Kerala Court March 1998 Judgments
P. Sunil Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: [1999]236ITR935(Ker)
K. Nakayana Kurup, J.1. The petitioner's father, Shri K. P. Madhavan, has acquired Kanom right over 76.92 cents of land in old Sy. No. 139/3A, R. Sy. No. 5.15-686 of Katathikunnu Desom and Amsom in Kozhikode town by virtue of document No. 731 of 1955 of Kozhikode Sub-Registrar Office. He has also obtained certificate of purchase No. 3579 of 1977 in respect of 70 cents in R. Sy. No. 5.15-686. As such he has become the absolute owner of the said land. By document No. 133 of 1982 the petitioner's father has settled 20.40 cents of land out of the above land to his wife, Mrs. Radha, the mother of the petitioner. The petitioner's mother died leaving behind her husband, five sons, two daughters and three daughters of a deceased daughter as her legal heirs. Thus Mr. Madhavan, the husband of the late Radha, the sons and daughters inherited one-ninth (1/9th) share each and the three daughters of the deceased daughter together inherited one-ninth share in 20.40 cents of land which belonged to the...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Ponnappan Vs. Sibi C.J.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: [1999]98CompCas609(Ker); 1998CriLJ2402
K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. This petition is filed by the accused in S. T. No. 1500 of 1994 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Vaikom, to quash annexure I-complaint pending before that court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.2. Annexure I-complaint is filed by the respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Vaikom, alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the petitioner and the learned Magistrate has registered S. T. No. 1500 of 1994 against the petitioner after taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and issued summons to the petitioner. At that juncture the petitioner has filed this petition before this court to quash the complaint mainly on the ground that the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Vaikom, has no jurisdiction since no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of that court.3. The petition...
Tag this Judgment!Commmioner of Income Tax Vs. Kerala State Industrial Development Corpo ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Ker)544
OM PRAKASH, C.J.:by this application made under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, the Revenue requires us to direct the Tribunal to refer the following questions for the opinion of this Court :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the light of the mandatory provision contained in s. 209 of the Companies Act and the limited variation being only by notification dt. 16th May, 1989, and w.e.f. 16th May, 1989, is not the assessee bound to have its method of accounting both with regard to interest earned by the assessee and interest payable by the assessee on accrued basis for the asst. yr. 1989-90 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the interest earned by the assessee and interest payable by the assessee can fall under one source namely income from interest and is not the findings wrong and against law and against the provisions contained in s. 209 of the Companies Act read with the...
Tag this Judgment!Easow Easow Vs. Rajan Kallippara thekkeveetil and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ263Ker
ORDERSankaranarayanan, J.1. This is an appeal against the award of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner directing the appellant and the second respondent to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the first respondent for an injury sustained in an accident on March 8, 1984. The first respondent herein filed a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation against the appellant and the second respondent alleging that he was a workman employed under them and while engaged in rock blasting on March 8, 1984 he sustained an injury resulting in the loss of vision of right eye. He claimed that he was receiving a monthly wage of Rs. 780/-. He claimed Rs. 20,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties. There was a delay of 3 months and 20 clays in filing the claim petition. The claimant had filed an application to excuse the delay. It is seen from the records that without notice to the opposite parties the commissioner condoned the delay and accepted the claim on file an...
Tag this Judgment!Peedikandi Abdulla Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2758
S. Marimuthu, J.1. The appellant, on the charge-sheet filed by Koduvally Police, faced a trial under Sections 323 and 354, I.P.C. and also under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. To appreciate the case of both the prosecution as well as the contention of the appellant, the following facts are required. On 18-8-1993, PW 4 and PW 5, who are sisters, along with some other workers, were returning home after the day's work was over, in a bus, which was plying to Thiruvambady. While the bus was proceeding, the appellant had occupied a seat, intended for lady. Then PW 5 asked him to vacate the seat, so as to enable her to occupy the same. The appellant refused. Therefore, there arose a wordy quarrel, while the bus was proceeding. The bus was stopped at Omasseri bus stand, where PWs 4 and 5 got down. The appellant also got down from the bus. In the bus stand, the accused/appellant in continuation of the wordy quarrel inside the bu...
Tag this Judgment!E.A. Bonny Vs. Raichal Bindu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-1998
Reported in: II(1998)DMC427
P.V. Narayanan Nambiar, J.1. The husband of the respondent is the revision petitioner. After their marriage fell into rough weathers, the respondent filed an application under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code as M.C. 20/94 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chengannur claiming maintenance for her and daughter. Later in 1995, the petitioner filed an application under Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act for a declaration that his marriage with the first respondent is null and void. The application for declaration is now pending as O.P. No. 10285/ 95 before this Court. An application claiming alimony pending the suit, C.M.P. No. 30269/96 was filed by the respondent in O.P. No. 10285/95, in which she claimed Rs. 1,500/- per month as maintenance. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, she stated that M.C. 20/94 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chengannur is 'intended' to be withdrawn. Basing on this averment, petitioner/husband filed a petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Narmada Building Materials (P) Ltd. Vs. Devassy and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-1998
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ142Ker
Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner in O.P. No. 9597 of 1987 has challenged the judgment dated September 23, 1991, of the learned single Judge by which the termination of service of respondent No. 1 herein was quashed on the ground that the appellant has not complied with the conditions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the termination being retrenchment in the eye of law.2. The appellant is a private limited company mainly dealing in sale of building materials. It has a godown in Trichur Town. Respondent No. 1 was employed in the godown of the petitioner as a watchman on probation for a period of six months on a monthly remuneration of Rs. 200/- with effect from May 1, 1985 as per Ex.Pl letter. It is stipulated in Ex.P1 letter that his appointment shall be for a period of six months on an Experimental basis. He was liable to be discharged from the service by giving one month's notice. By a resolution of the Board of Directors the post o...
Tag this Judgment!Jayalakshmi Granite Metal Industries Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-18-1998
Reported in: [1998]111STC705(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. Petitioner is a partnership-firm engaged in the crushing of metals of different sizes, namely, 20 mm, 12 mm and 6 mm gravel by crushing big boulders and stones using crushers, compressors and other machineries. The petitioner is a small-scale industrial unit registered with the Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Trichur Taluk evidenced by exhibit P2. The petitioner thereafter applied to the General Manager, District Industries Centre for sales tax exemption as provided under S.R.O. No. 968 of 1980 and S.R.O. No. 499 of 1990. The said application was rejected by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Trichur by communication dated December 9, 1991 stating that as per the definition of 'manufacture' given in Circular Nos. 20738/B3/90/TD dated October 25, 1990, April 1, 1991 and April 20, 1991 issued by the Taxes Department, the petitioner's unit does not qualify for sales tax exemption certificate. It is also stated that the manufacture for the purpose o...
Tag this Judgment!Koroth Earayintavida Safiya Vs. P.A. Haridasan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker155
Sankaranarayanan, J. 1. The landlady is the revision petitioner. She filed R. C.P. No. 312/91 before the Rent Control Court, Kannur seeking eviction of the respondent from the petition scheduled premises bearing door No. 3/151 in the Pallikunnu Panchayat, on grounds of arrears of rent and for purposes of own occupation under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act').2. The landlady alleged that the building had been taken on rent by the tenant in 1975 on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- and the rent had been subsequently enhanced to Rs. 75/- per month and had been paid at that rate for the period inclusive of October, 1990. She alleged that the rent for the subsequent period was in arrear. She also stated that the building was required for the residence of her daughter Fazida, her husband and children after necessary modification along with the adjoining portion which was the subject matter of R.C.P. No. 313/91, filed agains...
Tag this Judgment!A.M. Zainalabdeen Musaliar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1998
Reported in: [1999]237ITR527(Ker)
K.K. Usha, J.1. This reference application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is at the instance of the assessee. It arises out of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I.T.A. No. 74/Coch. of 1985. The relevant assessment year is 1978-79. Following are the questions referred for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the fresh assessment is neither void nor non est, nor a nullity, and not to be annulled ? 2. Where after a regular assessment is set aside on the ground that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner issued directions under Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without an opportunity to the assessee of being heard, a fresh assessment is made by successor-Income-tax Officer without application of his mind and only as per the directions under the said section issued afresh on the basis of the draft assessment order forwarded to him in re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »