Kerala Court January 1994 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.B. Sasidharan Vs. Koottukadu Cherupushpam Thirunal Savasamskara Sadh ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Ker152
ORDERL. Monoharan, J.1. Second judgment debtor in O. S. 97 of 1988 of the Additional Sub-Court, North Paravur is the revision petitioner, Decree holder/ first respondent filed E. A. 254 of 1991 in which he sought attachment of the salary of the revision petitioner. By the impugned order the lower court ordered' attachment of Rs. 500/- per month from the salary of the second judgment debtor and Rs. 400/- per month from the salary of the 3rd Judgment debtor. As noticed, the 2nd judgment debtor/revision petitioner challenges the said order of attachment of his salary.2. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, there is no attachable , portion in the salary of the revision petitioner: He produced salary certificate of the revision petitioner. The same is as follows:DEDUCTIONS'Pay Rs. 1650/-GPF subscriptionRs. 100/-D. A. Rs. 990/-GPF loanRs. 650/-C. C. A. Rs. 15/-F. B. S.Rs. 10/-HRA Rs. 132/- Total Rs. 2787/-L. I. C.Rs. 396/-Co-operative attachmentRs. 800/-TotalRs.1956/...
L. Jose Vs. K. Nesamony and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Ker300
K. J. Joseph, J. 1. The 5th respondent in O.P. No. 7573 of 1989 is the appellant in this appeal. The first respondent in the appeal had filed the above original petition challenging the validity of Exts. P2, P3, P4 and P5 orders passed by the respondents, wherein the above authorities have appointed the appellant herein as an ARD under clause 45(1) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966, in respect of the new ration shop sanctioned at a place - called Kallimoodu in Vellarada Panchayat in Neyyattinkara Taluk, for which applications were invited as per Ext. PI Notification.2. The 5th respondent in the appeal, viz., the District Supply Officer, Thiruvananthap-uram published Ext. PI notification wherein applications were invited from persons who are interested to conduct an authorised ration distribution outlet in Nayyattinkara Taluk at Vellarada Panchayat at a place called Kallimoodu in Ward VI of the said Panchayat. The locality specified in the said notification is Vellarada Panchayat in N...
V.P. Madhavan Vydiar Vs. Ajith Simhun and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ1811
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. A son is prosecuting his father for bigamy. The father now seeks to invoke High Court's inherent jurisdiction to quash the prosecution on the premise that a son cannot launch such prosecution against his father or mother for the offence of bigamy.2. In the complaint filed by the son he stated that the marriage between his father and mother was solemnised in 1961 and four children including the complainant were born to them and while the marriage was subsisting his father (the present petitioner) has undergone the ceremony of marriage with another woman (Prabhavathy, who is second accused in the complaint.) on 6-9-1987 and that the complainant came to know of his father's matrimonial reduplication only recently.3. Petitioner neither admitted nor disputed the nubile recurrence attributed to him. Instead he seems to have chosen a strategy of subterrfuge and sought to resist the prosecution, inter alia, by questioning the competence of the complainant to become an ag...
Sujatha Weaving Mills and ors. Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Ker386
ORDERL. Manoharan, J.1. Petitioners arc the judgment-debtors in O.S. No. 81 of 1987 -- a money decree, and respondents in E. P. No. 34 of 1992 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Payyannur. They filed E.A. No. 160 of 1993 for recording full satisfaction. That E.A. was dismissed by the Execution Court. This revision is directed against the said order.2. According to the revision petitioners, the decree was for an amount of Rs. 98,644.08 towards which the judgment-debtors have made deposits and as per the said deposits the decree stands satisfied. On the other hand, the decree holder maintained that balance amount is due after adjusting the said deposits. Judgment debtors maintained that the deposits made in the Execution Court has to be adjusted against the principal as per Order 21, Rule 1, CPC and on such adjustment, no amount is due; whereas according to the decree-holder since there was no notice as to the mode of adjustment, the decree-holder is entitled to adjust the said payme...
P.P. Sons Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) of Sales Tax and ors ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-1994
Reported in: [1994]95STC69(Ker)
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. The petitioner-firm is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. For the assessment year 1978-79 the assessment was completed on March 28, 1980. Against the said order of assessment the petitioner filed an appeal, according to it, disputing the liability to pay tax for the sum of Rs. 46,639. The petitioner also moved an application for stay before the appellate authority, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) at Calicut. Since no stay was granted by the appellate authority, the petitioner approached this Court by way of O.P. No. 546 of 1983 essentially praying for a direction to the authorities to stay the collection of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal. This Court disposed of the said original petition by judgment dated January 24, 1983, with a direction to the authorities to keep in abeyance the recovery of the disputed tax on condition that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000 within three weeks of the date of the said jud...
P. Gopidasan Vs. Kerala State Electronics Development Corpn. Ltd. and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-1994
Reported in: [1994(680)FLR1239]; (1994)IILLJ786Ker
K. Narayana Kurup, J.1. The prayer in this original petition is for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibit P-5 communication of the second respondent addressed to the petitioner and for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the amount due to the petitioner being gratuity as per item 3(b) of Exhibit P-2 and for other incidental reliefs.2. The facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner joined the first respondent, the Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. (for short 'the Corporation') as an Accounts Manager, on June 26, 1979. He was promoted as Finance Manager in the corporate head office during 1981. Thereafter, the post was redesignated as Finance Controller and he was promoted to general manager's grade with effect from April 1, 1983. The petitioner was given additional charge as Company Secretary with effect from April 19, 1983. Again, in May, 1988, the post of Company Secretary was redesignated as Executive Director...
Premier Breweries Ltd. and ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-1994
Reported in: (1994)117CTR(Ker)35; [1994]207ITR871(Ker)
K.T. Thomas, J.1. The petitioners are arrayed as accused A-1, A-2 and A-4 to A-8 in a complaint filed by a Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, for offences under Sections 276C and 277 read with Section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, upon the complaint, took cognizance of the offences and issued process to the petitioners. They have filed this criminal miscellaneous case for quashing those proceedings.2. The hub of the complaint is that the petitioners submitted false returns by claiming revenue expenditure to the tune of Rs. 9,98,200. In the assessment proceedings, the aforesaid claim was found to be without any basis. The contention of the petitioners is that since the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has accepted the explanation offered by the petitioners in respect of the above claim, a criminal court cannot possibly convict the accused of the offences by...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A. Yunus Kanju
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-1994
Reported in: (1994)117CTR(Ker)27; [1994]206ITR704(Ker)
K. Sreedharan, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question to this court for its opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that successive returns can be filed under Section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, within the period prescribed by Clause (b) of the said provision and that the Income-tax Officer is bound to consider these returns in framing the assessment ?'2. The short facts necessary for answering the above question are as follows: The assessee in the instant case did not file a return under Section 139(1) of the Act for the accounting year 1977-78. He was issued notice under Section 139(2) of the Act dated January 10, 1979, calling upon him to file the return. That notice was served on him on January 25, 1979. He did not comply with the notice by filing any return. Instead,...
Manmohan Malhotra Vs. P.M. Abdul Salam and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-11-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ1555
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. The question mooted is whether a magistrate can discharge the accused under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') even without taking any evidence. A magistrate did so as he considered the charge to be groudless, but the Sessions Judge in revision held that the magistrate has no power to do so without taking at least some evidence. Correctness of that view is being questioned by the accused in this revision.2. A complaint was filed before a Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging that the accused has committed offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the India Penal Code. Learned magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued process to the accused. But after the accused entered appearance there was no further progress in the trial since the complainant was absent in court on consecutive posting dates. Finally the case was posted to 3-5-1988 for the appearance of the complainant. On that day, an application was filed on behalf of...
C.K. Rajan Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-10-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Ker179
Paripoornan, J. 1. This is a public interest litigation. It concerns the famous Sree Krishna Temple, Guruvayur -- a very ancient temple of unique importance worshipped and held in great reverence by millions all over the country. The temple owns extensive movable and immovable properties and endowments. The temple has its own heritage and traditions of renowed referred memory, which adds grandeur and majesty to it over the entire globe. Shri C.K. Rajan, Chennara House, P.O. Nhamanghat, via. Kunnamkulam sent a communication to one of us (Paripoornan, J.) dated 3-2-1993 highlighting gross irregularities, corrupt practices, maladministration and mismanagement in Sree Krishna Temple, Guruvayur. A statement from Shri C.K. Rajan was recorded by the Registrar of this Court on 11-2-1993. He owned the sending of the petition, its content, etc. Gross irregularities, misadministration and various lapses were disclosed. The matter was placed before My Lord the Chief Justice, who, by order dated 11...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »