Kerala Court August 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.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd., CochIn Vs. V.N. Thankappan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ42; AIR1995Ker40
Pareed Pillay, J. 1. Third respondent in O.P. (MV) 1706 of 1985 of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Quilon is the appellant. First respondnet (claimant) filed the petition claiming Rs. 75,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the bus accident on 27-3-1954 near Mundu-kottackal Padi. The Tribunal on evaluation of the evidence held that the first respondent is entitled to compensation of Rs. 49,750/-with 6% interest thereon.2. Respondents 2 and 3 did not contest the petition before the Tribunal. Appellant filed counter statement contending inter alia that its liability is only as per the statutory limit and as the first respondent has not furnished the insurance particulars Tribunal is not justified in holding the appellant liable for the entire compensation amount.3. Admittedly the insurance policy was not produced by the appellant before the Tribunal. Attempt was made to produce the same before this Court by filing C.M.P. 26539 of 1989. Appellant's stand is that ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sea Pearl Industries
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR508(Ker)
Sujata V. Manohar, C.J. 1. The Department has filed this petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for a direction that the Tribunal should frame a statement of the case and refer the following questions to us for determination : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in the light of Sterling Foods' case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in interfering with the Income-tax Officer's action in bringing to tax under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the sum of Rs. 15,54,325 on the ground that such a right is not available to the Income-tax Officer because the Revenue is itself a litigant in the realm of deducibility of purchase tax liability for the assessment year 1982-83 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of Sterling Foods' case, the Tribunal is justified in law in interfering with the assessment of Rs. 7,42,950 under Section 41(1)? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circ...
C.T. Xavier and ors. Vs. P.V. Joseph and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-04-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Ker140
Kamat, J. 1. These two appeals require consideration of various implications and application of the basic Common Law Rule of contract that a man is bound to perform the obligation which he has undertaken and cannot claim to be excused by the mere fact that performance has subsequently become impossible. The law cannot regard a promise to do something obviously impossible as of any value, and such a promise is therefore no consideration. A man who promises without qualification is bound by the terms of his promise if he is found at all. If the parties do not mean their agreement to be unconditional, it is for them to qualify it by such conditions as they think fit. But a condition need not always be expressed in words; there are conditions which may be implied from the nature of the contract, and in certain cases where an event making performance impossible is of such nature and character that itcannot reasonably be supposed to have been in contemplation, if the contracting parties when...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pandyat Kuniyil Pushpavally and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-01-1994
Reported in: 1996ACJ665
T.V. Ramakrishnan, J.1. This appeal by the insurer is against the award passed in M.A.C. No. 148 of 1982 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The appellant was respondent No. 3 in the M.A.C. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are the claimants in the M.A.C. They are the widow, two children and parents of one Ravi, who died in a motor accident on 22.3.1982. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are respectively the owner and driver of lorry No. KLD 9741. Respondent No. 5, wife of the respondent No. 4 and mother of the deceased died during the pendency of the appeal. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased, respondent No. 5 and nobody else have been impleaded as additional respondents on her death.2. Ravi, a labourer doing masonry work as the means of his livelihood and aged 30 years, who was proved to be the sole bread-winner of his family consisting of his young wife, two minor children and parents aged 75 and 65, met with an instantaneous death as he was crushed und...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Pandyat Kuniyil Pushpavally ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-01-1994
Reported in: I(1996)ACC366
T.V. Ramakrishnan, J.1. This appeal by the insurer is against the award passed in M.A.C. No. 148 of 1982 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The appellant was the 3rd respondent in the M.A.C. Respondents 1 to 5 are the claimants in the M.A.C. They are the widow, two children and of one Ravi, who died in a motor accident on 22.3.1982. Respondents 6 and 7 are lespectively the owner and driver of lorry No. KLD 9741. Fifth respondent, wife of the 4th respondent and mother of the deceased died during the pendency of the appeal. Respondents 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased 5th respondent and nobody else have been impleaded as additional respondents on her death.2. Ravi, a labourer doing masonary work as the means of his livelihood and aged 30 years, who was proved to be the sole bread winner of his family consisting of his young wife, two minor children and parents aged 75 and 65, met with an instantaneous death as he was crushed under the wheels of the l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›