Kerala Court August 1993 Judgments
Koodaranji Service Co-op. Bank Vs. M.M. Lissy and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-29-1993
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ97Ker
Sreedharan, J.1. Appellant is Koodaranji Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Koodaranji, Mukkom Kozhikode. First respondent, Smt. Lissy, was appointed in the Bank as a Clerk on daily wages on March 2, 1983. She continued to serve the Bank in that capacity upto April 1, 1989. Her services were terminated on the basis of the instructions issued by the higher authorities under the Cooperative Societies Act. Termination of her services gave rise to an industrial dispute. It was referred to the Labour Court, Kozhikode for adjudication. Labour Court entertained the same as I.D. 5/1991. After appreciating the evidence let in by the contesting parties, the Labour Court passed an award on January 21, 1992 directing the Bank to reinstate Smt. Lissy as a Clerk with backwages and continuity of service. Bank challenged that award in O.P. 10304/1992. A learned Single Judge dismissed that Original Petition by judgment dated August 17, 1992 taking the view that the termination of service of Smt. Lissy is ...
Tag this Judgment!Surendran Vs. State and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-27-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ464
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. As trial in a murder case was in progress, the defence counsel sought permission to use a statement recorded by Police in another case for cross-examining one of the prosecution witnesses. Learned Sessions Judge granted permission to do so. Legality of the said orer is now challenged here.2. Facts necessary for the limited question raised here are the following: Police registered a case in respect of death of one Muraleedharan and after completion of investigation laid charge-sheet against four persons as accused for the offence of murder. Government appointed a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct prosecution in the case. In the Sessions Court some witnesses were examined for the prosecution. Defence counsel, at a particular stage of the trial, brought to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge that the same police had registered another case in respect of another incident which happened later on the same night and investigation has been conducted by the police...
Tag this Judgment!Hamsa Vs. Ibrahim
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-26-1993
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas800(Ker)
K.T. Thomas, J.1. In the rapid proliferation of 'cheque cases' in criminal courts with the introduction of Section 138 and its allied provisions in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N. I. Act'), any answer to the question raised in this criminal miscellaneous case may have some impact. The question raised is this : Can the payee or holder in due course of a cheque file a complaint in the court as per Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, through his power of attorney holder 2. Shri P. Vijaya Bhanu and Shri S. Vijayakumar, advocates, argued on opposite positions. A brief statement of facts in this case may be made ; A complaint has been filed in the court of a judicial magistrate of first class for the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the petitioner herein as the accused. One Mohammed Syed alias Veeran Haji is the complainant in the case, but the respondent herein (one Ibrahim Hajee) has signed the complaint a...
Tag this Judgment!Puthiya Maliyakkal Syed Alavi Jifri Thangal Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-24-1993
Reported in: [1994]207ITR429(Ker)
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this court praying that the order exhibit P-4 passed by the first respondent refusing his request for issue of a certified copy of the combined order in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 47, 56 and 35/CI CIT, passed against his brother, respondent No. 4 herein, may be quashed. There is also a prayer for a directionto the first respondent to receive exhibit P-9 request made by him and to direct the first respondent to dispose of that application in accordance with law and in the light of exhibit P-8 issued to him by the Commissioner of Income-tax, respondent No. 2 herein.2. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 are brothers. On January 7, 1965, there was an agreement between the brothers regarding the management of certain properties. There was a modified agreement dated October 30, 1986, which is marked as exhibit P-1 by which respondent No. 4 was put in possession of the properties. The properties were left in common and there is a dispute...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Financial Corporation Vs. Official Liquidator, High Court of Ke ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-1993
Reported in: [1996]87CompCas183(Ker)
G. Rajasekharan, J.1. An application by the Kerala Financial Corporation, a secured creditor in the matter of Southern Organics (P.) Limited in liquidation.2. The applicant preferred its claim before the liquidator for a sum of Rs. 47,02,769.40. That included interest after the winding up to the tune of Rs. 8,65,549.60 and Rs. 873.96, the amount of travelling allowance and dearness allowance paid to the nominee-directors. The liquidator rejected the claim of interest after the winding up and also the claim relating to travelling allowance and' dearness allowance. The claim of interest at the contract rate up to the date of winding up was allowed by the liquidator in adjudicating the matter.3. In this application, the applicant contends that it is entitled to interest after the winding up also to be calculated at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum under Rule 156 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.4. Rule 156 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, deals with cases where there is no contr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. CochIn Malabar Estates and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-1993
Reported in: [1994]207ITR398(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. These two references are made by the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode, as per the statement of the case dated February 12, 1987. The assessing authority passed an assessment order against the assessee, Messrs. Cochin Malabar Estates and Industries Limited, for the assessment year 1973-74. The order of assessment for the said year was the subject-matter of two appeals before the Appellate Tribunal, both by the assessee and also by the Revenue. The Tribunal passed a consolidated order in the said two appeals dated August 1, 1986. While considering the appeals, the Appellate Tribunal allowed a sum of Rs. 1,132 as a permissible deduction in computing the agricultural income of the assessee. The said sum represented expenses incurred in connection with sales tax appeals. Aggrieved by the said portion of the common order, the Revenue moved the Tribunal for referring a question of law and the following question (question No....
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Kolakkacan Moosa Haji and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)ALT(Cri)567; 1994CriLJ1288
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. Can a magistrate, while ordering under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), direct the Inspector General of Police to conduct the investigation? Answer to this question would resolve the dispute now raised by the State in the Criminal Miscellaneous case. A judicial magistrate of first class has forwarded a complaint filed before him to the Inspector General of Police (Crimes) and ordered him to conduct investigation into the complaint. Stave of Kerala now challenges the said order in this Crl. Miscellaneous case under Section 482 of the Code.2. The complaint was filed by the first respondent against eight police personnel, among whom are included a DIG of Police, an Assistant Superintendent of Police, a Dy. Superintendent of Police, a Circle Inspector, two Sub Inspectors and two Constables. The complaint makes mention of an incident which happened at about 3 p.m. on 15-12-1991 in which a teenaged girl 'Sirajunneesa' sustained b...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kilkotagiri Tea and Coffee Estates Co. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-1993
Reported in: [1994]208ITR999(Ker)
K. S. PARIPOORNAN J. - At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of low for the decision of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, secured loans from the banks and the provision for taxation should be adjusted against the value of investment while computing the capital under rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?'The respondent, a public limited company, is an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. We are concerned with the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. The matter arises in connection with the surtax assessments for the said two years. In computing the capital under the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, the claim of the assessee was that in determining the capital attributable to the income from dividends, interest, etc., which is not considered as business income, the secured loan...
Tag this Judgment!P. Cherriyakoya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-13-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Ker27
ORDERK.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner in O. P. 10248 of 1991 is a resident of Kavarathi Island in Lakeshadweep Islands. Petitioner in O. P. 8653/93 is the President of an association in Kavarathi. In the year 1972, a college by names Jawaharlal Nehru College was established at Kavarathi, which is the capital of the group of Lakshadweep Islands. According to the petitioners, for the establishment of this college the people of the locality had given liberal contribution of money and land and this college became a full-fledged educational institution with library, laboratory, hostal and playgrounds. According to the petitioners, Kavarathi Island is a centrally located island having easy access to the persons of other islands and most of the students studying in this college hail from Kavarathi Island and many of them are children of the employees working in the Administration. The Petitioners further allege that the Administrator of the Lakshadweep Island due to extraneous pressure by s...
Tag this Judgment!Thaikandiyil Parambath Assiya Vs. Mannamchalil Rajeevan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-13-1993
Reported in: II(1993)DMC490
K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J.1. The second appeal arises from a suit for recovery of possession. While plaintiffs were minors the plaint schedule property which belonged to them was assigned by their mother as guardian to defendant for a consideration of Rs. 6000/-. Alleging that the sale was effected without obtaining the permission of the District Court and that no benefit was obtained by the minors, relief of recovery of possession was sought in the plaint. Of the two minors one has attained majority and the other was still a minor at the time of suit. She was represented by the 1st plaintiff as the next friend.2. Defendant resisted the suit on various grounds. The sale is alleged to have taken place after obtaining permission from the District Court. Defendant was made to understand that the mother had obtained permission from the Court whereas the permission was really obtained by the father. When this was noticed subsequent to the sale deed, defendant wanted the father the minors t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »