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.
Japahari Vs. N.S. Priya and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-02-1993
Reported in: [1999]96CompCas818(Ker)
K.T. Thomas, J.1. A complaint was filed in the lower court by the petitioner's wife alleging that her husband has committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'), in respect of a cheque bearing the date August 28, 1992. The cheque is for Rs. 1,50,000. The magistrate before whom the complaint was filed took cognizance of the offence and issued process to the petitioner. Now, the petitioner wants to have the complaint quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code').2. The complaint shows that a post-dated cheque was issued by the petitioner towards some liability or debt due to the complainant. The complainant alleges that the petitioner had closed his account with the drawee bank before the cheque was presented and hence it was returned unpaid for that reason. The petitioner's main contention is that there is no offence under Section 138 of the Act when there was no account in the drawee bank ...
Travancore Chemical and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-02-1993
Reported in: [1994]206ITR118(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court under Section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Surtax Act'), read with Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in law in holding that the deposit made by the (applicant) company under the Companies Deposits (Surcharge on Income-tax) Scheme, 1976, is not payment of surcharge on income-tax payable by the company, so that the said amount of deposit cannot be aggregated with the income-tax payable and deducted in arriving at the chargeable profits ?'2. The year of assessment is 1977-78, corresponding to the accounting year ending on June 30, 1976.3. The question involved relates to the quantum of chargeable profits of the petitioner which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The charge of surtax under Section 4 of the Surtax Act is on the 'ch...
Viswanatha Pillai and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-02-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ1037
1. Accused 1 and 2(A1 and A2) are the appellants. They were charged under Sections 302, 307, 326 and 324 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge found A1 guilty under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. He was also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 307 of the I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. He was also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 324 of the I.P.C. A2 was found guilty under Section 326 and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 21/2 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months more. He was also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Sec...
Sebina Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-02-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ1291
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner is the wife of one Mohammed Ismail who is now detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'COFEPOSA Act').2. The detenu arrived at Thiruvananthapuram Airport on 25-5-1992 from Doha. He was arrested on 26-5-1992 by the Customs officers. He was granted bail on 6-6-1992 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. On 4-9-1992, the detention order, Ext.P1, was issued under Section 3(1)(i) of the COFEPOSA Act. The order was executed on 18-9-1992 and the detenu was arrested under the COFEPOSA Act. On 19-9-1992, the grounds of detention were furnished to the detenu and he submitted Ext. P3 representation dated 12-10-1992 to the State of Kerala and to the Union of India (respondents 1 and 2). On 15-10-1992, Ext. P4 order was issued by the Union of India reje...
Pankajakshi Amma and ors. Vs. S. Sarojam and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-01-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Ker49
Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. The point arising in these two O.Ps. deals with the applicability of O. XXII of CPC to proceedings under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter called the 'Rent Control Act'). The matter has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court.2. In O.P. No. 8350 of 1989, the legal representatives of the deceased-tenant are the petitioners. In that case what happened was that when the mattef was pending in appeal before the appellate authority (Subordinate Judge) the tenant died on 1-1-1989, and the legal representatives filed an application, I. A. No. 218 of 1989 on 16-2-1989 as per Ext. P3. Subsequently, they filed another application, LA. No. 367 of 1989 on 15-3-1989 under O. XXII, R. 9(3) read with Section 22 of the Rent Control Act for condonation of delay, and sought for setting aside abatement. These two applications were dismissed by the appellate authority under Ext. P5 order dt. 10-7-1989, and on the sa...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aspinwall and Co. (Travancore) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-01-1993
Reported in: [1994]206ITR58(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 :'(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to and the Tribunal is right in directing/in allowing weighted deduction in respect of interest on packing credit ? (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal without considering the case on merits and without proper, relevant and independent findings is right in allowing the claim solely relying oh a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court ?' 2. The respondent, an assessee to income-tax, is a limited company engaged in the business of export of coir products. We are concerned with the assessment year 1980-81. The accounting period ended on December 31, 1979. The assessee was keeping its accounts on mercantile basis. The return submitted by the assessee for the year 1980-81 disclos...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›