Kerala Court February 1998 Judgments
Baburajan Vs. Parukutty and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker274
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit for partition of the plaint schedule property on the basis that his father Kultappu died intestate. Defendants 5 and 6 propounded a Will and contended that the testator had bequeathed the properties to them. The Courts below upheld the will and consequently found that the plaintiff was not entitled to a partition. The suit was hence dismissed. The plaintiff has come up with this second appeal. The substantial questions of law so formulated are whether it could be held that the execution of the Will had been properly proved in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, whether this was not a case where the Will was not revoked by the testator and whether the properties that are the subject-matter of the suit are not joint family properties over which, the plaintiff has a share by birth. I may say that the last aspect was based on a plea which the plaintiff had that the plaint schedule properties were acquire...
Tag this Judgment!Peethambaran Prasad Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2122
ORDERS. Marimuthu, J.1. This Revision Petition has arisen against the conviction and sentence delivered by the Sessions Judge, Trivandrum in Crl. Appeal No. 223 of 1991 which was directed against the conviction and sentence rendered by the Prl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Attingal in Sessions Case No. 7 of 1991 in which the Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused-revision-petitioner guilty under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years and also found him guilty under Section 324, IPC and thereby sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each as compensation to PWs. 1 to 4 failing which he will undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. The substantial sentence of imprisonment have to run concurrently. The above conviction and sentence of the Prl. Assistant Sessions Judge were challenged by the revision-petitioner as appellant in Cr...
Tag this Judgment!Chief Security Commissioner, Southern Railway and ors. Vs. Sreedharan ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-1998
Reported in: (1998)ILLJ847Ker
Ar. Lakshmanan, J. 1. The Southern Railway is the appellant in this appeal. The writ appeal is directed against the order of Ghuttal, J. in O.P. No. 9478 of 1988 allowing the Original petition filed by the respondent herein whereby the appellate order No. l dated September 22, 1988, Ext.P-12, confirming the order of dismissal of the respondent from service was quashed. The learned single Judge further held that the petitioner should be treated to have been in the employment as Railway Rakshak notwithstanding the orders impugned in this petition and quashed by him and that the respondent should be entitled to all the benefits such as salary, allowances, seniority, promotion, etc. as if the impugned orders were never made. It was further ordered that if the respondent had crossed the age of superannuation, he should be paid all the benefits such as provident fund, gratuity, etc.2. A brief resume of the background of this case is necessary to appreciate the rival contentions. The responde...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Paul Nicholson and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-1998
Reported in: II(1999)ACC414; 1998ACJ1310
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in O.P. (MV) No. 695 of 1987 of the M.A.C.T., Kottayam are the appellants. They filed this appeal against the award of the Tribunal dated 15.3.1990 in the above claim petition. The appellant No. 1 is the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident and the appellant No. 2 is its owner. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein are the claimant and the driver of the lorry involved in the accident. The respondent No. 1 filed the above application for compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by him during the accident which took place on 31.3.1987 while he was riding the motor cycle. He claimed a total compensation of Rs. 1,12,750/-. The Tribunal after the enquiry allowed the entire amount claimed with 12 per cent interest. Hence this appeal has been filed by the appellants.2. The only contention urged by the appellants is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. In this connection it is pointed out that there was no ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Khan and anr. Vs. Graceamma Philip and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker201
ORDERP. Shanmugam, J.1. Revision petitioners are petitioners before the execution Court. They are the judgment-debtors in O.S. No. 103 of 1980. The decree-holders obtained attachment of properties mentioned in the petition and they were brought to sale on 2-1-1988 and sold an 20-1-1988. They have filed application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure to declare the sale conducted on 2-1-1988 as null and void. The learned Sub Judge after considering the application dismissed the same. The revision is against this order.2. The facts leading to the filing of the above revision are as follows: O.S. No. 103 of 1980 was instituted by one Mathai Philip for recovery of a sum of Rs. 21,835/49. The suit was decreed on 14-8-1981. Six items of the properties which were attached before the judgment on 6-12-1980 during the pendency of the suit were brought to sale on 20-1-1988 for realisation of the decree amount. The sale was confirmed on 25-2-1988. The petitioners/judgment-debtors were ...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Leela and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1998
Reported in: 1999ACJ542
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard both sides. The insurance company is the appellant in this appeal. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 for the death of one Sivanandan Pillai who died in a road accident on 7.7.1986 at Quilon. He was hit by a scooter KRQ 4574 driven by the respondent No. 8. The respondent No. 7 is the owner and the appellant is the insurer of the said scooter. Negligence was alleged against the respondent No. 8. Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 filed separate written statements before the Tribunal contending that the respondent No. 8 was not negligent in causing the accident and that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the deceased when he attempted to cross the road and that the quantum of compensation claimed is highly excessive. The insurance company also while admitting the policy, has challenged the quantum. The Tribunal, after finding negligence on the part of the respondent No. 8, passed an award for Rs. 3...
Tag this Judgment!Mavungal Pathumma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2183
J.B. Kochy, J.1. Petitioner is the wife of one ' Mr. M. Ahammedkutty (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') detained under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The grounds stated in the detention order is that on 20-11-1994 one P. A. Soopy arrived at Calicut Airport from Sharjah. After he has crossed the green channel for Customs clearance, on examination, a white glazed paper was recovered from him wherein it was written in Malayalam 'Give P. A1. Soopy twenty immediately.' The Customs officials suspected smuggling activities and examined his registered baggage. On questioning, it was stated that the paper was given to him by. the detenu in whose room the passenger stayed at Sharjah. Before he started journey the detenu had entrusted him a gas stove for handing over to his brother Beeran and on handing over the same and the slip to Beeran, he will be given Rs. 20,000/-. The registe...
Tag this Judgment!S.S. Sreekumar Vs. M.M. Ibrahim
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2492
S. Marimuthu, J.1. The appellant herein was the complainant before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Varkala in C.C. No. 252/93, in which the present respondent was the accused. The said complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (as amended n the year 1989). The appeal has been filed, questioning the judgment of the said Magistrate for acquitting the accused respondent under. Section 255(1), Cr.P.C. on the only ground that there was no proper notice issued by the appellant to the respondent as required under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Acts. Admittedly, the appellant and the respondent have been doing hardware business in Varkala and the respondent was purchasing articles from the wholesale business of the appellant. On 9-11 -1991, the respondent purchased hardwares for a total sum of Rs. 41,639.50 out of which Rs. 11,639.50 was paid on that day itself and for the balance the respondent issued Ext. P1 cheque to the appellant. When Ext. Pt ...
Tag this Judgment!Titus Daniel and ors. Vs. South Indian Parenterals Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker205; [2000]101CompCas117(Ker)
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi, J. 1. This Company Petition is filed by the petitioners who are the shareholders of the Company seeking winding up of the Company under Sections 433(f) and 439 of the Companies Act, alleging mismanagement, misappropriation of large amounts belonging to the Company, falsification of the Company's accounts and fabrication and forgery of documentsfor the illegal and unlawful acts of respondents 2 and 3.2. The 2nd respondent who is the Managing Director of the 1st respondent-Company has filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 denying the allegations of mismanagement, misappropriation of the funds of the Company, falsification of the accounts etc. In the affidavit it is further stated that the respondents have no objection in passing an order of winding up of the Company under Section 433(f) of the Companies Act. 3. The 4th respondent-Kerala Financial Corporation who is the creditor of the Company has filed a counter-affidavit contending that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Computerised Accounting and Management ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: [1999]235ITR502(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, referred the following questions under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court ;'1. Whether; on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the assessee is an 'industrial undertaking' and is not the above finding wrong, unreasonable and unsupported by materials ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,-- (a) (i) did the Tribunal find that the assessee is manufacturing or producing an article or thing ?(ii) (if found) is not the finding of manufacture or production of article or thing wrong, unreasonable, unsupported by materials and based or; a wrong interpretation of relevant provisions ? (b) should not the Tribunal have considered and found the asses-see to have manufactured or produced an article or thing to be entitled to claim the benefit of Section 32A(2)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »