Kerala Court July 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.
A. Mayilswami Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)ALT(Cri)394; 1995CriLJ3830
M.M. Pareed Pillay, C.J.1. The question that arises for consideration is whether the decision in Rajan Nair v. Mohan, (1993) 1 Ker LT 782 requires reconsideration. In the above decision a Division Bench of this Court held that the action initiated by directing issue of notice to the contemner should be within a period of one year from the date of the alleged contempt. The Division Bench held that if the court has not initiated proceedings by passing some order within a period of one year from the date of the alleged act of contempt the bar contained in Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 comes into operation. The court held that on a reading of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act it is clear that it places absolute fetter on the power of the High Court to initiate proceedings for contempt after the expiration of the period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.2. In the above decision N. Venkataramanappa v. D. K. Kaikar, AIR 1...
V. Selvapandian Vs. Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-1995
Reported in: (1998)146CTR(Ker)14
M. M. PAREED PILLAY, C.J. :The assessments for the years 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 were completed by the first respondent under s. 18(4) of the Agrl. IT Act, 1950, by separate orders. Admittedly, that was done with a notice to the petitioner. The petitioner filed applications under s. 19 of the Act to reopen the assessments. As the applications were not filed within one month from the service of a notice of demand, the Agrl. IT and STO (the first respondent) rejected the same. Appeals were preferred against the assessment orders before the AAC. The appeals were dismissed. Second appeals were filed before the Agrl. Tribunal (the second respondent). The Tribunal allowed the appeals as per exhibit P-2 order. Thereafter, the Tribunal suo motu rectified the order under s. 36 of the Act. Exhibit P-3 is the order. Exhibit P-3 is challenged in the original petition.2. Admittedly, the petitioner was served with notice in the assessment proceedings initiated against him. Under s. 19 ...
Kannachett Venugopalan Vs. the Malappuram District Co-operative Milk S ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-11-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Ker369
Pareed Pillay, C.J. 1. The Registry raised objection to the appeal on the ground that it has been filed without formulating substantial question of law. The question that arises for consideration is whether it is necessary to formulate substantial question of law as provided under Section 100, C.P.C. in appeals against first appeals of the single Judge before Division Bench.2. In Shankari Amma v. State of Kerala (1991 (2) KLT 184) a Division Bench of this Court held that in appeal filed under Section 5(ii) of the Kerala High Court Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) it is incumbent upon the appellant to formulate substantial question of law. In the said decision it was held that the principles embodied in Section 100, C.P.C. proclaims the policy of the Legislature in the matter of entertaining second appeals and as the said provision is based on public policy they are in substance applicable to Section 5(ii) of the Act which is a kindred provision. Another Division Bench took a di...
A.R. Kumbbat Vs. Peejay Rubber Industries Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT(Cri)205; 1995CriLJ3828
ORDERN. Dhinakar, J.1. As the parties and the issue involved: are one and the same in both the petitions the following common order is being passed.2. Whether return of a cheque with an endorsement 'refer to drawer' will attract the penal provisions as contained in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. Before deciding the above point the facts in both the cases may be mentioned. In Cri. M.C. 1270 of 1993 the petitioner issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 38,200/- dated 6-9-1990 towards the purchase of tubes and it was returned with the endorsement 'refer to drawer'. On 26-11-1990 the statutory notice was sent, but the petitioner did not pay the amount and hence a complaint came to be laid against the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In Cri. M.C. No. 1273 of 1993 the petitioner issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 34,500/- dated 31-10-1990 towards the purchase of tubes and it was returned with an endorsement 'refer to drawer'. A statutory n...
Thomas Vs. Mathew N.M. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-1995
Reported in: 1995ACJ1243; [1995]84CompCas488(Ker)
K.T. Thomas, J. 1. A very peculiar situation has arisen in this case. When a claimant himself is equally answerable to no-fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), along with another vehicle owner, can the former be given an award to realise compensation from the latter? The question was not easy to answer. Hence, we requested Shri K.M. Joseph, advocate, to help us as amicus curiae. We thank him for the services rendered.2. Before we proceed to the question we may decide the first issue whether the claimant can get compensation de hors no-fault liability. The bare facts necessary to deal with the issue are the following: The claimant was riding a motor cycle from the north to the south along the public road. A car driven by the first respondent (his wife is the registered owner of the car) was proceeding from the opposite direction. Both the vehicles collided with each other at the accident spot. The appellant fell down and sustained some ...
Satish Nayak Vs. CochIn Stock Exchange Ltd., Ernakulam and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Ker373
Shanmugam, J.1. Both these matters raise a common question viz. whether the Cochin Stock Exchange Limited, a Company registered under the Companies Act is amenable to writ jurisdiction?2. The facts of each case can be briefly stated as follows3. W.A. No. 925/1994 : The appellant and the 4th respondent are members of Cochin Stock Exchange. They had dealings in the purchase and sales of shares during the period 1988 to 1990. Based on the claim of the 4th respondent, the 1st respondent viz. the Cochin Stock Exchange issued a notice informing him that an arbitration complaint had been received against him. The appellant raised a preliminary objection to the claim stating that the claim was time barred under Clause 303 of the Bye-laws of the 1st respondent. The appellant later received information to the effect that the 1st respondent Management had condoned the delay in filling the arbitration complaint. Before the commencement of the arbitration proceedings the appellant approached this C...
Raveendran Vs. Somavally
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-1995
Reported in: I(1996)ACC172; 1996ACJ42; [1995(71)FLR896]; (1996)ILLJ325Ker
Radhakrishnan, J.1. Appellant was the opposite party in a claim made before a Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation ('Commissioner' for short). An application was filed under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') by the respondents who are the wife, children and mother of the deceased Sadanadan, who died in an accident occurred on December 14, 1990. Deceased Sadanandan was a workman under the appellant. While discharging his duties as tapper, he fell down from a coconut tree and sustained serious injuries resulting in his death on the spot. Deceased was aged 36 years at the time of the accident, and he was earning a monthly income of Rs. 2,700/-. According to the applicants, the accident arose out of and during the course of his employment, and hence they are entitled to compensation under the relevant provisions of the Act. Appellant did not dispute the occurrence, and also did not dispute the wages drawn by the workman. However, he contended that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›