Kerala Court July 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.
C.V. Alexander Vs. Joseph Chacko
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-1993
Reported in: [1995]82CompCas368(Ker)
K.T. Thomas, J. 1. The appellant was the complainant in the lower court. He filed this appeal in challenge of the order of acquittal of the respondent of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The appellant filed the complaint in the lower court based on exhibit P-1 cheque (for Rs. 56.000, dated October 3, 1990) which was issued by the respondent. When the cheque was presented for encashment it was returned unpaid by the bank concerned on the ground 'payment stopped'. The complainant then issued a notice to which the respondent sent a reply. As the respondent failed to pay the amount within fifteen days of the receipt of notice, the complaint was filed in the lower court. After taking evidence, the lower court acquitted the respondent. 3. The stand of the respondent in the lower court is this : The respondent did not owe any liability or debt to the complainant. However, one Mohammad Yunus (DW-1) owed some money to the complainan...
Abdul Majeed Sahib and anr. Vs. District Collector, Kollam and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-09-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Ker171
Sreedharan, J. 1. This original petition has come up before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court on the question as to whether in a compensation claim under SECTION 48(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, withdrawal notification is necessary or withdrawal from the acquisition can be presumed in a case falling under Section 11A of the Act. 2. Short facts necessary for decision of the issue referred are as follows.-- A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', was published in 1988 for acquiring an extent of nearly 50 Cents of property belonging to the petitioner. Gazette notification was dated 26-5-1988 and paper publications dated 10-6-1988 and 17-6-1988 issued. That was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act in June, 1988. The last date of the notification published in the paper is dated 17-6-1988. The acquisition was for the Telecommunication Department, for the purpose of construction of a Te...
The Kuttanad Rubber Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. K.T. Ittiyavirah and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-09-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Ker131; [1997]88CompCas438(Ker)
ORDERG. Rajasekharan, J. 1. An application by the Managing Director and two Directors of the Kuttanad Rubber Co. Ltd. for deciding the question of maintainability of the Company Petition filed under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act.2. The allegations in the Company Petition No. 9/91 are oppression and mismanagement. The petition was filed on 13-3-1991. In the written statement field by the Company, it is inter alia contended that the petition is not maintainable. Now the question of maintainability is sought to be decided as a preliminary issue.3. The points raised are that the petition does not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 399 of the Companies Act, and that by the amendment of the Companies Act, the jurisdiction of this Court has been taken away.4. The first point is raised on the premises that 1/10th of the shareholders have not come forward with the petition, and the consent given by some of the shareholders is not proper and the requirement of 1/10th has t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Fact Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-09-1993
Reported in: [1994]206ITR644(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions of law have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, for the decision of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the assessment ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the regular assessment for the assessment year 1970-71 is invalid under law?' 2. The respondent is a public limited company. It acted as the agent of Messrs. Imperial Chemical Industries Limited of U.K. We are concerned with the assessment year 1970-71. The respondent/assessee paid Rs. 14,65,810 to the non-resident company in the year ending March 31, 1970, for the technical services rendered. The Income-tax Officer treated the assessee as the agent of the non-resident company and held that 75 per cent. of the said sum should be treated as the income of the nonresident company arising in India. He further...
Omana Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-09-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)ALT(Cri)667; 1994CriLJ686
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. A widowed mother of three little children sets up a case that she is entitled to the special consideration envisaged in the proviso to Section 437(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') in the matter of bail, although she is involved in an offence under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Pshychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'). Smt. V.G. Sreedevi, who advanced the case of the said widow, relied on the decision of a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Prem Narain Sharma v. State of U.P., (1992) 2 Cur Cri R 2066) in which learned Judge has observed thus : 'I am of the view that in spite of special provisions made under Section 37 NDPS Act, it provided further limitations in grant of bail and the exceptions provided in the first proviso to Section 437, Cr.P.C. are still applicable in such pases'. Learned Counsel also invited my attention to the following obserations made by Mirihe, J. of the Karnataka Hig...
Eddy Current Controls (India) Ltd. Vs. R. Provident Fund Commission an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-09-1993
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ522Ker
Krishnamoorthy, J.1. Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Eddypuram, Chalakudy, in Trichur District. It is engaged in the business of manufacture of eddy current clutches and motors. Petitioner-company owns and maintains two factories, one at Chalakudy in Kerala and the other at Coimbatore in the State of Tamil Nadu. The factory at Chalakudy was established in the year 1974 and the factory at Coimbatore was established in 1979. According to the petitioner, these two factories are established and registered separately and independently under the Factories Act and they are having separate registration and licences under the Central Excise Act and the Sales Tax Acts of the respective States. Separate accounts are maintained in regard to the factories and balance-sheets are also prepared separately. The installed capacity of the Chalakudy factory is 500 HP and that of the Coimbatore factory is only 32.35 HP. The employees of the ...
Sainalabdeen Musliar Vs. District Collector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-1993
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ529Ker
Sreedharan, J.1. Writ petitioner in O.P. 9732/1992challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated March 23, 1993 dismissing the said Original Petition.2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal are as follows, Kallada Bricks and Tile Works was owned by the father of the third respondent. On his death, the business devolved on third respondent, his mother and brother and sister. Third respondent was the Managing Partner of the factory. 4th respondent was an employee in that factory. He was dismissed from service. That gave rise to Industrial Dispute 31/1988. Labour Court, Kollam directed the management to reinstate the worker with all back arrears and other attendant service benefits by its award dated April 17, 1989. As the workman was not paid his wages in terms of the award, he approached the Labour Court, Kollam by moving Claim Petition 85/1989 under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. That Court, by o...
Haridas Vs. District Judge
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-1993
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ1004Ker
K. Narayana Kurup, J.1. It is said that every cloud has a silver lining, but the same was not true in the case of the official career of the petitioner as will be clear when the facts of the case unfolds itself.2. The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerkin the Munsiff Court, Tellicherry as per Ext. P1, proceedings of the first respondent District Judge dated February 15, 1982. Pursuant to Ext. P1 he took charge as L.D.C. on March 1, 1982. Thereafter, the first respondent transferred and posted him as L.D.C. in the District Court, Tellicherry.3. Before this appointment as L.D.C. the petitioner was working as a teacher in a Tutorial College at Trivandrum for about 2 years where one Shri Madhavan Nair Suresh Mithran was also working as a teacher and the said Suresh Mithran was conducting a chitty and doing business in money lending under the name and style of M/s. Indian Mithra Bankers. While the petitioner was working as a teacher in the tutorial college as aforesaid, he was ...
S.M. Syed Mohammed (Deceased) (by Legal Representatives and Others) Vs ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-1993
Reported in: [1994]206ITR269(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. One of the questions referred to us at the instance of the assessee is : 'Whether there was a valid reference by the Income-tax Officer under Section 274(2) to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner ?'2. These references are at the instance of the assessee and the Revenue and concern the imposition of penalty on the deceased assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1973-74. While the assessee contended that he had not concealed particulars of any income, it was the case of the Department that the case squarely fell within Section 271(1)(c). The penalty had been imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner purporting to act under Section 274(2) of the Act which had been repealed with effect from April 1, 1976. The assessee had raised a contention that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner derives jurisdiction to impose penalty only if there is a valid reference to him by the Income-tax Officer under Section 274(2...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.P. Nayak and Ramesh H. (Sree Ganesh T ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-1993
Reported in: [1994]206ITR179(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 was justified in deleting the sum of Rs. 1,92,232 received by the assessee during the year of account relevant to the assessment year 1985-84 ?'2. The respondent, a registered firm, is an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961. We are concerned with the assessment year 1983-84. The accounting period ended on March 31, 1983. Admittedly, the assessee keeps its accounts on the mercantile basis. The assessee-firm was having the business of transport of levy sugar of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation. In the assessment, the Income-tax Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,92,232 towards 'value of additional claim relating to the earlier years which had not been accounted earlier', the proceeds whereof was received in the instant year. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »