Kerala Court January 1996 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.
Sree Narayana Dharma Sanghom Trust Vs. Swami Prakasananda and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Ker203
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. By order dated 19-6-1995, this Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition. Respondent No. 1 in the Civil Revision Petition filed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 13667 of 1995 before the Supreme Court challenging the said order. On 29-6-1995, the Supreme Court passed the following order on that petition for Special Leave to Appeal.'We do not find any ground warranting interference since it is an individual case and that too of an interim order. The S.L.P. is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of this order'.2. On 11-7-1995, the same respondent filed the review petition before this Court seeking a review of the order of this Court dated 19-6-1995. Since this Court entertained a doubt whether this Court still retained the power of review over the order dated 19-6-1995, in view of the order of the Supreme Cour...
P. Sreekumaran Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Ker293
Balasubramanyan, J. 1. In this Revision, the plaintiff questions the order ofthe court below holding that the plaintiff has not valued the reliefs in the plaint properly and asking him to value the reliefs on the basis of the amount shown in the demand notice in respect of which he was seeking relief in the suit. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit praying for a declaration that the Revenue Recovery proceedings No. R.R. 1/91/PGT initiated by defendants 1 to 4 is illegal, erroneous and unsustainable besides being mala fide and for a further declaration that the plaintiff has no liability to pay any amount which has accrued after 8-4-1987 and that the liability of the plaintiff is only to pay the amounts due to the second defendant up to 8-4-1987. The plaintiff also sought a consequential decree for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 from proceeding further with the revenue recovery proceedings referred to above as against the plaintiff. He valued the suit for the purpose of ...
Kunhunni Alias Chami Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1821
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. The sole accused in Sessions Case No. 91 of 1991 on the file of Sessions Court, Palakkad is the appellant. He was tried by the Court of Sessions for having caused the death of his brother Unniyekkan. The finding of the Sessions Judge is challenged in this appeal.2. Appellant-Kunhunni alias Chami and his deceased brother Unniyekkan are residing in a nearby compounds. Their mother Kunhi had availed a loan from the Government for construction of a house. On the date of the incident, the deceased Unniyekkan heard a sound from the appellant's house and he knew that the appellant had been beating his wife. Deceased went to the house of the appellant probably to pacify the situation. According to prosecution, deceased had given two or three blows to the appellant with a stick. The deceased came to his residence and was sitting on the compound wall. According to the prosecution, the appellant came to that place and took out a spade and gave a fatal blow on the back of t...
K. Anil Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1942
P.V. Narayanan Nambiar,1. The dead body of P.C. Chandran, owner of Anil Jewellery, Kammathi Lane, Kozhikode was found lying at near Swagathamadu' by the side of National Highway-17. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was murdered by the accused during the night between 8-2-1990 and 9-2-1990. Six accused were charge-sheeted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, North Calicut City under Sections 143, 396, 302, 364, 201 read with Section 149 IPC. On the basis of an application filed by the prosecution, the first accused was tendered pardon by the trial Court and he was examined as P.W. 3 in the case. After full-fledged trial, recording the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 49, marking Exts. P1 to P57 and M. Os. 1 to 44 on the side of prosecution and examining D. W. 1 and marking Exts. D1 on the side of the defence, the trial Court found that the offences alleged against the accused stand proved and accused 2 to 6 were found guilty under Sections 143, 396, 302 and 364 read with Section...
Joy S/O Immatty Chakkunny Vs. Usha W/O Immatty Joy and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-11-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Ker191
Kamat, J.1. The concept of maintenance had a long travel, from the days when Sir Henry Mayne described Hindu marriage or relationship between a man and a woman with one end absolutely loose. This has to be abreast with the changing needs and situation. What was anachronistic became suitable to application of the demands of the changing needs. Maintenance for judicial purposes has its own pragmatics having relation to the need and necessity to make provisions for securing reasonable bio-economic as well as biocultural requirements for persons such as shelter, food, garment and health. The need to provide reliefs of maintenance emanate from social ethics and personal economics and this need is sought for both on the moral and secular grounds. Maintenance is a personal obligation and where there is estate, the rights in maintenance could be worked against the estate and there can be charge upon it. It is said in the context of the position of a woman that the social ethics is heavily over...
P.K. Koya Moideen Vs. G. Hariharan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-11-1996
Reported in: [1996]86CompCas399(Ker); 1996CriLJ3153
P.V. Narayanan Nambiar, J.1. The prayer in the criminal miscellaneous cases is to quash C. C. Nos. 971 of 1993, 974 of 1993 and 207 of 1994, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kozhikode. The petitioner in the criminal miscellaneous cases is the accused in all the three cases and the respondent is the complainant. Complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act') are filed by the respondent against the petitioner and process was issued to him. The petitioner seeks to quash the complaints on the ground that those are not maintainable as the respondent/complainant is not the payee or holder in due course. According to counsel for the petitioner only the payee or the holder in due course can institute a complaint and as the complainant does not satisfy the definition of either, the complaints filed by him should not have been taken cognizance of by the court below.2. The cheques in question were drawn in favour of R. Ganapathi I...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Oceanic Products Exporting Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-10-1996
Reported in: 1996(54)ECC80; [1996]219ITR293(Ker)
K.K. Usha, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in granting relief under Section 2(5)(a)(ii) of the Finance Act, 1966, to the assessee ?'2. Income-tax Reference No. 553 of 1985 relates to the assessment year 1965-66 and Income-tax Reference No. 554 of 1985 relates to the assessment year 1966-67, in respect of the same assessee. For the years 1965-66 and1966-67, the Income-tax Officer while reopening the assessment, denied the rebate originally granted to the assessee under Section 2(5)(a)(ii) on the ground that the assessee was not doing any manufacturing activity. On an appeal by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the assessee was entitled to the rebate which view was affirmed by the Tribunal on the appeal filed by the...
C.K. Mohammedkutty Vs. the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-08-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Ker123
ORDERP. Shanmugam, J. 1. All the above writ petitions relate to the common question in reference to the power and scope of the Returning Officer in considering the objections to the draft list of members. 2. Section 27 of the Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') states that the general body of the society is the final authority. Section 28 of the Act enables the general body to constitute a committee for a period not exceeding three years for the management of the affairs of the society. Rule 35 of the Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') sets out the procedure regarding the conduct of election to the committee of the socieites. Section 16 of the Act sets out the qualifications to become a member of the society. Similarly Rule 16 of the Rules sets out the conditions to be complied with for admission to membership. Clause (3) of Rule 16 states that where a person already admitted to membership is seen to have been ineligible ...
V.P. Praseethan Vs. T.P. Sivarama Krishnan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-08-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Ker267
Balakrishnan, J. 1. Appellant is the auction purchaser in a Court sale held on 21-12-92 in execution of a decree obtained by the 2nd respondent against the first respondent. The property belonging to first respondent measuring an extent of 4.91 acres was sold for an amount of Rs. 1,50,010/-. First respondent filed application to set aside the sale as E.A. 77 of 1993 alleging that there was material irregularity and fraud in publishing and conducting the sale. First respondent also alleged that the property was sold for highly inadequate price of Rs. 1,50,010/- and the annual income from the property itself would exceeded Rs. 60,000/- and, therefore, the first respondent was seriously prejudiced by the Court sale. Appellant herein opposed the application. Seven witnesses were examinedand Exts. Clause to C5 were marked and learned Sub-Judge held that the proclamation of sale was not properly done and the fact that only one person had participated in the sale and the low value of the prop...
K.V. Vijayakumar Vs. the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Ker150
Patnaik, J.1. Both the original petitions were heard together as common questions of law are raised and this judgment shall govern both the cases.2. The questions that arise for consideration are:(1) Whether the Returning Officer appointed under Rule 35 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, 1969 has the power to make an enquiry into the question of eligibility of a voter before the publication of the final list of voters to elect members of a committee of the Society if and when an objection under Rule 35(3)(b) of the Rules is received in this regard and if so what is the scope of the enquiry. (2) Wether in these cases, there was any scope to hold an enquiry before publication of the final list of voters. 3. Petitioners in both the cases are respeclively the members of the Ayyanthole Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Ayyanthole, Thrissur District and Kanjikkulam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kanjikkulam, Palakkad District. The respondents are respectively the Joint Registrars of Co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »