Kerala Court September 1997 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.
Karn Vir Mehta Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-11-1997
Reported in: 1998(97)ELT42(Ker)
B.N. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner challenges the Order No. SIB/11/95-Cus., dated 3-4-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Cochin-9 (Ext. P14). By this order, the goods in question were held liable to be confiscated under Sections 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the goods being not available for confiscation, the revised differential duty of Rs. 9,96,212/- and a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs were imposed and the petitioner was called upon to pay the same.2. The petitioner is the proprietor of a firm called M/s. Shine Star Industry, New Delhi. It is a small scale industrial unit. He is engaged in the business of assembling photocopying machines by importing some reconditioned components of photocopying machines from Singapore under a valid licence. Earlier, he had imported similar articles through the Cochin Port from M/s. Drumkin Impex, Singapore. On submission of the Bill of Entry dated 21-7-1994 (Ext. P2), duty was assessed at Rs. 1,80,411 /- on the bas...
V.V. Samuel and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-11-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Ker83; [1998]94CompCas283(Ker)
ORDER1. Petitioners 1 and2aretheelected membe.s of the Managing Committee of Vechoofhira Ex-servicemen Multipurpose Cooperative Colony Ltd. No. 3171 (for short, 'the Society') and petitioner No. 3 is a member of the Society. They have challenged Exts. P-8 and P-9, by which the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pathanamthitta (2nd respondent herein) has, in exercise of the powers under Sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (for short, 'the Act'), certified and registered Clause 15(1) of the bye-laws of the Society to the effect that there shall be 9 members in the Committee and 6 of them shall be elected from among the members for a period of three years and 3 of them shall be the District Collector, Pathanamthitta, Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pathanamthitta and the Secretary, Amalgamated Fund, Thiruvananthapuram and they shall be the ex-officio members. The District Collector shall be the President of the Society. This amen...
K.C. Mathew and anr. Vs. Reena Paul
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-11-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2300; II(1998)DMC162
ORDERP. Shanmugam, J.1. This is a petition to quash a complaint filed by a wife alleging offence under Section 498(A) read with Section 34, I.P.C.2. A brief summary of the complaint of the respondent is as follows : The marriage between the respondent and the son of the petitioners was solemnised on 9-1-1995 at St. Peters Church, Manganam, Kottayam Dist. They lived as husband and wife briefly before the respondent's husband left to U.S. on 22-1-1995. While the respondent wife was living with the petitioners who are parents of the husband, during the period from 24-4-1995 to 28-10-1995 they had repeatedly made a demand to arrange an amount of Rs. 12' lakhs by converting the remaining tangible assets of the complainant's parents. Unable to bear the bitter cruelty experienced due to the coercion, she left Surat on 28-10-1995. The husband telephoned the complainant during the first week of Nov. 1995, on two occasions and insisted payment of Rs. 12 lakhs forthwith and threatening with dire ...
Kunjan Panicker Vs. Christudas Alias A.J. Alex and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-1997
Reported in: [1999]98CompCas235(Ker)
E.M. Thulasidas, J.1. This appeal is by the complainant in S. T. No. 67 of 1990 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Neyyattinkara, who was the respondent in Crl. A. No. 6 of 1992 of the First Additional Sessions Court, Trivandrum, filed by the respondent herein against his conviction and sen tence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which were set aside and he was acquitted. The appellant obtained exhibit P-l cheque dated October 22, 1989, for Rs. 26,600 from him towards payment of the amount he advanced, that was dishonoured by the Catholic Syrian Bank, Neyyattinkara branch on October 30, 1989, with the endorsement 'refer to drawer', Thereupon, information was given to him, at whose request the cheque was re-presented on November 15, 1989, and it was again dishonoured as per exhibit P-2, memorandum, dated November 24, 1989, that was received along with the cheque on December 4, 1989. On the very next day a notice was issued to him demanding p...
Devaki Vs. Chandrika and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Ker190; I(1998)DMC110
Ramakrishnan, J.1. The simple reliefprayed for in this appeal is to set aside a non-speaking order of dismissal for default of anapplication, I.A. 1960 of 1996, filed by theappellant for setting aside an ex parte decreepassed against her in O.S. 163 of 1991 on the fileof the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. However, twoimportant questions; one of jurisdiction of theCourt and the other of procedure, arise forconsideration in this appeal. 2. Facts required to be stated are thus : The suit O.S. 163 of 1991 is one filed by the respondents against the appellant and her son who is not a party to the appeal. The first respondent is the mother of the second respondent. Respondents have filed the suit claiming that they are the wife and son of Sasi, one of the sons of the appellant who has been impleaded as a defendant along with her in the suit. The prayer in the suit was for a decree for realisation of a total amount of Rs. 33,801/- being past maintenance for 3 years along with the value of gold orna...
Management of Kuttukkaran Engine Rebuilders Vs. Employees' State Insur ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-08-1997
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ31Ker
Mohamed Shafi, J.1. The appellant in both these appeals is the same partnership firm. They challenge the separate orders dated July 29, 1996, passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Palakkad, in I. C. Nos. 74 of 1994 and 77 of 1994 in these appeals. M. F. A. No. 1517 of 1996 is filed challenging the order passed in I. C. No. 74 of 1994 and M. F. A. No. 1537 of 1996 is filed challenging the order passed in I. C. No.77 of 1994. Since the issues involved in both these appeals are identical, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The respondent-Employees' State Insurance Corporation demanded from the appellant for Employees' State Insurance contribution of Rs. 2,607 on the amount of Rs. 35,947 which was booked in the account books of the appellant under the head 'Productivity incentive' for the period from April 1990 to March 1992. The appellant challenged that order before the Employees' Insurance Court, Alappuzha, in I. C. No. 92 of 1993.3. The respondent-Employees' ...
K.A. Ammarkunhi Amma Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-05-1997
Reported in: (1998)144CTR(Ker)259; [1999]235ITR401(Ker)
1. These references at the instance of the assessee arise from the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Cannanore, dated August 14, 1989, and August 24, 1989, in exercising his power under Section 34 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. Order No. El, 8117 of 1987 dated August 14, 1989, relates to the assessment year 1977-78 and Order No. E1, 11029 of 1988-I dated August. 24, 1989, relates to the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 whereas Order No. El-11029 of 1988-2 dated August 24, 1989, relates to 1980-81 to 1982-83. Following are the questions referred to this court under Section 16(3) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 :'1. Whether an assessment decided by an appellate authority can be again taken up under Section 34 by the Deputy Commissioner in revision ?2. Whether there are any escapement of income in these cases and is it not a mere 'change in opinion' to disallow expenses already allowed in assessments ?'2. The relevant facts are as...
General Manager, Telecom District, Trivandrum and ors. Vs. Consumer Di ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-05-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Ker110; [1998]94CompCas717(Ker)
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The General Manager, Telecom District, Trivandrum and two others under him are the petitioners in this case. They challenge Ext. P7 order and seek a direction restraining the 1st respondent from continuing the proceedings in O. P. No. 399/1996 on the basis of Ext. P5 complaint. Exhibit P 7 is the order passed by the 1st respondent upon Ext. P 5 regarding its maintainability, which was considered as a preliminary point by the 1st respondent, at the instance of the petitioners.2. Admittedly by the petitioners, the 2nd respondent is a subscriber under them. He has filed Ext. P 5 complaint before the 1st respondent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Trivandrum. Exhibit P 6 objection was filed challenging the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent itself to entertain Ext. P5, and that issue was considered in Ext. P 7 and was found against the petitioners. It is in the above circumstances they have approached this Court.3. Telephone is a service rendered by the petit...
P.V. Sabu Vs. Mariakutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Ker86; I(1998)DMC198
ORDERC.S. Rajan, J.1. This is a petition filed by the husband praying for a decree declaring that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is a nullity under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act. The allegations as per the amended Original Petition are as follows :The petitioner and the respondent married on 3rd September, 1992. The marriage was an arranged one. After the marriage the petitioner and the respondent lived in the house of the petitioner for two weeks. Thereafter therespondent went to Bombay to rejoin duty as a Nurse. After four months of the marriage the petitioner got an employment in Saudi Arabia. On 25-3-1993 the petitioner received a telephone call informing that the respondent delivered a child at Bombay hospital where she was working. It was a normal delivery and the child was fully grown up. Then the petitioner made enquiries and he came to know that the respondent was nant at the time of the marriage. On further enquiries it was revealed that the res...
Thomas N.V. Vs. Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-03-1997
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ1673Ker
ORDERP.A. Mohammed, J.1. The petitioner entered the service of the firstrespondent, Plantation Corporation of KeralaLimited, on November 13, 1963 as AssistantManager. He retired from service onsuperannuation on September 23, 1996. In thiswrit petition the petitioner challenges Ext. P2 orderissued by the first respondent dated September20, 1996 refusing to permit him to retire fromservice.2. The Corporation framed Service Rules for its officers and Clause 10 thereof relates to retirement, which is as follows :Retirement age shall be 58. An officer may also be allowed to retire voluntarily on attaining the age of 55 or completion of 25 years of service whichever is earlier, provided that he shall inform the Corporation in writing at least three months in advance.Applying the above clause, retirement date of the petitioner was September 23, 1996 about which there is no dispute. The question is whether the Corporation can compel the petitioner to continue in service after the age of supera...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »