Kerala Court July 1993 Judgments
Falcon Tyres Limited Vs. Mohan Rajan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)ALT(Cri)461; [1997]88CompCas547(Ker)
K.T. Thomas, J.1. A short but interesting legal question has been raised by Smt. K. P. Santhi, a junior advocate, who argued the case for the appellant. The question is whether a magistrate can acquit an accused under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code'), when the complainant in the case is a company or a firm According to learned counsel, no magistrate can, in such a case, acquit the accused under Section 256(1) of the Code due to the absence of complainant. If the said contention can be upheld this appeal has to be allowed even without getting into the merits.2. The appellant herein is Falcon Tyres Ltd., which is a public limited company (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). A complaint was filed in the magistrate's court in which the company has been shown as the complainant. The company was to be represented in the case by its manager. It is alleged in the complaint that the respondent has committed the offence under section 138 of th...
Tag this Judgment!B.C. Harikumaran Nair Vs. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-1993
Reported in: [1994]79CompCas705(Ker)
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. The petitioner challenges exhibit P-3 prohibitory order issued under the Revenue Recovery Act. The petitioner had joined a chit conducted by the first respondent-company. According to the petitioner, he was a subscriber in Chit No. 1295/C 495 of 1971. According to him, he had bid the chit in auction on June 10, 1977, for Rs. 5,570. He claims that he had paid the instalments due and the transaction was closed and the chitty terminated on January 10, 1980. According to the petitioner, thereafter no amount was due from him towards the chit transaction. A notice, exhibit-P-1, was issued to the petitioner by the first respondent-company claiming that on verification of his account it was seen thathe had riot remitted ten instalments of the chit amounting to Rs. 1,000 and claiming from him the said sum of Rs. 1,000 with interest at 12 per cent. per annum; Another notice was sent to the petitioner on February 19, 1987, informing him that action will be taken against...
Tag this Judgment!Nalini and ors. Vs. Padmanabhan Krishnan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-29-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Ker14
G. Rajasekharan, J.1. Defendants 5 to 7 in a suit for declaration of title and possession and consequential injunction, are the appellants.2. The suit property is 10 cents comprised in Survey fields 3897 and 3895 in Vadakkevila village. They are listed as 'A' and 'B' Schedules to the plaint. The plaintiff traces title to 'A' Scheduled property under Exts. A1 to A3. Ext. A3 is the document under which the vendor of the plaintiff's father, got the property in 1112 (M.E.) (corresponding to 1937). On the strength of Ext. A3, the vendee Vavakunju executed Ext. A1 on 23-4-1114 (M.E.) (corresponding to 1939) to the plaintiff's father. After the death of the father, the heirs entered into Ext. A2 partition on 21-12-1967. In that partition, in addition to Ext. A1 property, plaint 'B' Schedule property and another section of property were allotted to the share of the plaintiff.3. Regarding 'B' Schedule property, no title deed is produced. But the plaintiff relies on Ext. A2. It is said that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudevan Viswambharan and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ1522
L. Manoharan, J.1. This appeal is341, 323, 114, 324 and 302 read with Section 34, IPC. Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam found 1st accused guilty of the offences punishable Under Sections 302 and 307, IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life Under Section 302, IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months Under Section 307, IPC. The second accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The 3rd accused was found not guilty and was acquitted. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentences, accused 1 and 2 have filed this appeal.2. Prosecution case can be summarised as follows:-Vijayan, brother of P.W. 7, was a passenger in K.S.R.T.C. Bus No. 793 on 28-3-1988 which was plying between Chaliyakkara and Punalur. When the bus r...
Tag this Judgment!Balak Glass Emporium Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Ker342
G. Rajasekharan, J.1. Plaintiff in a suit for damages is the appellant. The first defendant is an Insurance Company and defendants 2 to 6 are the legal representatives of one Joseph. 2. Plaintiff-Firm was occupying the ground floor of a building and i't was dealing in mirors, plywood etc. Joseph was in the upstairs, running a photo studio in the name and style 'Durbar Photo Studio'. When the Managing Partner of the plaintiff went to theshop on 21-11-1984, he found that the shop room was flooded with water, escaped from the defendants' studio room and the articles kept in the plaintiffs shop were damaged. He sent for the proprietor of the Studio and PW 4 and some others entered the studio, when it was opened by DW 1 -- the son of Joseph. It was found that water was flowing through the water tap and the outlet of the sump/tank was closed, and water tank was overflowing, and that caused the mischief. 3. The plaintiff alleges that himself and Joseph were not in good terms, that Joseph want...
Tag this Judgment!Pappachan Alias Joseph Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)ALT(Cri)633; 1994CriLJ1765
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Appellant is the accused in S.C. 44 of 1989 of the Sessions Court, Wayartand Division, Kalpetta. He was charged under Section 302 of the I.P.C. for having caused the death of Thankappan in the courtyard of a toddy shop on 25-6-1988 at about 7 p.m. The learned Sessions Judge found him guilty under Section 302 and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case is that the accused came to the toddy shop managed by P. W. 1 and asked for toddy, that he could not be provided with toddy by P.W. 1, that, he became angry, that a verbal altercation followed between them, that P.W. 1 pushed him out of the toddy shop, that he abused P.W. 1, that Thankappan (deceased) who was there tried to pacify him, that he pulled out a dagger and stabbed the deceased, that the deceased fell down stating that he was stabbed by the accused and that P.W. 1 and others carried him to the toddy shop and later he was taken to Government Hospital, Sultan Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Ouseph Varghese Vs. Kunjoonju Alekutty and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-1993
Reported in: II(1993)ACC459; 1993ACJ981
Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. These appeals are by the 5th respondent in two claims under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, arising out of the same accident which took place on 22.9.1974. The question arising in these appeals is whether the appellant could be made liable for the amounts awarded, namely, Rs. 20,000/- in O.P. No. 657 of 1980 and Rs. 7,000/- in O.P. No. 661 of 1980.2. The first respondent in the claims was impleaded as the owner of the vehicle. He contended that the vehicle belonged to the appellant and accordingly the appellant was brought on record as the owner of the vehicle. The appellant who was thus impleaded filed his objection stating that the first respondent was the registered owner of the vehicle and that the liability was his. He also stated that the statement in the claim petitions that he had purchased the bus on 22.9.1974 was false. Two witnesses were examined on the side of the claimants and some documents were also produced to prove the ownership of ...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Balakrishnan Nair Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-26-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Ker6
ORDERG.H. Guttal, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India presents yet another dimension of the doctrine of estoppel -- which as the judicial decisions demonstrate, has many facets. 2. The petitioner, the owner of Kamala International Hotel, Cannanore, approved by the Tourism Department of the Government, seeks to compel the respondents to pay Rs. 5.03 lakhs of subsidy under the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme, promised under the letter No. FC.F3/32598/89 dated 28-9-1989 (Ext. P2) written on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, who are respectively, the State of Kerala, and the General Manager of the District Industries Centre. The respondent No. 3 is the Union of India. The facts are set out in paragraphs 3 to 6 below.3. According to the petitioner, the respondents 1 and 2 .by their letter No. FC.F3/ 32598/89 dated 28-9-1989 (Ext. P2) and acting under the Scheme promised that the amount of Rs. 5.03 lakhs will be released to the petitioner through the Distric...
Tag this Judgment!P.C. Jose Vs. Nandakumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-26-1993
Reported in: AIR1997Ker243; 1994CriLJ682
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J. 1. A delicate question is involved in this case. Can a litigant claim that he has equal right with advocates to sit on the front seats in a court room when advocates are to stand due to want of seating facilities? 2. Facts, having a queerish tinge, are the following : Petitiner was a party in a civil suit in the court of a Munsiff. Petitioner was conducting his case without the aid of a counsel. On 16-7-1992 petitioner occupied one of the seats on the front row of the court hall. Some advocates including seniors in the Bar were standing as seats were not available lor them to sit. Learned Munsif then asked the petitioner to move out of the seat for accommodating the seniors in the Bar. Butpetitioner declined to obey and persisted in claiming right to sit at the same place. He also told the Munsiff that without a written order he was not prepared to obey the direction of the court. Learned Munsiff treated the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner as amounting to insul...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Polyclinic P. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-22-1993
Reported in: (1993)115CTR(Ker)49; [1994]207ITR185(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case : (i) the business of the assessee could be treated as one producing an article or thing for the purpose of granting investment allowance under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (ii) the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The respondent/assessee is a limited company. It is running a clinical laboratory, X-ray unit and pharmacy. We are concerned with the assessment years 1980-81 and 1983-84. The assessee claimed investmentallowance under Section 32A(2) of the Income-tax Act for the X-ray plant installed during the relevant accounting year. The Income-tax Officer declined to grant the relief for both the years. According to him, the X-ray plant is not used for the production or manufacture of a thing or a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »