Kerala Court March 1995 Judgments
Kunhammed Haji Vs. Amina
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-1995
Reported in: II(1995)DMC260
T.V. Ramakrishnan, J.1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Code') was posted before us along with Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1861/1993 on the basis of a common reference order. The specific question referred to the Division Bench has been answered by us in Criminal Miscellaneous Case 1861/1993 by a separate judgment and need not be considered again in this case. As per the judgment in Criminal Miscellaneous Case 1861/1993, we have held that the provisions contained in Section 397(3) of the Code will not be a bar of invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code. In the light of the said judgment, it has to be held that this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is maintainable in law.2. Facts, necessary to deal with the contentions of merit raised in the case, can be summarised thus: The 1st respondent is the divorced wife of the petitioner. She filed Maintenance Case No. 118 of 1989 in the Court of ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Kunhammed Haji Vs. K. Amina and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3371
1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Code') was posted before us along with Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 18611993 on the basis of a common reference order. The specific question referred to the Division Bench has been answered by us in Criminal Miscellaneous Case 1861/1993 by a separate judgment and need not be considered again in this case. As per the judgment in Criminal Miscellaneous Case 1861/.1993, we have held that the provisions contained in Section 397(3) of the Code will not be a bar for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code. In (he light of the said judgment, it has to be held that this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is maintainable in law.2. Facts, necessary to deal with the contentions on merit raised in the case, can be summarised thus: The 1st respondent is the divorced wife of the petitioner. She filed Maintenance Case No. 118 of 1989 in the Court of the Additional Chief...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. P.V. Prasannan, Dentist Vs. Dental Council of India, New Delhi and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Ker380
ORDER1. Both the Original Petitions were heard together as common questions of law arise for consideration on similar facts. This judgment will govern both the cases.2. The petitioners pray for issue of a direction to the second respondent -- Kerala Dental Council, Thiruvananthapuram -- to include their names as Dentists in Pan B of the Kerala State Dental Register in pursuance of Ext. P3 order of the Dental Council of India (1st respondent) by quashing Ext. P6 order of the second respondent by which their request for transfer of registration from Madhya Pradesh to Kerala was rejected.3. The petitioners in both the cases are brothers. They are residents of Varkala, Thiruvananthapuram District. Both of them claim that they have had their education in the Stale of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners have been registered as Dentists in Part B of the Madhya Pradesh State Dental Council under the provisions of the Dentists Act, 1948. Ext. P1 in each O.P. is the certificate of registration grant...
Tag this Judgment!Y.K. Gupta Vs. S.K. Mohammed Raqueeb and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Ker386
Thomas, J. 1. Both parties won as well as lost in Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority. When the landlord won the case in regard to the ground under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 (for short 'the Act'), he lost to the tenant in regard to the ground under Section 11(3). Both sides went in appeal and the Appellate Authority dismissmed both appeals. Hence both parties have filed these separate revisions.2. Regarding the ground under Section 11(3) of the Act, the factual position as found by the two lower authorities is this: This building belonged to the father of the present landlord. He died in 1982. Another building which belonged to him was in the possession of some other person and that became vacant. The present landlord, who is one of the co-owners of that building, did not occupy it for any business use even though it became vacant in 1982 itself. In 1985 he and the other co-owners executed a partition deed as per which the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!A. P. Kuruvilla and Co. and Others Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-1995
Reported in: (1995)127CTR(Ker)228; [1995]214ITR183(Ker)
K. NARAYANA KURUP J. - Heard Shri N. R. K. Nair, standing counsel for the Income-tax Department also.The matter relates to waiver of interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 are partnershipfirms who were conducting abkari business during 1989-90 to 1991-92 in different ranges in Ernakulam Excise Division. Shri A. P. Kuruvilla was a partner in all the three firms at the relevant time.Exhibit P-1 is the representation filed by the said A. P. Kuruvilla representing all the three firms, before the Central Board of Direct Taxes for waiver of interest imposed as per sections 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act concerning the income from the abkari business conducted by the three firms. Subsequent to the filing of exhibit P-1 representation, the petitioners preferred an application before the second respondent, viz., the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, West Fort, Trichur, for stay of collection of tax during the pendency of exhibit P-1. The...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Joshy and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-1995
Reported in: II(1995)ACC251; 1995ACJ1217; [1995]83CompCas612(Ker)
K.T. Thomas, J. 1. This appeal by one insurance company is in challenge of the direction contained in an award passed by a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') that the awarded compensation should be paid by the appellant-insurance company.2. The claimant in the case is a minor boy who sustained some injuries in a motor accident which took place on November 23, 1984. The claim was for compensation exceeding a lakh of rupees, but the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000 together with interest at 12 per cent. per annum. The appellant-company was directed to pay the amount as the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the appellant-company.3. One of the main contentions advanced by the appellant before the Claims Tribunal was this : At the time when the certificate of insurance and policy were issued in respect of the vehicle (a scooter) its owner was the fourth respondent. But much before the accident the ownership of the vehicle was transfe...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary, Home Department, Government of Kerala and ors. Vs. K. A ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2407
K. Sreedharan, J.1. Petitioner in O.P. 17244/ 1994, is a person against whom order of detention has been issued by the State Government under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, here-in after referred to as 'the COFEPOSA Act'. That order was issued on 30-10-1989. Till date, he could not be arrested and detained pursuant to the said order of detention, eventhough various steps were taken by the Government for the said purpose. On 25-1 -90, Government of Kerala issued notification in the Official Gazette under Section 7(1)(b) of the COFEPOSA Act directing the petitioner to appear before the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram. Thereafter a report was sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri under Section 7(1)(a) of the COFEPOSA Act on 25-1-1990. The Magistrate on the basis of that report, registered a case as C.M.P. 242/1990. Thereupon petitioner moved the High Court of Calcutta (The number of the proceedings is...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Aliakutty Paul Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Ker291
Jagannadha Raju, J.1. This Original Petition is filed by Mrs. Aliakutty Paul, widow of late P. D. Paul, who was a successful bidder for an abandoned estate which was offered for lease. Before a lease deed was executed, possession was given to Mr. P. D. Paul on his undertaking to execute a lease deed. Subsequently, without executing any lease deed and as some difference arose between the respondents and the auction purchaser, P. D. Paul postponed the execution of the lease deed. He ultimately died on 17-9-1991 leaving behind his widow, the present petitioner, as the executor of his will. As no lease deed was executed various proceedings were taken and a lot of litigations ensued. All that is mentioned in detail in the Original Petition. Ultimately Ext. P16 show cause notice was issued by the second respondent on 12-10-1994 and the petitioner received it on 17-10-1994. Contending that though Ext. P16 is styled as a show cause notice, from the statements contained in it, it is clear that ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Sundaresan Vs. M.S. Hardwares and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)ALT(Cri)193; 1995CriLJ3243
ORDERK.P. Balanarayana Marar, J.1. In this petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner, the accused in S.T.No. 528 of 1993 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram seeks to quash the complaint. First respondent filed that complaint alleging commission of offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The grievance of petitioner is that the Magistrate failed to acquit the accused for non-appearance of the complaint.2. Heard counsel for petitioner.3. The complaint S.T.No. 528 of 1993 had come up before the Magistrate on 5-10-1994 on which date the counsel for petitioner is alleged to have argued on the maintainability of the complaint. The case was adjourned to 21 -10-1994 on which date the complainant or his counsel was not present. The court instead of acquitting the accused under Sec. 256(1) of the Code, adjourned the case to 4-11 -1994 for evidence. From that date the case was adjourned to 8-3-1995. The contention of counsel is that th...
Tag this Judgment!Quilon Dist. Private Bus Operators Association and ors. Vs. State of K ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-20-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ker104
ORDERV.V. Kamat, J.1. Motor Vehicles Act (59/88) as compared to the old Act of 1939 is not only liberalised but also is people oriented in thematter of grant of permits. This has been focussed by the Supreme Court, so much so that it is observed in various context that an intended operator can get a permit for asking irrespective of the number of operators already in the field. Objections and the provisions to impose limit on the number of permits have been taken away, because there is no similar provision to that of Sections 47 and 57 under the new Act. The Supreme Court has also examined the statement of objects and reasons of the Act 59/88 to highlight of the purpose of bringing in the Act of 1988 was to liberalise the grant of permits. It is made clear that there is no threat of any kind whatsoever from any authority and in fact more operators are accepted. It is observed that more operators mean healthy competition and efficient transport system.2. Various aspects have been laid a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »