Kerala Court December 1994 Judgments
In Re: Tomy George
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-1994
Reported in: I(1995)DMC228
P.V. Narayanan Nambiar, J.1. A petition filed under Section 29 of the Guardian and Wards Act (for short 'the Act') for permission to alienate the property of a minor, was 'closed' by the Court below. According to us, the approach made by the Court below to the problem cannot be justified.2. Sindu alias Elizabeth is the minor. Her father and mother jointly applied to the District Court for permission to sell the property of the minor. Her father had 56 acres of land in Tellicherry Taluk. He gifted seven acres out of it to the minor as per Ext. A2 gift deed dated 27-1-1982. It is the said land which the petitioners now want to sell.3. The petitioners are residents of Poovarani Village in Meenachil Taluk (Kottayam District). The first petitioner had already sold the remaining 49 acres. So, what remains to be sold is the seven acres of property covered by the gift. According to the petitioners, they have no other interest in Tellicherry Taluk and hence they find it difficult to manage the ...
Tag this Judgment!Pandan Krishnan and anr. Vs. Asst. Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Co ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2275
ORDERB.M. Thulasidas, J.1. In these petitions filed under Section 482, of the Code of Criminal Procedure the common petitioners have challenged and sought to quash the complaints and proceedings in C.C. Nos. 142/90 and 220/92 of the Judicial First class Magistrate Court, Kochi taken at the instance of the first respondent, C.C. No. 142/90 has been laid under Section 44, read with Sections 47 and 49, of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short the Act) and the other case for the alleged violation of Section 41(2). Before initiation of the proceedings, the first respondent made an application, C.M.P. No. 1558/90 under Section 33, of the Act and by order dt. 25-5-1990 the Magistrate directed the Managing director who is the Ist petitioner in Crl. M. C. 763/92 and the second petitioner in the other to desist forthwith from discharging the spent wash and waste got from the fermentation of jaggery into backwaters of Kochi.' Allegedly there was flagrant breach of t...
Tag this Judgment!Raveendran Vs. R.T.O. Kannur
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-1994
Reported in: I(1995)ACC300
K.T. Thomas, J.1. Appellant claims to be the owner of a goods vehicle (lorry). He applied for a goods permit before the Regional Transport Authority (for short 'the RTA') concerned, but the said authority did not grant the permit. He, therefore, filed the Original Petition for a writ of mandamus directing the RTA to grant the permit. Learned Single Judge before whom the Original Petition came up, dismissed it on the ground that as the appellant is not the registered owner of the vahicle he is not entitled to get a permit. This appeal is against the said judgment.2. According to the appellant, the lorry (KRD 457) belonged to one C.P.K. Balan (who is the registered owner of the vehicle even now) who transferred to the vehicle to another person and from the latter it was purchased by the appellant. The first owner C.P.K. Balan entered into a Hire Purchase Agreement with a financier. The hire purchase liability was taken over by the purchaser of the vehicle and according to the appellant h...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Haileyburia Tea Estates Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-1994
Reported in: (1995)124CTR(Ker)23; [1995]214ITR770(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. By the judgment dated February 6, 1985, this court in Original Petition No. 4563 of 1983 directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, to draw up a statement of case and refer the following question of law to this court. The question is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provision for gratuity is 'reserve' under the Second Schedule to the Surtax Act, 1964, and the same should be taken into account in the computation of capital for the purpose of the Surtax Act ?'2. The matter relates to the surtax assessment of the assessee. The assessment year is 1975-76, ending on December 31, 1974. The balance-sheet of the assessee showed a reserve for the purpose of gratuity.3. The Income-tax Officer did not take this item placed in the category of 'reserve' in computing the capital for the purpose of the Second Schedule to the Surtax Act, holding that this was not a 'reserve'. The officer relied on the decision of this court, w...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnamma Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)ALT(Cri)469; 1995CriLJ1711
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. The appellant was convicted by the Court of Sessions, Pathnathitta for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Appellant challenges the conviction and sentence.2. Deceased Suma Varghese was the wife of appellant's brother Jose Mathew, Suma Varghese and her husband Jose Mathew were residing with their parents and two children in Nellickal house within the jurisdiction of Vechoochira Police Station. On the date of the incident i.e. on 8-7-89, Jose Mathew and his parents were doing agricultural work in their property. Then they heard an outcry from the house. P. W. 1 Jose Mathew and his father Ulahannan Mathai (P. W. 2) ran to the house and found Suma Varghese lying on the courtyard with extensive burn injuries. According to P. Ws. 1 and 2, Suma Varghese was not in a position to talk anything. Suma Varghese was taken to Kanjirappally Govt. Hospital from where she was referred to Medical College Hospital, Kot...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pennamma Kurien and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-1994
Reported in: II(1995)ACC326; 1995ACJ760; [1995]83CompCas251(Ker); (1995)IILLJ28Ker
K.T. Thomas, J.1. The short question mooted in this appeal is this : Can a claim be made for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') after dismissal of an application madebefore the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short 'the Claims Tribunal'). The appellant (the New India Assurance Company Limited) contends that such a claim is not maintainable in law. The legality of the said contention requires consideration.2. Facts : A claim was made by the legal heirs of one Kurien in respect of a motor (jeep) accident which happened on May 9, 1988, while the said Kurien was driving the, jeep (KLW 3057). As he died in the accident, the claim was preferred by, his legal heirs before the Claims Tribunal. But the claim was rapelled on the ground that the accident happened due to the negligence of the deceased, Kurien. However, the Claims Tribunal had ordered a sum of Rs. 15,000 to be paid to the claimants under 'no-fault liability' as envisaged in Chapter VI...
Tag this Judgment!Kuriakose Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1751
P.V. Narayanan Nambiar, J.1. One Kuriakose was examined as a prosecution witness in a Sessions trial. Learned Sessions Judge proceeded against him under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') on the premise that he had committed the offence punishable under Section 193 of the Penal Code alleging that he gave false evidence. He was examined as P.W. 14 being an attestor in Ext. P17 mahazar which was prepared in respect of the recovery of a knife effected by a Circle Inspector of Police. In the course of evidence, P.W. 14 stated that he did not know about the contents of the mahazar (Ext. P17) and that he did not witness the recovery of the knife from the house of the accused. (Of course, placing reliance on the evidence of the investigating officer, recovery of M.O.2 weapon was accepted by the Sessions Court and the case against the accused ended in conviction).2. Learned Sessions Judge criticised P.W. 14 in his judgment and qualified him as a person 'who is...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. David Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-1994
Reported in: (1995)124CTR(Ker)146; [1995]214ITR658(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has referred the following question :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-trust cannot be taxed in view of the fact that one of the beneficiaries of the trust had earlier been assessed to tax as a beneficiary of the trust ?'2. From the statement placed before us, the short matrix is provided as below : The assessment year is 1980-81, ending on March 31, 1980. The assessee is the executor of a trust created by himself for the benefit of his two minor children, Pradeep George Joseph and Pramod John Joseph. The Income-tax Officer assessed the income of the property acting under Section 164(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961. The assessment was completed on February 18, 1983. It appeared that long before this assessment, the Income-tax Officer had already assessed the minor beneficiary, Pramod John Joseph, on Decembe...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Radha Raju Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-12-1994
Reported in: [1995]214ITR730(Ker)
K. Sreedharan, J. 1. The assesses is the applicant. The assessment year is 1976-77. The question referred to this court is 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was entitled to a period of one year from the second return filed by the assessee on January 5, 1979, under Section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for completing the assessment ?'2. The assessment year is 1976-77, for which the previous year ended on March 31, 1976. As against a returned income of Rs. 8,820, the Income-tax Officer determined the income at Rs. 1,01,820. This was mainly on account of an addition of Rs. 85,000 by way of income from unexplained sources. Before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee, apart from questioning the correctness of the additions made, also contended that the assessment was barred by limitation, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while holding that the assessment was within time r...
Tag this Judgment!A. Mohammed Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1866
V.V Kamat, J.1. It is elementary and obvious that abundant foreign exchange was the crying need as a result of highly adverse position of the balance of payments on the eve of second world war and our country required the foreign exchange as much for development of the planned industrial base. The foreign exchange needed conservation meaning prohibition of imports of certain items and close regulation of some items. The controls in the context exhibited over-all fall outs creating a class of smugglers as well as foreign exchange manipulators. Profit was the sole motive and worldly success became the sole criterion to show what is right and what is wrong in individual conduct. The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, the Customs Act, 1962 which were passed on the anvil of the Parliament proved abortive and in spite thereof smuggling and violations continued spreading with a spiral character.2. The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »