Kerala Court March 1993 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.
J.M. Jameela Ibrahim Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Ker377
ORDERK.J. Joseph, J.1. The petitioner is an advocate practising before the Courts at Quilon. She was appointed as the Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor by the State Government for Quilon District for conducting cases for and on behalf of the State of Kerala. Apart from the Criminal and Civil cases, for and on behalf of the State, she has to represent the State Government on its various Departments, before the Tribunals or quasi judicial authorities.2. It is the case that she was directed on behalf of the State to conduct certain Motor Accident Claims filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Quilon. While passing the awards, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had fixed the advocate fees to be paid in respect of those cases in the award itself. But when she applied for payment of the said amount fixed by the Tribunal, the same was declined by the respondents on the basis of Ext. P-l letter dated 17-8-1988, issued by the District Collector, Quilon to the petitioner, wher...
Syed Fazal Pookoya Thangal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Ker308; II(1993)DMC285
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. For the first time in the history of this State the jurisdiction under Section 4(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Righs on Divorce) Act 25 of 1986 (the Act) was invoked when the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Perinthalmanna passed order on September 30, 1992, directing the Kerala Wakf Board to make payment of maintenance to one Jameela, daughter of Chenangara Avaran, at the rate of Rs. 250/-per month. A copy of this order is Ext. P1 and it was passed in Maintenance Case No. 2 of 1990 on the file of the said Magistrate. Jameela is a divorced Muslim wife, who moved the court for relief under Section 3 of the Act and was granted a sum of Rs. 15,400/-by the order in M.C. No. 59 of 1986. She could however realise only an amount of Rs. 6,000/- out of the amount so granted, by attachment and sale of the property of her ex-husband the respondent in that case. The ex-husband was sent to jail for non-payment of the balance amount. Jameela had no property...
K.C. Joy Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1993
Reported in: [1993]204ITR511(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. There is no cause of action for the petitioner to approach this court at this stage. The petitioner is one of those on whom the order of assessment, exhibit P-1, has been passed. It is said that a portion of the tax so assessed has been paid by the other persons on whom also the order, exhibit P-1, has been passed. The petitioner is now being proceeded against for the balance due as per exhibit P-1 which includes interest under Sections 139(8) and 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. When such proceedings for recovery of the amount were initiated, the petitioner made a request to the Tax Recovery Officer to drop the proceedings against him and to proceed against the other members of the association. Whether such a prayer is tenable or not is a matter on which I need not express any opinion now as the matter arises for consideration before the Tax Recovery Officer. The petitioner has also made an application, exhibit P-4, before the Commissioner of Income-tax for ...
CochIn Chamber of Commerce and Industry Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1993
Reported in: [1994]206ITR332(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. At the instance of an assessee to income-tax, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law for the decision of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income from interest on Government securities, dividend from shares in companies and interest from bank deposits in respect of which no activity for profit is carried on by the assessee-Chamber of Commerce are exempt under the provisions of Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. When no objection is raised by the assessing authority and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the assessee had not filed an application in Form No. 10 for accumulation of income or that it had not applied for registration under Section 12A of the Act, was the Appellate Tribunal justified in holding for the first time that the assessee had not filed such application or had not applied for such registration ?' 2. The assessee is the Cochin Chamber of Com...
Dr. Thomas Eapen Vs. Asst. Labour Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1993
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ847Ker
P.K. Shamsuddin, J.1. The petitioner is the managing partner of Kadampuzha Hospital, Kanjirappally. Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 are working as nurses in the said institution. The first respondent issued three notices, Exhibits P-1, P-1(a) and P-1(b) to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner failed to comply with the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, in the cases of respondents Nos. 3 to 5. The petitioner sent a reply Exhibit P-2 stating that hospitals were not covered by the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act. Thereafter, a notice was issued by the first respondent stating that respondents Nos. 3 to 5 were not allowed prenatal leave as contemplated under the Act and requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 1,031.25 should not be directed to be paid to T.A. Thressiakutty, the fifth respondent, towards maternity benefit and medical bonus. On receipt of this the petitioner sent Exhibit P-4 reiterating his contention and pointing out that the Gov...
Niyamavedi and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Ker262
ORDERM.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Petitioner 'Niyamavedi, Kal-vathy, Kochi' has filed O. P. 752/1992 challenging the action of the first respondent to establish a Biological Park in 'Agasthyava-nam'. The Original Petition has been filed as a public interest litigation.2. Original Petitions 2865/1992,9741/ 1992 and 8905/1992 were also filed for identical reliefs. In O.P. 8905/1992 apart from similar contentions taken in the other Original Petitions there is an additional contentiop against the acquisition of petitioners' rubber plantation under the Land Acquisition Act. 3. Petitioners contend that the proposed project for Biological Park would result in denudation of forest in the State of Kerala, that it would amount to violation of Forest Conservation Act, that Central Government's consent has not been obtained for the project and that if the project materialises it would pose threat to the environment and ecology. It is contended by them that the forest wealth in the State is considerabl...
Mrs. Safia Rahman Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Ker168
ORDERT.L. Viswanatha, J.1. The matter in issue in this writ petition does not really admit of any doubt, but the authorities concerned do not appear to be quite familiar with the true legal position so that I have felt it necessary to clarify the matter to avoid parties being unnecessarily driven to this court for redress. 2. The petitioner is the owner of a building, the construction of which was completed on 13-1 -1989. The return under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 was filed on 5-11-1990, the return being filed under Section 7 thereof. The matter was heard by the assessing authority and eventually he passed an order Ext. P1 on 18-1-1992 under Section 9, fixing the capital value of the building at Rs. 7,53,300/- and determining the tax payable at Rs.49,080/-. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the assessment and he challenged it in appeal, though unsuccessfully, before the Revenue Divisional Officer at Palakkad under Section 11 of the Act. Thereafter he filed a revision petition be...
S. Ashok and anr. Vs. Vasudevan Moosad
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)ALT(Cri)42; [1995]82CompCas665(Ker); 1993CriLJ2486
L. Manoharan, J. 1. Petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is to quash the complaint and the proceedings in S. T. No. 47 of 1992 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kozhi-kode,2. Annexure 5, complaint, was filed by the respondent against the petitioners under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881) (for short 'the Act'), on the allegation that, against a loan availed of by the first petitioner on June 30, 1991, he issued a cheque dated July 4, 1991, for an amount of Rs. 25,000, that the cheque when sent for collection was returned with the endorsement 'stop payment', that then only it was known that the respondent was cheated and that since in spite of a notice of dishonour the amount was not paid within the stipulated time, the petitioners have committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.3. The petitioners contend that the allegation that the respondent availed of a loan on June 30, 1991, is false. A...
Davis Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-1993
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ565Ker
Krishnamoorthy, J.1. I heard counsel for the petitioner, Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and Sri K.K. Babu, counsel for the 2nd respondent.2. Petitioner is challenging Ext. P5 order of the 3rd respondent by which he dismissed an application for stay pending appeal on the ground that there is no power of stay under the Act for an appellate authority.3. Petitioner is an Abkari contractor and Ext. P1 order was passed by the 2nd respondent, Welfare Fund Inspector, determining the amount of contribution payable by the petitioner. Against the above order, under Section 11(5) of the Kerala Abkari Workers' Welfare Fund Act the petitioner filed an appeal Ext. P2 before the 3rd respondent. Along with the appeal the petitioner filed an application for stay Ext. P3, supported by an affidavit Ext. P4 dated March 6, 1993. The stay petition was dismissed by the 3rd respondent by Ext. P5 order on the following ground:-'But since the appellate authority has not been conferred with p...
Sukumaran Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)ALT(Cri)96; 1993CriLJ3228
ORDERL. Manoharan, J.1. The question that calls for an answer in this Crl. M.C. is whether sentence in default of payment of fine can be directed to run concurrently with substantive sentence.2. Petitioner is a prisoner undergoing sentence in Sessions Case No. 32 of 1986 of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda. He sent a representation which was treated as Crl. M.C. No. 265/93. On an earlier occasion he sent another representation which was numbered as Crl. M.C. No. 1144 of 1989. A learned Judge of this Court disposed of the said Crl. M.C. along with Crl. M.C. No. 1221 of 1989 by order dated 16-3-1990. Petitioner was the accused in several other cases. Paragraph 3 of the said order adverts to the report submitted by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Viyyur and states that the petitioner has to undergo a total substantive sentence of imprisonment for 60 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default to undergo imprisonment for two years more. It is also stated that, 14 years a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »