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.
A.V. Georgekutty Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Ker19; [1995]83CompCas772(Ker)
Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. This petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P9 notice dated 26-11-1992 issued by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kottayam to the petitioner under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and further for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum from proceeding on the basis of Ext. P 9. A writ of mandamus is also sought to direct the State of Kerala to frame rules to safeguard the interests of persons like the petitioner.2. The contention of the petitioner is that the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, the second respondent, has no jurisdiction to issue the said notice inasmuch as the complainants (respondents 3 to 5) before the said Forum are not consumers vis-a-vis the petitioner Sri. A. V. Georgekutty, who is the President of a Co-operative Bank. The following facts have to be stated for a proper understanding of the point raised in this case. The writ petitioner is the Pres...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kar Valves Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-1993
Reported in: [1993]204ITR490(Ker)
K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for the decision of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to capitalise Rs. 25,125 and is not the order of the Tribunal vitiated for not considering the claim independently on merits ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of the agreement,-- (i) the assessee is entitled to capitalise the entire technical fees paid to Messrs. Engine Valves ? (ii) the Tribunal is justified in interfering with the order of the Officer confirming the capitalisation to 50 per cent. of the technical fees?' 2. The respondent-assessee is a limited company formerly known as Cochin State Power and Light Corporation Ltd. They were engaged in the business of distribution of electricity in Ernakulam town. After takeoverof the undertaking on December 2, 1970, the asse...
Sajeevan and Etc. Etc. Vs. Kerala State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)ALT(Cri)130; 1994CriLJ1316
K.T. Thomas, J.1. This is a case in which the story of a murder committed in a cinema theatre at Kalamassery has been told by the prosecution. The nub of the story is that the gate keepers of the theatre had to pay heavily for thwarting the attempts made by two ticketless cinema goers to gate crash into the auditorium of the theatre, as one of them lost his life and the other was mauled brutally. Six persons were arraigned before the Sessions Court for the offences and five of them were convicted of different offences and sentenced to different terms of imprisonment including murder. Separate appeals have been filed by them.2. The scene of occurrence was 'Preethi' theatre at Kalamassery. Time was around 10-30 p.m. on 4-12-1986. The occurrence commenced like this : When the second show of the cinema started two persons (2n and 6th accused) made a bid to get into the auditorium without tickets. The gateman (P. W. 3) resisted the attempts and there ensued a scuffle between them. Three oth...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. T.R. Vijayakumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-1993
Reported in: [1994]210ITR974(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that there is no gift involved in the retirement of the assessee from the firms ?'2. The respondents are assessees to gift-tax. We are concerned with the assessment year 1977-78. A common question of law arises for consideration in both the cases. The respondents were partners in a firm of abkari contractors. They retired from the firm on March 31, 1977. They filed returns under the Gift-tax Act showing 'nil' gift. The Gift-tax Officer, by order dated November 10, 1982, assessed the respondents to gift-tax regarding their share in the goodwill of the firm. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the retirement of the partner from a partnership firm does not involve any gift. He allowed the appeals. T...
Sreekumar Vs. Travancore Devaswom Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-1993
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ504Ker
Balanarayana Marar, J.1. The civil miscellaneous petitions and the original petitions are connected cases. The C.M. Ps. are filed by a devotee of the temples in Travancore and by the Kshetra Samrakshana Samithi. The O.P.s are filed by the candidates who appeared in the written examination conducted by the Travancore Devaswom Board for the post of Lower Division Clerks/Sub Group Officers. Petitioners challenged the written examination and the interview conductedby the Board. The averments in ail these petitions are more or less the same.2. The facts: First respondent, the Travancore Devaswom Board (for short the Board) by proceedings dated September 8, 1991 decided to select Clerks-cum-Sub-Group Officers in the Board. Applications were invited by advertisement in Mathrubhoomi daily on September 23, 1991. 20152 applications were received out of which 19615 were found to be valid. The written examination was conducted on July 5, 1992 and a short list was prepared for interview. The; Board...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Malayalam Plantations (India) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-1993
Reported in: [1993]204ITR735(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following two questions of law, for the decision of this court :'(1) Whether the Tribunal, while giving effect to the High Court's order, is correct in law in holding that the rubber replantation subsidy received is not liable to be included in the assessee's total income because it is an agricultural income ? (2) Whether, while giving effect to the order of the High Court, wherein the question was answered in favour of the Revenue, the Tribunal can re-examine the issue from a different perspective and come to a conclusion different from that of the High Court ?' 2. The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. It is a public limited company. We are concerned with the assessment year 1978-79. The assessee is running tea and rubber plantations in Kerala and Tamil Nadu. A substantial part of its income is agricultural income. In the income-tax proceedings, the assessee ...
Ollur Regional Imitation Diamond Manufacturers Industrial Co-op. Socie ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-1993
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ174Ker
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Petitioner challenges Exhibit P-3 award of the Labour Court, Ernakulam (first respondent), ordering reinstatement of the second respondent. In the claim statement filed by the second respondent, he contended that his service was terminated by the petitioner-management with effect from June 10, 1985, illegally. He claims to have been in service from December 22, 1975. First respondent held that the petitioner has not complied with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act when it retrenched the second respondent and so it is not valid. He is directed to be reinstated.2. Petitioner's case is that it had engaged a counsel to represent its case before the first respondent, that due to oversight there was omission to note the posting date and so ExhibitP-3 award was passed ex parte. Petitioner filed a petition to set aside the exparte decision with delay condonation petition. First respondent held that sufficient grounds have not been made out to condone the delay...
Bhadran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1966
Chettur Sankaran Nair, J.1. This Appeal by the accused in S.C. 113/88 on the file of the Court of Session, Quilon Division is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed on him by that Court, for offences Under Section 449, 302 and 392, IPC. Appellant stood trial on a charge that he trespassed into the residence of deceased Karthiayani sometime between the evening of 24-8-88 and the evening of 25-8-88, caused her death and committed robbery. P.W. 4 grandson of the deceased went to her house on the evening of 25-8-88 to invite her for 'Onam'. He found the door closed and the key in the key hole. He waited for a while and then called the son of P.W. 5 for company. A little later the boys who were at the end of their patience, pushed open the door and found Karthiayani lying dead. They then cried out, attracting the attention of others. P.W. 4 then went to fetch his parents. To cut a long story short, intimation was sent to police, they registered a first information report, came...
K.K. Krishnan Nair Vs. Scrutiny Committee, Secretary, Regional Transpo ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-1993
Reported in: II(1993)ACC619; AIR1993Ker313
ORDERG.H. Guttal, J. 1. The question for consideration is whether the constitution of a committee by the Regional Transport Authority known as 'scrutiny committee' and the decision by such committee to grant permits to ply stage carriages is valid. The question arises out of the facts stated in the next paragraph. 2. The respondent No. 1 is the scrutiny committee appointed by the Regional Transport Authority who is the respondent No. 3 to this petition. The respondent No. 2 is the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram. The petitioner Krishnan Nalr operates his stage carriage No. KLM 5578 on the route Perinthalmanna-Palemade in Malappuram District. The respondent No. 4 V. Hamza, ow ner of stage carriage No. KL10/4933, applied for grant of permit on the route Pertinthalmanna-Marutha-puzhakadevue which overlaps the petitioner's service for 55 Kms. The respondent No. 4 submitted a set t-f proposed timings which clash with the petitioner's timings. In view of representations b...
K.T. Sainaba Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2017
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. This is a case of detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'COFEPOSA Act'). The detenu arrived from Saudi Arabia on 8-12-1991 by air and upon verification the customs officials found 5 gold biscuits. Thereafter the matter was taken up both under the Customs Act as well as under the COFEPOSA Act. The order of detention was passed on 29-5-1992 as per Ext.P1, and the detenu was arrested on 5-6-1992. The grounds of detention was served on the detenu on 6-6-1992. The detenu submitted a representation, Ext.P3, to the Advisory Board with a request to forward the same to the Central Government, and the detaining authority. The said representation was rejected by the detaining authority on 23-7-1992 as per Ext.P4 and by the Central Government as per Ext.P5 dated 24-7-1992. Thereafter an order of confirmation of the detention was passed on 22-8-1992 as per Ext.P7.2. Subsequently...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »