Kerala Court February 1997 Judgments
Dev Sebastian Vs. P.R. Kurup and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Ker214
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. This original petition is filed in public interest. According to the petitioner, first respondent Minister has violated the oath of office. It is also stated on the basis of Exts. P1, P2 and P3 paper reports that in violation of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, a No Objection Certificate was given to a sandal wood factory by the first respondent-Minister. It is also stated that first respondent-Minister is corrupt and, therefore, an enquiry should be conducted by the seventh respondent-Chief Minister. Petitioner prays for a direction to cancel the No Objection Certificate given to the second respondent to start a sandal wood factory in total violation of Section 2 of the Indian Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.2. Learned Advocate General on getting instructions submitted that no such No Objection Certificate was given by the first respondent or at the instance of first respondent and, therefore, the allegations in the original petition are totally ...
Tag this Judgment!United Mercantile Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(Ker)131; [1997]225ITR983(Ker)
K.K. Usha, J. 1. Reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Cochin Bench) is at the instance of the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 1982-83. The following questions are referred for the opinion of this court : ' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the disallowance of interest on deposits received from shareholders and directors under Section 40A(8) of the Act (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in invoking Section 40A(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to deposits from directors and shareholders, especially in view of the legislative background and the provisions of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 ? (3) Was the Appellate Tribunal right in ignoring the principle of 'pari materia' while interpreting the word 'deposits' in Section 40A(8) of the Income-tax Act, with reference to that word in the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 (4) Whether the Tribun...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary, Cannanore Cooperative Autorikshaw Drivers Society Vs. Santo ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-12-1997
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ1515Ker
Balakrishnan, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment in W.C.C. No. 153/93 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kannur. The applicant was the first respondent in the proceedings. The appellant - Cooperative Society used to give financial assistance to the persons for the purchase of autorikshaws on hire purchase agreement. The third respondent, thus, obtained an autorickshaw and the autorickshaw was being driven by the claimant. On April 8, 1993 this autorikshaw met with an accident and the claimant sustained injuries and he claimed a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- as compensation.2. The appellant herein contended that he was not the principal employer and that the appellant -Society had only given finance to the third respondent to purchase the autorikshaw and, therefore, there is no liability on the part of the appellant. He also contended that the insurance policy was taken by the society and, therefore, the second respondent - Insurance Company was liable to pay t...
Tag this Judgment!T.C.M. Ltd. Vs. District Collector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ1061Ker
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The petitioner is a Public Ltd. Company having one among its manufacturing units at Kalamassery. The company is manufacturing chemicals including that which is highly explosive. There was an industrial dispute pending adjudication between the management of the petitioner and the workmen represented by the trade unions. As per the judgment of this Court in W.A. 1016/1996, the adjudication of the said dispute had been expedited. The Industrial Tribunal with whom the proceedings for adjudication was pending also persuaded the parties to settle the dispute. Accordingly, a memorandum of settlement was drawn up between the parties on November 15, 1996. But three of the pending issues were left open for further discussion and the matter is now pending conciliation before the Deputy Labour Commissioner (I.R.) Ernakulam.2. There are five unions, namely, Respondents 5 to 9 representing workmen under the petitioner. Out of them Respondents 8 and 9 are the unions of the con...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., CochIn Vs. M.U. Alias and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-1997
Reported in: 1998ACJ365; AIR1997Ker287
Mohammed, J. 1. These appeals are filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of jeep K.E.F. 8955 involved in an accident which took place on 14-12-1986. They arose from petitions claiming compensation for the injuries and death, as the case may be. In all there were eleven claim petitions and the tribunal fixed the compensation payable for the injuries sustained by claimants in ten petitions and for death in one petition. The quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is not in dispute. The claimants have not filed any appeal against the orders of the tribunal awarding compensation. Appeal number, claim petition number, amount awarded by the tribunal and the nature of the claim are tabulated hereunder.AppealNo. Claim petition No. Amount awarded Nature of claim MFA 725/89 MV OP No 216/8712,200Injuries MFA 727/89 '200/8710,125' MFA 728/89 '217/8710,700' MFA 729/89 '219/878,600' MFA 731/89 '199/8712,000' MFA 733/89 '196/8715,000' MFA 732/89 '218/874,450n MFA 734/89 ...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Alias and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-1997
Reported in: I(2000)ACC62
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. These appeals are filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of jeep KEF 8955 involved in accident which took place on 14.12.1986. They arose from petitions claiming compensation for the injuries and death, as the case may be. In all there were eleven claim petitions and the Tribunal fixed the compensation payable for the injuries sustained by claimants in ten petitions and for death in one petition. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The claimants have not filed any appeal against the orders of the Tribunal awarding compenstaion. Appeal number, claim petition number, amount awarded by the Tribunal and the nature of the claim are tabulated hereunder:__________________________________________________________________________________Appeal No. Claim Petition No. Nature of Amountclaim Awarded__________________________________________________________________________________M.F.A. No. 725 of 1989 M.V.O.P. No. 216 of 19...
Tag this Judgment!Ammini Karnan and ors. Vs. District Labour Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-07-1997
Reported in: (1998)IILLJ151Ker
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. The petitioners in these cases are conducting rice mills. The petitioners in O.P. No. 20627 of 1996 are challenging exhibit P- 11 and exhibit P-14 orders. Exhibit P-11 is an order passed by the conciliation officer in terms of Section 21 (4) of the Kerala Head Load Workers Act, 1978 (Act 20 of 1980)(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Exhibit P-14 is the order passed by the appellate authority under Section 21(7) of the Act in an appeal filed by the petitioners against exhibit P-11. The petitioners in O.P. No. 202 of 1997 challenge exhibit P-4 and exhibit P-7, similar orders passed by the respective authorities in their case. The respondents in these two cases are the same. The petitioners also seek a declaration that they have fundamental right to employ workers of their own choice to do all the works including loading and unloading in their rice mills. I will deal with O.P. No. 20627 of 1996, the decision will have a bearing on O.P. No. 202 of 1997.2. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Sahid and ors. Vs. District Collector, Kollam and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Ker216
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. In all the three original petitions the complaint of the petitioners is that their applications for making redetermination of compensation were rejected because their applications were not accompanied the certified copy of the judgment. Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act deals with the procedure regarding redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award. The above Section reads as follows:'28A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court: (1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the persons interested in alt the other land covered by the same notification under Section 4, Sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written application to the Colle...
Tag this Judgment!Bini T. John Vs. Saji Kuruvila
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Ker247
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. The petitioner got married with the respondent on 16-1-1995 at Vimalagiri Cathedral Church, Kottayam as per the Christian rites. They belong to Roman Catholic Syrian Christians (Knanaya) Community. Their marriage was arranged by their parents. Petitioner is employed as Staff Nurse in Saudi Arabia, whereas the respondent isemployed in the United States of America. After marriage they lived only for 6 days. The petitioner submits that the respondent was too cruel towards the petitioner in compelling her for unnatural sex. To concede to his unnatural lust the respondent had even inflicted physical assault and caused injuries. On 18-1-95 and 19-1-95 such incidents took place. Therefore, the petitioner states that she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband. Therefore this petition has been filed under Sections 18 and 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 to declare the marriage null and void or in the alternative seeking a decree for dissolution of their mar...
Tag this Judgment!B. Vs. S.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-1997
Reported in: I(1997)DMC620
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The petitioner got married with the respondent on 16.1.1995 at Vimaiagiri Cathedral Church, Kottayam as per the Christian rites. They belong to Roman Catholic Syrian Christians (Knanaya) Community. Their marriage was arranged by their parents. Petitioner is employed as Staff Nurse in Saudi Arabia, whereas the respondent is employed in the United States of America. After marriage, they lived only for 6 days. The petitioner submits that the respondent was too cruel towards the petitioner in compelling her for unnatural sex. To concede to his unnatural lust the respondent had even inflicted physical assault and caused injuries. On 18.1.1995 and 19.1.1995 such incidents took place. Therefore, the petitioner states that she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband. Therefore, this petition has been filed under Sections 18 and 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 to declare the marriage null and void or in the alternative seeking a decree for dissolution of their ma...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›