.1. The petitioner in this petition has raised a question as regards excisability of the Copper Scrap. The question is whether Copper Scrap imported by the petitioner falls under residuary Item 68 or Item 26-A of the Central Excise Tariff, as it then stood prior to 1st April, 1981.2. The petitioner has imported Copper Scrap some time in 1980. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, by his order/letter dated 9.3.1982/23.9.1982 (Ex. D), has opined that Item 26-A of the C.E.T. will apply to Copper Scrap as the same is covered by expression 'Copper/Brass in any crude form'. Accordingly, the Assistant Collector held that duty leviable would be at the rate of 80% ad valorem basic duty under Chapter 74 of C.T.A. and Rs. 3300/- per metric tonne additional duty under Item 26-A of C.E.T. This liability assessed by the Assistant Collector is sought to be impugned in this writ petition.3. Mr. D.H. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner drew our attention to a repor...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »