Kerala Court August 1992 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kureethadam Wines Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1992
Reported in: (1992)108CTR(Ker)340
K. A. NAYAR, J. :I find no ground to entertain this writ petition at this stage. For the asst. yr. 1989-90, petitioner was assessed originally. The assessment was being reopened and notice in this regard is being given by Ext. P9. On receipt of Ext. P9, petitioner filed Exts. P10 and P12 representations. He also filed the same return which he had originally filed. The request made by the counsel on behalf of the petitioner is that before any further steps will be taken, an order may be directed to be passed on Exts. P10 and P12. I do not find any warrant for this submission. The petitioner will not only get an opportunity and get his case considered, but he will also get an opportunity to raise all contentions in support of Exts. P10 and P12 before final orders are passed. Petitioner will be given an opportunity to be heard before consequential assessment is made pursuant to Ext. P9.With the above, original petition is disposed of....
Femina Handloom of India, Cannanore Vs. M.R. Verma and Sons
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-19-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ker210
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. 116 of 1986 on the file of the Sub Court, Tellicherry is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the return of the plaint on the ground that the court below had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.2. The suit is for realisation of the amount due from the defendant being the price of 2000 metres of cotton handloom 'oxford fabric' variety sold by the plaintiff to the defendant. In the plaint the plaintiff alleged that the defendant offered to purchase cotton handloom fabric at the rate of Rs.. 13/-per metre and this offer was accepted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff later informed the defendant that she would be despatching the goods through Sharma bus, a common carrier. The goods were delivered through the common carrier and it reached the defendant's warehouse on 23-10-84. Plaintiff later sent invoice demanding Rupees 27,275.30 being the value of the goods despatched. Defendant postponed the payment under some pretext or oth...
V. Abdul Azeez and ors. Vs. the Alappuzha Bar Association and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-16-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ker201
ORDERK.P. Balanarayana Marar, J.1. Alapuzha Bar Association by a resolution adopted in an extraordinary general body meeting held on 10-1-1992 resolved to remove 12 members from the Bar Association. The resolution Ext. R1(b) describes them as retired hands. That resolution is under challenge in this original petition filed by the expelled members who seek a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction to strike down that resolution.2. Before joining the Bar at Alapuzha, petitioners had been in service either under the Government of Kerala, the Government of India or public undertakings. They were duly enrolled as members of the first respondent Bar Association. The Alapuzha Bar Association was incorporated under Section 28 of the Travancore Companies Act. Article 4(1) of the Memorandum of Association stipulates that membership is open to all advocates and pleaders entitled to practice in all or in any of the Civil Courts of Travancore and permanently residing within the ju...
Lokesh Naidu Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-11-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ548
ORDERM.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. While granting bail to the petitioner the Magistrate directed the sureties to produce solvency certificate. This is challenged by him on the ground that the Megistrate has no jurisdiction to hold so.2. Section 437(3) Cr. P.C. provides that the Courts can impose any condition which it considers necessary in order to ensure the attendance of the accused in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him or in order to ensure prevention of commission of any offence similar to the one which he is accused of or of the commission of which he is suspected. That apart, the Courts can also impose conditions in the interest of justice.3. The question that arises for consideration is whether the condition imposed by the Magistrate requiring the sureties to produce solvency certificate is beyond his powers. Learned counsel for the petitioner contentded that when the accused is granted bail on condition of the executing a bond with two solvent sureties insis...
ibrahimkutty Koyakutty Vs. Abdul Rahumankunju Ibrahimkutty and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ker91
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The second defendant in O.S. No. 321 of 1979, Munsiffs Court, Karunagapally is the appellant in this appeal. Plaintiffs 1 to 5 and the third defendant in the suit are the respondents herein. The first defendant's rights have been sold to the second defendant. The suit was filed for declaration of an easement right over C Schedule property which is a pathway 4 1/2 feet wide through the eastern extremity of B Schedule property. The plaint A Schedule property belongs to plaintiffs 1 to 5 and the third defendant and they are owners of different plots in A Schedule property. B Schedule property which belongs to defendants 1 and 2 lies to the south of A Schedule. To the south of B schedule, there is a public road. The plaintiffs stated that from A schedule property for access to the public road there is a pathway through the eastern extremity of B schedule property having a width of 4 1/2 feet which is described in the plaint as C schcdue. The said pathway is so being ...
Philip Vs. Surendran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-07-1992
Reported in: 1994ACJ279
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. Appellant is the first respondent in O.P. (M.v.) No. 87 of 1986 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, filed by the first respondent under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ('the 1939 Act'). The facts leading to that petition are as follows: The first respondent, Surendran, was travelling in a bus No. KLO 3581 proceeding along the Kottayam-Kumily Road to the east. When it was halted at the Vadavathoor Junction for disembarking some passengers, lorry No. KRE 1893 belonging to the second respondent and driven by the appellant came from the opposite direction and dashed against the bus resulting in very serious injuries to the first respondent. He was treated in the Medical College Hospital and his right hand had to be amputated. He filed the original petition claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,37,000/- for the injury caused to him under various heads. He impleaded the third respondent herein, namely, the United India Insurance ...
K.G. Vijayan Vs. the Dist. Manager, Food Corpn. of India and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-1992
Reported in: AIR1994Ker52
ORDERP.K. Shamsuddin, J. 1. In this Original Petition, petitioner challenges the disciplinary proceedings against him, which culminated in the removal of petitioner from service and also the orders in appeal and revision therefrom.2. Petitioner was served with a memorandum dated 1-4-1985 by the District Manager, 1st respondent herein, informing him the proposal to hold an enquiry under Sub-section (5) of Regulation 58 for imposing a major penalty. The articles of charges with statements of imputation and list of documents and witnesses were also forwarded along with the memorandum. It is the case of petitioner that he filed a detailed reply, denying the imputations made against him. Thereafter, another memorandum was issued by 2nd respondent, on 5-9-1985, containing identical charges and imputations as made by District Manager. An enquiry under Regulation 58(5) was also proposed. Petitioner filed a written statement denying the charges. The Senior Regional Manager appointed Sri A.N. Si...
Queens Kuries and Loans (P.) Ltd. Vs. Sheena Jose and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1992
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas821(Ker)
G.H. Guttal, J.1. The Queens' Kuries and Loans (P.) Ltd. has filed this application for a declaration that the requisition dated April 6, 1992 (exhibit P-1), made by respondents Nos. 1 to 8, and the extraordinary meeting of the company held by them on May 26, 1992, pursuant thereto and the resolutions passed therein are illegal. The respondents are members of the company. P. A. Francis, also a member, filed C. A. No. 188 of 1992 for impleading himself as a respondent. The application was allowed and P. A. Francis has been impleaded as respondent No. 9.2. The facts giving rise to this application are as under :On April 6, 1992, respondents Nos. 1 to 8 addressed the requisition (exhibit P-1) to the chairman, calling upon him to convene an extraordinary general meeting of the company. The requisition set out two resolutions proposed to be moved at the meeting. Resolution No. 1 was for immediate removal of the existing directors and resolution No. 2 was in respect of recovery from the chai...
Mathew Alias Mathai Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ213
K.T. Thomas, J.1. In spite of the fact that it was the deceased who struck the first blow, the question - who was the aggressor, deceased or the appellant - remains decisive in this appeal. If the deceased was the aggressor, then appellant had the right of private defence which could be extended even up to causing of deceased's death on the facts of this case and hence there is no question of exceeding that right. Thus the crucial question is whether appellant had right of private defence at all.2. The incident happened around 2.30 p.m. on 6-3-1987. Appellant, armed with a chopper went up to the road margin near deceased's shop and rumbled out: 'I won't return without killing you', and hurled a challenge to the deceased to come out. Deceased came out of the shop with a stick and beat the appellant on the head. It was then that appellant inflicted the fatal cuts on the deceased's head with the chopper. This, in substance, is the prosecution case which found acceptance with the Sessions ...
Valiyaveetil Ashraf and Etc. Vs. State, S.H.O.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-04-1992
Reported in: 1994CriLJ555
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Accused 1 to 3 in S.C. 6 of 1991 of the Sessions Court, Manjeri Division have filed the appeals challenging the conviction and sentence against them by the Sessions Judge. They stood charged Under Sections 364, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Sessions Judge found them guilty Under Sections 364, 302, 201 read with Section 34 and Under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. All the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each under Sections 364 and 120B and for five years under Section 201 of the IPC. Death sentence was imposed upon A-1 subject to confirmation by this Court and A-2 and A-3 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Musthafa alias Muthu was found missing from the afternoon of 1-5-1990. A dead body was found on 7-5-1990 in the ravine near the Sixth Hair Pin Curve in Thamarasseri Ghats. P.W. 2. Muhammad-kutty on seeing the corpse rep...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »