Kerala Court December 1993 Judgments
Canara Bank Vs. Tecon Engineers and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-1993
Reported in: [1994]207ITR691(Ker)
K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J.1. Canara Bank, Ernakulam, is the petitioner in this original petition. The bank has been giving financial accommodation to the first respondent from October, 1972, onwards in order to enable them to execute various contract works undertaken by them. The first respondent had taken up contract work for FACT Engineering and Design Organisation and the Southern Railway. The total amount due to the bank from the first respondent under various accounts would come to more than Rs. 17 lakhs. On March 8, 1975, the first respondent executed an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the bank by which the bank was authorised to receive payment of all amounts due and which may become due from the second respondent under various contract works and to appropriate such amounts in reduction of the advances given by the bank. The original power of attorney was forwarded to the second respondent and the same was registered in their office. Similarly, an irrevocable power o...
Tag this Judgment!G.M. Nair Vs. Jaga Damma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)ALT(Cri)376; I(1994)DMC621
K.T. Thomas, J.A husband and wife fell out and the wife approached the Court of a Chief Judicial Magistrate claiming maintenance allowance from the husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'). The Chief Judicial Magistrate granted an order directing the husband to pay her monthly allowance at the rate of Rs. 500/-. Thus far there was not much hitch. But the trouble started when she filed a petition before a Judicial Magistrate of first class for enforcement of the order and the said Magistrate issued notice to the husband. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed by the husband contending that with the establishment of Family Court covering the area concerned no Magistrate has jurisdiction to continue any proceeding under Chapter IX of the Code.1. I issued notice to the respondent - wife on this Criminal Miscellaneous Case and requested Shri S. Vijayakumar, Advocate to argue as amicus curiae in the matter. I express my gratitude to h...
Tag this Judgment!P. I. Chacko Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and Others.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-1993
Reported in: (1994)117CTR(Ker)310; [1994]208ITR110(Ker)
P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN J. - An item of property which had vested in the Central Government under section 269UE of the Income-tax Act was notified to be sold by public auction under instructions from the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin (Kerala), respondent No. 1 herein as per exhibit P-1 notification. The second respondent was the auctioneer. The sale was to be held on September 22, 1993. The petitioner and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were participants in the auction.The terms and conditions of sale contained in exhibit P-1 provided that the properties were being sold by the auctioneer under instructions from the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, and the auction was subject to confirmation by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax. It also set out a power in the Commissioner to cancel or postpone the sale in the following words :'The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, reserves the right to cancel or postpone the auction at any time. He also reserves the right to reject...
Tag this Judgment!Vazhakala Estate Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-1993
Reported in: [1994]210ITR451(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The revision petitioner is an assessee to agricultural income-tax. The assessee is a registered firm. It owns agricultural properties. It derives considerable income from cardamom. We are concerned with the assessment year 1983-84. The Agricultural Income-taxAppellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam, passed a common order in A. I. T. A. Nos. 76 and 206 of 1988, dated March 15, 1989. The revisions are against the said common order in A. I. T. A. Nos. 76 and 206 of 1988. One of the appeals was filed by the Revenue and the other by the assessee.2. The facts of the case are a little complicated. The firm was granted renewal of registration for the year 1983-84. The books of account produced in support of the return were found not acceptable. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer passed an order dated September 17, 1984. He stated a few reasons for the rejection of the returns. Amongst them, the following important aspects were stressed :(i) The crop register for c...
Tag this Judgment!Sajan Mannali Vs. Hon'ble Chief Justice and Ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-1993
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ817Ker
Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. This writ petition is by an advocate ordinarily practising in this court hallenging the order Ext. R1(f) dated July 29, 1993, which was subsequently marked by the petitioner as Ext. P1 (b), of the Chief Justice of this court, the first respondent, as also the consequential proceedings Ext. P1 dated July 31, 1993, extending the period of service of the third respondent Sri. M.C. Madhavan, as Registrar of this court from the forenoon of August 1, 1993, so long as he continued as Special Officer for the establishment of the State Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner alleges and claims that he has filed the writ petition as a member of the Bar and as a citizen of this country, in discharge of his 'duty to make an endeavour to uphold the rule of law in this country by defending the independence and integrity of the judiciary against every offensive tending to undermine its credibility in public esteem'. We may at once mention that this tall claim of pro bono public ...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Chandran Vs. Nimmi Velappan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)ALT(Cri)255; 1994CriLJ2768
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. This is a case in which a young lady (Nimmi) has been prosecuted by her husband's brother (Pradeep). The parties are first cousins also. Nimmi is arraigned as accused and her brother-in-law Pradeep figures as the complainant in the case. If the prosecution version is true, Nimmi cannot escape conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act')- But if the defence version is true, the complainant is reminiscent of the money lender immortalised by William Shakespere in his drama 'Merchant of Venice'. The complaint against the accused is that she gave a post dated cheque for Rupees forty thousand which was presented on the due date but was returned dishonoured.2. Learned Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced her to pay a fine of Rupees five thousand. She filed an appeal before the Sessions Court. But complainant has come in revision in this court aggrieved by the inadequacy of the sentence imposed on the accused. Hence the a...
Tag this Judgment!Alarambil Rajan and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-1993
Reported in: II(1994)DMC261
K.T. Thomas, J.1. Sujatha was the wife of one Mohan. Within a few days after their wedding, Mohan left India and went to Soudi Arabia where he was employed leaving Sujatha in his parental home. But within ten months he received the horrifying information that Sujatha committed suicide by jumping into a well. Three brothers of Mohan were arraigned in the Court of a Judicial Magistrate of first class on the allegation that they subjected Sujatha to such cruelty as to drive her to commit suicide Learned Magistrate convicted those three persons of the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a line of Rs. 2,000/- each. When the convicted persons jointly filed an application before the Sessions Court, learned Sessions Judge, without going into the merits of the evidence, remanded the case to the Trial Court directing the Magistrate to resort to committal proceedings on the premise that accused should have been ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Kadar Vs. Pathumma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-05-1993
Reported in: I(1994)DMC502
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 in O.S. 166 of 1982 of the Munsiff's Court, Kuthuparamba are the appellants. First plaintiff died. Plaintiffs filed the suit for partition claiming 2/5 shares in the plaint schedule property. Trial Court decreed the suit holding that Ext. B-3 Will relied by the first defendant was not consented by the heirs after the death of the testator. First defendant filed A.S. 22 of 1986 before the Additional Sub Court, Tellicherry. The learned Additional Sub Judge allowed the appeal holding that Ext. B-3 Will is valid and binding on the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 10 and accordingly dismissed the suit.2. The plaintiff schedule property admittedly belonged to Ayisumma. At the time of her death she was survived by her children Kunhayan, Kunhammad and Pathumma. She had a daughter Sainaba who had predeceased her. First plaintiff is the wife of Kunhayan and her children are plaintiffs 2 and 3. Kunhammad's widow is the second defendant and her children ar...
Tag this Judgment!K. Balakrishna Menon Vs. District Judge, Kozhikode and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Ker158
ORDERK.J. Joseph, J. 1. Petitioner is the respondent in R.C.P. No. 43/1981 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode. He was the tenant of a building belonging to the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent/landlady filed an application for eviction of the petitioner/tenant on the ground of bona fide need for the occupation of her husband's sister and her children under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965. According to the landlady, the husband of the sister-in-law died on 15-8-1979 and the sister-in-law and her children are thereafter depending on the husband of the landlady. The landlady also alleged that there is no other building in her possession for the use and occupation of her sister-in-law and her children. The claim for bona fide occupation of the landlady was disputed by the petitioner/tenant. According to him, the sister-in-law of the landlady and her children are residing at her husband's house at Koothupramba and she is not a member of...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Majeed and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ1404
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. As fallout of a misfired love-affair, two persons who were not parties in the affair have become the sufferers. Those two were convicted and sentenced Under Section 332 and 342 of the IPC. As the conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal, they have now come in revision. One Beena is the heroine and Jalaludeen is the hero of the romantic adventure. Petitioners are brothers-in-law of Beena (as they have married her elder sisters). Petitioners were charge sheeted by the police on an incident which took place as incidental to the said affair. They were convicted by a judicial magistrate of first class and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months respectively under each count.2. Background of the case is the following : Jalaludeen, who was a divorcee fell in love with Beena. A registered instrument, signed by both, was executed to perpetrate the love affair. But the elders of Beena's family stoutly resisted the affair and they prevented h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »