Kerala Court October 1995 Judgments
Sreekumar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-31-1995
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ977Ker
K. Narayana Kurup, J.1. Heard counsel for petitioner and 5th respondent. Petitioner is the licencee of a foreign liquor shop V.L.1/16 at Kazhakuttam. He is granted the privilege to vend Indian made foreign liquor for the year 1995-1996. The privilege was conferred on him for an amount of Rs. 24,01,000/-Ext. P1 is the copy of the notice conferring the privilege on the petitioner. On the basis of Ext. P1, petitioner executed Ext. P2 agreement. Petitioner had employed one Siva Prasad as an employee of the liquor shop and on the said employee committing certain misconduct he was placed under suspension pending domestic enquiry. According to the petitioner, the employee has misappropriated a sum of Rs. 3,59,010/-Ext.P5 is the show cause notice issued to the delinquent employee.2. Complaint of the petitioner is that since petitioner turned down the request of the delinquent employee to reinstate him in service pending finalisation of disciplinary proceedings the matter has now been taken by ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Bhaskaran Pillai Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-31-1995
Reported in: [1996]219ITR198(Ker)
K. Sreedharan J. 1. A short and interesting question arises for consideration in this revision petition. The petitioner's property was acquired by the State- as per the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act, Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, the petitioner got the issue referred to the reference court, under Section 18 of the Land Reforms Act. The reference court enhanced the amount of compensation. The total amount of compensation awarded was Rs. 1,37,249.57. That amount was directed to carry interest. The petitioner filed E.P. claiming enhanced compensation and interest awarded thereon. Interest claimed in the E.P. was Rs. 1,64,473.86. That amount in full was not deposited by the State. They consider that amount as the income accrued to the petitioner for the year and a sum of Rs. 18.421.06 was deducted towards income-tax and surcharge. Only the balance was deposited. The deposit so made together with the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Shibu Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-31-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1175
B.M. Thulasidas, J.1. The appellant and five others were the accused in S. C. No. 63 of 1991 of the Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. They were tried for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 342, 307 and 302 r/w. 149 I.P.C., the allegation being that they were members of armed unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object they attacked PW-2 and the deceased Samuel at 9.15 p.m. on 11-10-1989 from the road in front of the shop of one George at Nellimala. PW-2 and Samuel sustained injuries to which the latter succumbed on the way to the Government Hospital, Thiruvalla. Information about the incident was given by PW-1 to PW-12, on the basis of which Crime No. 485 of 1989 of Thiruvalla police station was registered. PW-13 conducted the initial investigation. He held the inquest and as per Ext. P8 seized MOs 2 to 5 from the deadbody. PW-14 conducted the postmortem and in his certificate, Ext. P9, he opined that the deceased died as a result of the penetratin...
Tag this Judgment!The Intelligence Inspector, Intelligence Squad No. Iv, Agriculture Inc ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-1995
Reported in: [2003]133STC564(Ker)
K.K. Usha, J. 1. Advocate Sri. N. Muraleedharan Nair takes notice on behalf of respondent. This is an appeal from the interlocutory order passed by the learned single Judge in C.M.P.No. 29024 of 1995 in O.P.No. 16124 of 1995. The complaint of the appellant is that the learned Judge has erred in directing release the goods detained under exhibit P3 unconditionally pending decision of the original petition.2. Appeal is at the instance of the Intelligence Inspector, Intelligence Squad No. IV, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Palakkad, respondent in the original petition. Challenge in the original petition is against detention of 10 rolls of coaxial cables transported through South Eastern Roadways in Lorry No. KRH 7263. Exhibit P3 notice issued under the provisions of Section 29-A(2) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 is sought to be quashed. Along with the original petition the petitioner filed C.M.P.No. 29024 of 1995 seeking an interim relief to release the goods unconditio...
Tag this Judgment!Sivapackyam Vs. Commissioner and Secretary, Home Ssa Deptt., Governmen ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-19-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT(Cri)32; 1996CriLJ840
P.V. Narayanan Nambiar, J.1. A Sri Lankan national, who fled to India due to ethnic problems and settled in Madras since 1976, is ordered to be detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison, Trivandrum as per order of the Government of Kerala, in exercise of powers conferred by Sections 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the COFEPOSA Act'). The order of detention is challenged by his mother by filing the Original Petition seeking for a writ of Habeas Corpus to release the detenu.2. On 15-3-1995, the detenu, Sri David Chrishtopher Rajadurai, landed at Trivandrum Airport by Air India flight. He was a passanger from Singapore. He was cleared through the 'green channel' as if he has nothing to declare for payment of import duty. But the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of the Revenue Intelligence, Trivandrum, who had secret information about smuggling of gold to India, intercepted the deten...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Sadananthan Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-17-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ker199
Thomas, Ag. C.J.1. Government of Kerala have decided to name the District Hospital, Quilon as 'A.A. Rahim Memorial District Hopspital' (vide Ext. P1 notification). Petitioner who describes himself as Vice President of the local District unit of Bharatiya Janata Party, Challenges Ext. P1. Earlier he submitted a petition to the Chief Secretary of Kerala requesting him to withdraw the notification, but he did not accede to the request. Petitioner has, therefore, filed this original petition for a writ of mandamus forbearing the Government from implementing Ext. P1. Learned single Judge before whom this original petition came up referred it to the Division Bench.2. Shri K. Ramakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged for an immediate order of interim stay as aceremony is being arranged this evening for the formal christening of the District Hospital with the above name. Learned Advocate General opposed the prayer. Hence we heard arguments of both sides in detail.3. Three reasons ha...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Hamid Bafaky Vs. Moideen
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-17-1995
Reported in: [1996]85CompCas267(Ker); 1996CriLJ1013
N. Dhinakar, J.1. This revision is against the orders of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thaliparamba, refusing to drop the proceedings instituted against the petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. The petitioner, before the trial court, took an objection that a notice contemplated under Section 138 was not served upon him and prayed that the proceedings against him be dropped. The learned Magistrate, on consideration of the materials placed before him, took the view that from the endorsements made on the registered notice the petitioner was only evading service of notice which was actually sent by the complainant. The learned Magistrate held as follows :' From the endorsement on the registered notice made by the postman and from the postal seals affixed on the letter it is seen that the postal authorities were trying to deliver the notice to the addressee from March 5, 1991, till March 13, 1991, and the addressee was out of station ...
Tag this Judgment!theethi and anr. Vs. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad and ors ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-17-1995
Reported in: I(1996)ACC270; 1996ACJ609; AIR1996Ker237
ORDERP.A. Mohammed, J.1. This is a motor accident claim case involving the death of a person in a collision of two motor vehicles. The question for determination is whether the amount of compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') is payable without establishing the identity of both the vehicles and wrongful act or neglect of the owners of the vehicles, which resulted in the accident causing the death.2. The petitioner's son, Rajendraprasad, was travelling in a taxi car on 22-11-1992 and in the course of the journey it was hit by a lorry which resulted in his death. After the accident the lorry was driven away swiftly leaving no chance to trace out its identity. However, the identity of the taxi-car was available since the deceased had travelled in the car. The petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, filed a petition, O.P. (M.V.) No. 181 of 1993 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad claiming compensation on account o...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. P. Leela and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-13-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ1246; AIR1996Ker144
Usha, J.1. Challenge in this appeal at the instance of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is against the interim award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta in O.P. (MV) No. 235/94 granting an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to respondents 1 to 5 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act as compensation for the death of the husband of 1st respondent, father of respondents 2 to 4 and son of 5th respondent.2. Certain facts are admitted in this case. An accident happened on 9-1-1994 out of the use of a motor vehicle which resulted in the death of one Ramchandran Pillai, husband of 1st respondent, father of respondents 2 to 4 and son of 5th respondent. It is also admitted that a claim has been put forward by respondents 1 to 5 against the owner of the vehicle impleaded as 1st respondent and insurance company impleaded as 2nd respondent. It is contended by the appellant that no interim award under Section 140 can be granted in this case as, according to the appellant, the acciden...
Tag this Judgment!Pappu Kesavan Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-13-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ker235
Thomas, Ag. C.J.1. Appellant is admittedly a freedom fighter. It is also admitted that he had suffered imprisonment. It is further admitted that he is a recipient of pension under the scheme formulated by the Government of Kerala for freedom fighters. But with all these plus points he failed to get pension under the Swathanthra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 formulated by the Central Government. He is aggrieved by Ext. P8 order rejected his application for pension under the said scheme which will be referred to hereinafter as the Central Scheme.He filed the original petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing Ext.P8 and for a direction to the Central Government to grant pension to him. Learned single Judge dismissed the original petition. Hence this appeal.2. We have to mention at the outset that Shri M.V.S. Nampoothiri, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, submitted that a counter was filed on behalf of the Central Government. But no counter has,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »