Kerala Court November 1995 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.
intrans Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ker161
ORDERV.V. Kamat, J. 1. The scheme floated by the State Government popularly known as 'Tax for Growth Fund' by the G.O. No. 717/91-ID Taxes, was discontinued by the G.O. No. (MS) 14/94/TD dt. 15-2-1994. The subject matter of these two petitions is a challenge to this sudden discontinuance of the scheme urging for a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to continue the scheme taking resort to the principles of 'promissory estoppel' against the State Government.2. The guidelines relating to the principle and application of 'promissory estoppel' are well settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court. The doctrine is a principle evolved by equity, to avoid injustice and though commonly named 'promissory estoppel', it is neither in the realm of contract, nor in the realm of estoppel. The true principle of promissory estoppel is that where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other, a clear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create a legal relationship to aris...
M.C. Joseph Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-1995
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ18Ker
K.J. Joseph, J. 1. Petitioner in this original petition challenges the validity of Ext. P6 notification issued under Section 5 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act and also the order passed by the Government evidenced by Ext.P7 refusing to make a reference of dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. According to the petitioner, both these orders are illegal and liable to be intefered with by this Court in this proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even though notice was served on the respondents, no counter affidavit has been filed controverting any of the allegations made by the petitioner in this O.P.3. Regarding the validity of Ext. P6 notification, this Court in its decision in W.A. No. 705/94, it is held that the said notification is perfectly legal and valid, and therefore the petitioner has no legal right to question the validity of the said notification.4. In respect of Ext.P7 o...
Municipal Commissioner, Thalasserry Municipality Vs. B. Abdurahiman
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1075
K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J.1. The short question for consideration in this appeal is whether the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to a prosecution commenced in respect of any sum due to a Municipal Council under Section 387 of the Kerala Municipalities Act.2. A comfort station owned by Thalassery Municipality was leased out to the accused-respondent for the period from 1-4-1989 to 31-3-1990 on a monthly rent of Rs. 2635/-. The licence fee was paid only for the months April and May and thereafter defaulted. Notice issued under Rule 31(1) of Schedule -II to the Act was served on the accused on 2-1-90. The accused having failed to pay the fees within the time allowed in the notice, a distraint warrant was issued for the recovery of the sum. The distraint warrant could not be executed since no movable property of the accused was available within the Municipality. A sum of Rs. 10,514/- was due to the Municipal Council. Hence the com...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›