Kerala Court June 1994 Judgments
P.D. Pillai Vs. Mrs. Kaliyanikutty Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-29-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Ker78; [1995]82CompCas147(Ker)
Kamat, J.1. This appeal is referred to us to consider the correctness of the decision of this Court, in regard to the application of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The decision relates to a situation when a person makes admission of acknowledgement does not specify the quantum of liability whether it would operate as an acknowledgement in respect of specific sum. In other words when an acknowledgment relates to the part of the claim which is not specified, whether, without anything more, it would be available as an acknowledgment to save limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.2. In the reference order, are referredcertain other decisions :(i) Harrisons and Crossfield Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1963 Ker LT 215). (ii) The decision of the Privy Council in Maniram v. Seth Rupchand ((1906) 33 Ind App 165). (iii) Sitayya v. Rangareddi((1887) ILR 10 Mad 259). (iv) Jainarain v. Governor-General of India (AIR 1951 Cal. 462). (v) Krishna Kurppu v. Raman Pillai (45 TLR 200). tha...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Antony and anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income- ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-29-1994
Reported in: [1994]95STC146(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. Both these writ petitions relate to the inspection and search of two business premises and seizure of documents under Section 28 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act'). The validity of the said proceedings is challenged in these petitions as originally framed.2. On December 17, 1993, at about 3 p.m. respondents 1 to 4 who are the officers of the sales tax department, inspected the business premises of Supreme Hardwares, Palace Road, Changanacherry, and after conducting search, prepared a shop inspection report. During the search the officers seized certain documents in the presence of two witnesses. Simultaneously the officers conducted a similar search in the business premises Of 'A.J. Traders', a sister concern of Supreme Hardwares. After the search, a shop inspection report was prepared in relation to that inspection also. Joseph Antony, owner of these business units was absent during the inspection. However, the accountant was present du...
Tag this Judgment!Rosamma Thomas Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-1994
Reported in: [1994]210ITR814(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. Exhibit P-4 order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner is an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and she filed a revision petition before the Commissioner. At the time of hearing of the revision petition, the petitioner was represented by her representative, Mr. R. Sureshkumar, C. A. What was pleaded before the Commissioner is for waiver of interest charged under Sections 139(8) and 215, The assessment year in question is 1987-88. Under the provisions contained in Section 273A discretion has been conferred on the Commissioner to waive interest. The question is whether the Commissioner has properly exercised his power in disposing of the revision petition. After perusing the records, the Commissioner has observed : 'the assessee had not voluntarily filed the return of income and the disclosure made in the original return of income was also not complete.' Therefore, it is difficult to say that there is no ap...
Tag this Judgment!O. Mammachan Vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-1994
Reported in: II(1994)ACC476; 1994ACJ1262
K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J.1. Does the placing of elbow on the window-sill by the passenger while the bus is in motion amount to an act of negligence? If in an accident the elbow of such a passenger is injured, can contributory negligence be attributed to him? These are the aspects which require consideration in this appeal.2. The appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in O.P. (MV) No. 601 of 1985. Claimant is the appellant.3. Claimant sustained injuries in a motor accident which occurred on 12.9.1985. He was a passenger in bus KLX 1461 owned by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, 1st respondent herein and driven by 2nd respondent. He was seated on the left side of the bus near the window. The bus is alleged to have been driven in a rash and negligent manner. While the bus was crossing another bus coming from the opposite direction, the left hand of appellant which was kept on the window-sill hit against an electric post where by he sustained i...
Tag this Judgment!Mathew Philip and ors. Vs. Malayalam Plantations (India) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1994
Reported in: [1994]81CompCas38(Ker)
K.T. Thomas, J.1. A Division Bench of this court, while hearing the appeal against an order passed by a learned single judge felt that the decision in Official Liquidator v. Madura Co. P. Ltd. [1975] KLT 562 requires reconsideration. Hence, the reference to the Full Bench. The case, in brief, is the following :Two companies, Malayalam Plantations (India) Ltd. (for short 'MPI') and Harrisons and Crossfield (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'H & C'), evolved a scheme of amalgamation with each other. They filed petitions in this court under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, for a direction to convene separate meetings of the shareholders of the companies. This Court issued a direction and in the separate meetings held pursuant thereto resolutions were adopted by overwhelming majority of the shareholders favouring the amalgamation of the two companies. A joint petition has been filed by the two companies in this court seeking sanction for such amalgamation. The learned single ...
Tag this Judgment!Kunhimuhammed Vs. M.K. Khadeeja and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1994
Reported in: [1998]92CompCas610(Ker)
B.M. Thulasidas, J.1. The order on C. M. P. No. 4432 of 1993 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode, filed under Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is under challenge in this revision. By the said petition, the petitioner sought to condone the delay of 15 days to file the complaint against the respondent for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short 'the Act'). It was submitted that he was hospitalised at the relevant time and could not file the complaint within the period prescribed. He produced a certificate from the doctor who treated him and prayed that the delay may be condoned. The court below by the impugned order refused to condone the delay and dismissed the petition.2. Heard counsel for the petitioner. Under Section 142 of the Act :'Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code,-- (a) no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 except upon a complaint in wr...
Tag this Judgment!Amina Unno Vs. Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Fin ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1199
Pareed Pillay, J.1. Petitioner has filed the Habeas Corpus petition for the release of her son Bappu Navas (detenu) and to set him at liberty. Prayer is also made to quash Exts. P-1 and P-3 orders of the first respondent.2. Case of the petitioner, is that her son was apprehended at Thiruvananthapuram Air Port on 9-8-1990 on the alleged statement of Mathews Baby, that he was subjected to torture for extracting statements as dictated by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate, that he was produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam and that he was enlarged on bail by the High Court. According to the petitioner, detenu's house was searched but no incriminating documents or evidence were detected.3. Ext. P-1 order was passed on 26-2-1991 by the first respondent ordering the detention of the petitioner's son. Actual detention was effected only on 4-11-1993. main contention of the petitioner is that the wide gap between Ext. P-1 order of detent...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Financial Corporation Vs. Recovery Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1994
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ1095Ker
G.H. Guttal, J.1. M/s. Darpan Electronics (Private) Limited owes Rs. 37,150/- towards its contribution to the Employees' Provident Fund and Rs. 15,95,693/-to the Kerala State Financial Corporation (the Corporation for short). The question for consideration in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is, whether, by virtue of Sections 29 and 46-B of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 ('the Act' for brevity), the Corporation has the overriding right to recoverits debts from the assets of Darpan Electronics, notwithstanding the fact that under Section 11(2) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act ('The Provident Fund Act' for the sake of brevity), the amount of provident fund dues is a first charge on the assets of the employer. The facts giving rise to this question are in paragraph No. 2 below.2. On February 20, 1987 Darpan Electronics (Private) Ltd. borrowed Rs. 10.89 lakhs from the Corporation created under the State Financial Cor...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala and anr. Vs. Dr. C.V. Antony
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1994
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR52]; (1995)IILLJ995Ker
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Appeal is by the State. The original petition was filed by the respondent for a writ of mandamus compelling the appellants to issue non-liability certificate so as to enable him to draw the gratuity and also for a direction for payment of interest at 15 per cent. with effect from April 1, 1988. The learned single judge holding that unilateral fixation of the liability at Rs. 18,663 by the appellants is illegal, unjust and contrary to rules 3 and 116, Part III of the Kerala Service Rules allowed the original petition and directed the appellants to disburse the entire death-cum-retirement gratuity amount to the respondent with 12 per cent. interest from June 1, 1989, to the actual date of payment.2. The appellants' contention is that the respondent has caused loss of Rs. 18,663 as foundby the department and accordingly liability certificate was issued to him by the Director of Health Services on October 11, 1989. The appellants maintain that failure to issue noti...
Tag this Judgment!A. Narayana Rao and Etc. Vs. Laxmi Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Ker371
Kamat, J.1. Three proceedings: a) O.P. 9632 of 1983-D with C.M.P. 29571 of 1983, b) Second Appeal 218 of 1983 with C.M.P. 5818 of 1983 and c) C.R.P. 283 of 1984-B, are placed before us in pursuance of a referring order dated November 1, 1991 (Coram: Kalliath and Manoharan, JJ.) doubting the correctness of the decision reported in 1974 Ker LT 879 (Moidu v. Mammunhi Beary) holding that the compensation for improvements is certainly not part of the 'mortgage money' as defined in the second paragraph of Section 58(d) of the Transfer of Property Act, as such payment of compensation is not secured by the deed and there is only a promise to pay it along with the mortgage money. Referring Court has taken the view for our consideration that payment of compensation for improvements at the time of redemption will not change the character of the transaction being a usufructuary mortgage as such payment is an implicit term of usufructuary mortgage.Factual Matrix2. Subject-matter and parties in O.P....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »