Kerala Court November 1995 Judgments
Abdul Karim Vs. Kunjali
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-1995
Reported in: I(1996)ACC339; 1996ACJ615; (1996)ILLJ988Ker
K.K. Usha,J.1. First applicant in W.C.C. No. 41/86 is the appellant. Challenge in this appeal is against modification of the order originally passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on December 31, 1986 granting Rs. 1,06,257/60 to the appellant as well as to the 3rd respondent herein on account of the death of the son of the 2nd applicant. The original order was passed taking into consideration the wages of the deceased workman at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- p.m. The only evidence was that of the applicants regarding the salary of deceased workman. The 2nd respondent herein even though was made opposite party No. 2 remained exparte and ultimately the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation directed the opposite party No. 2 to deposit in Court a sum of Rs. 1,06,257/60 towards compensation for the death of the son of the 2nd applicant. It is seen that the 2nd opposite party made an application dated September 8, 1987 along with a petition requesting to issue a revised order on ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Excel Productions
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR528(Ker)
K.K. Usha, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions of law are referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal') for decision of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for receiving subsidy from the Government of Kerala for producing films in Kerala, it is not necessary that the recipient should have been carrying on a business ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the subsidy amount constituted the income of the period during which the films were released and that it did not constitute the income of the accounting year in which the subsidy was received ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the subsidy amount did not constitute the income of the assessee-firm as constituted during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1979-...
Tag this Judgment!Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. and anr. Vs. Pl Agro Technologie ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-14-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ker127
Thomas, Actg. C.J.1. This appeal is by the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd., (who will be referred to as the appellant-Corporation) which is a company whose shares are owned by the Government of Kerala. A writ petition has been filed by M/s. PL Agro Technologies Ltd. (who will be hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-Company) for quashing the decision adopted by the appellant-Corporation as per which a contract work was awarded to M/s. Malhotra Helicopters Limited (which would be referred to as the 4th respondent) for carrying out the work of aerial spraying over the plantations of the appellant-Corporation located in certain pans of the State. Petitioner Company has also prayed for a writ or mandamus to the appellant-Corporation to award the contract work to the petitioner-Company being the most eligible tenderer.2. Learned single Judge expressed strong disapproval of the action of the appellant-Corporation in not awarding the contract work to the petitioner-Company. But with...
Tag this Judgment!President, Pudupariyaram Service Co-op. Society Vs. Rugmini Amma and o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-14-1995
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ501Ker
Thomas, Ag.C.J.1. The Secretary of a Co-operative Society (for short 'the Society') was removed from that post by a resolution adopted by the managing committee of the Society. She complained to the Joint Registrar (third respondent herein) against the said resolution. As per the proceedings dated October 15, 1994 (Ext.P8) third respondent rescinded the decision of the managing committee and directed the Society to reinstate the Secretary. Validity of Ext.P8 is now challenged by the President of the Society in the Original Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned Single Judge dismissed the Original Petition. Hence this appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act.2. The main business of the Society is procurement of copra as agent of Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation. First respondent was the Secretary of the Society. On July 2, 1992, in a surprise check, shortage of a huge quantity of copra in the stock was detected. Secretary of the Society was...
Tag this Judgment!Balakrishnan Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-1995
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ895Ker
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioners, Assistant Excise Commissioner, and Circle Inspector of Excise, under the service of the first respondent, have approached this Court challenging the validity of an order dated October 25, 1995 placing them under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings.2. The incident which led to the suspension originated as follows:When the first petitioner was working as Assistant Excise Commissioner, Aluva Range, during 1994-95, Arrack shops Group No. 11/94-95 of Aluva Range was bid in auction by one Vi-jayan. He was issued with a permit No. 243/94-95 by the first petitioner for importing 12,000 litres of rectified sprit from Madhya Pradesh. The contractor on the strength of the permit imported 12,000 litres of rectified sprit and brought the same to his godown No. 3/94-95 at Ampattukavu. The licensee is governed by the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, hereinafter called the 'Rules' and by the various provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act. As p...
Tag this Judgment!Mathachan Alias Jospeh Mathai Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-10-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT(Cri)266; 1996CriLJ1546
B.M. Thulasidas, J.1 The appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonmen for life. He was alleged to have stabbed to death one John alias Thambi on 1-10-1989, at about 8.00 p.m., from near the Arrack shop of P. W. 3, whom he was alleged to have abused following his refusal to give arrack on credit that the deceased heard as he came there and tried to reason with him to send him away. The First Information statement, Ext. P1 was given by P. W. 1, an eye witness, to P. W. 9, on the basis of which Crime No. 154 of 1989 of Rajapuram Police Station was registered. P. W. 10 investigated the case. He held inquest from the mortuary of the Government hospital, Kanhangad on 2-10-1989 and as per Ext. P7 report he recovered M. 0.12 to M. O. 16. As per Ext. P2 scene mahazar, M. Os. 1 to 11 were seized. Postmortem was conducted by P. W. 6, who issued Ext. P4 certificate. The deceased had (antemortem)'An incised wound eliptical in shape 4 cm ...
Tag this Judgment!Lalitha E.P. and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ker133
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. The petitioners are persons who were admitted to Teachers' Training Courses. In the first, they were admitted by the Thirumala Devaswom Teachers' Training Institute and in the second, by Institutes run by the members of the Christian Community. In both the Original Petitions, it is claimed that the Institutes are minority institutions entitled to the protection of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, though in neither of the Original Petitions there is a specific allegation that the concerned Institute is 'established and run' by a minority community. But for the purpose of these cases, I propose to proceed on the basis that the Institutes that admitted these petitioners are minority institutions.2. In Fr. K. J. Thomas v. State, 1993 (2) Ker LJ 402, a Division Bench of this Court, following the decision of the Supreme Court in St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi, AIR 1992 SC 1630, held that admission to 50% of the seats reserved for admission ...
Tag this Judgment!Johnskutty Joseph Vs. Philip Abraham and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ker268
Patnaik, J. 1. Defendant in O.S. No. 1 of 1994 on the file of this Court is the appellant. By the impugned order in C.M.P. No. 1229 of 1995, the learned single Judge rejected the prayer of the appellant to amend his pleadings in the written statement by adding two more paragraphs. The learned Judge has stated that the written statement seems to contain averments that are sought to be newly introduced by this petition and the petition is totally misconceived and meant to protract the proceedings. Appellant has challenged this order.2. We heard the learned counsel on both sides.3. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that the appeal is not maintainable and the matter sought to be introduced being already averred in the written statement, it is unnecessary to repeat the same. Further he contended that the appellant filed such a petition for amendment at a belated stage only with a view to protract the proceedings.4. The case is being heard by a single Judge of this Cou...
Tag this Judgment!M. Syed Mohammed Shafi and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-03-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ker130
Thomas, Actg. C.J.1. Land was needed for construction of municipal bus stand at Punalur. So acquisition proceedings were resorted to by the Government on the requisition made by the Municipality. A Notification was published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') stating that a certain extent of land was needed for the purpose. Later a Declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was also published. Land Acquisition Officer who was appointed by the Government for this purpose after holding the enquiry, has passed an award under Section 11 of the Act fixing the market value of different plots of land involved and determining the amount of compensation payable to each of the owners of the land. But now the acquisition proceedings are under challenge. Some of the owners of the land involved have filed the present original petition mainly on the strength of two contentions. First is that Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act stood lapsed with the expir...
Tag this Judgment!Areekkattu Moidu Haji Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-03-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT(Cri)246; 1996CriLJ1036
ORDERN. Dhinakar, J.1. The Petitioner now stands convicted for an offence under Section 435 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Cri. R. C. No. 88 of 1992 is the suo motu revision taken by this Court and notice ordered to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be ordered to pay compensation to P.W. 1, the victim under Section 357 Cri. P.C.2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 23-4-1987 the petitioner committed mischief by setting fire to the rubber plantation of the de facto complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner who is also an owner of a plantation set fire to the dry leaves in his plantation and carried the burning dry leaves in his hands and threw them into the plantation of the de facto complainant and as a result of which some rubber trees were destroyed ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »