Kerala Court March 1998 Judgments
Jaya Madhavan Alias Jayan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2666
N. Dhinakar, J.1. The accused in S.C. No. 38 of 1996 is the appellant. He was tried and convicted for a charge under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life on an allegation that he stabbed Naiju at about 6.45 p.m. on 19-6-1995 in front of a closed shop room in Cherpu Panchayat, Corakam Village, as a result of which the said Naiju died on his way to the hospital.2. To prove the above charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 12 and marked Exts. P1 to P7. M.Os. 1 to 9 were also produced and marked.3. The facts necessary to dispose of the appeal can be briefly summarised as follows : The accused and the deceased are friends. On the afternoon of 19-6-1995 they were seen quarrelling with each other by P.W. 5. On the evening of the same day at about 6.45 p.m. for reasons unknown to anybody an altercation ensued between the deceased Naiju and the accused followed by a scuffle between them. P.W. 1, who was returning from his masonry work, P.W. 2, who was running a hotel near...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahim A.M. Vs. Commercial Employees' Union and Ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ177Ker
Mohammed, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P.No. 5682 of 1989 dated January 31, 1991. The President of the Alleppey Food Grains Merchants' Association is the appellant before us. He filed the above writ petition praying to quash Ext.P-1 order passed by the Deputy Labour Officer dated September 22, 1988 in exercise of the powers under Section 21 (4) of the Kerala Head Load Workers Act, 1978 (for short, the Act) and Ext.P-3 order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Act (Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, Quilon). 2. The prime question that is posed before us by the learned counsel for the appellant is whether the Deputy Labour Officer has the power or jurisdiction to deal with a dispute between the employer and employee involving wages as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. 3. Section 21 of the Act empowers the Assistant Labour Officer to hold conciliation conferences for the purpose of bringing about a settlement of the di...
Tag this Judgment!Trade Lines Agencies Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1998
Reported in: [2003]133STC552(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J.1. The short question for consideration in this revision case is : whether the product viz., Glucovita/Glucose-D is liable to tax as classified item under entry at serial No. 127 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, which runs as under :'Non-alcoholic drinks, squashes, sauces, aerated waters and beverages bottled or canned.Explanation:--Powders, tablets and concentrates used for the preparations of non-alcoholic drinks shall, whether or not they arc bottled or canned, be liable to tax under this entry.'2. It is not disputed that the product with which we are concerned in this case is in the form of powder. Very often the powder mixed with water is given to the children. It is a supplemental energy food to them. It is a non-alcoholic drink. In our opinion, the Glucovita/Glucose-D is clearly covered by the Explanation to the entry at serial No. 127 of the unamended First Schedule.3. Our conclusion is also fortified by the subsequent amendment m...
Tag this Judgment!Pankajaksha Kurup Vs. Fathima and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker153
Sankarasubban, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been referred before the Pull Bench since the correctness of the Division Hench decision in Vasudeva Rao v. Hari Menon, 1981 Ker LT 763 : (AIR 1982 Ker 35), was doubled before the Division Bench.2. The plaintiff in O. S. 711/1993 on the file of the Sub-Court, Ernakulam is the revision petitioner. The plaintiff is alleged to be a lunatic and is represented by his guardian, his wife. The allegations in the plaint are that the decree in O. S. 183 of 1984 of the Sub-Court, Ernakulam was obtained against the plaintiff (who was the defendant therein) when he was a lunatic and the proceedings in that suit continued against the plaintiff without appointing a guardian. Hence, according to the plaintiff, the decree is a nullity. The reliefs prayed tor in the plaint are : (i) a declaration that the decree in O. S. 183 of 1984 is null and void; and (ii) consequential injunction restraining defendants 2 to 5 from executing that decree. The plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jacobs (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-1998
Reported in: (1998)148CTR(Ker)613; [1999]237ITR433(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was a gift by the assessee liable to be brought to tax under the Gift-tax Act ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the transfer in order to be valid needs registration ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the consideration for which the asset was transferred cannot be ascertained with any degree of certainty and that the transfer cannot be brought within the purview of Section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act ?'2. The assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested. It is engaged in the business of liquor distribution. With effect from April 1, 1979, the assessee was admitted as a partner into a partnership firm, known as J'kobs at Ernakulam...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Vaheed Vs. Jobai Silva and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker318
ORDERP. Shinmugam, J.1. This revision challenges the appellate order in an election O.P. Petitioner is the successful candidate for Ward No. 14 in the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation election, whose election has been set aside by the Additional District Judge in appeal.2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this C.R.P. under Section 115, C.P.C. are as follows : Election to the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation was notified on 19-8-1995. The last date for receipt of the nomination was 27-8-19951 Nomination were scrutinised on 28-8-1995. 30-8-1995 was the last date for withdrawal of the nominations. Election to Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation was held on 23-9-1995. Petitioner was declared elected for Ward No. 14 of the Corporation. The 1st respondent challenged the election before the Election Court/ Principal Munsiff unsuccessfully. On appeal before the Additional District Judge, the order of the Election Court was reversed and petitioner's election was set asi...
Tag this Judgment!S. Shanmughan Chettiyar Vs. R. Narayanan Nair and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3067
ORDERS. Marimuthu, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition arises against the conviction and sentence delivered by the Sessions Judge, Trivandrum in Crl. Appeal No. 50 of 1992. That Criminal Appeal arose challenging the conviction and sentence delivered by the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Neyyattinkara finding the revision petitioner guilty under Section 7(i) and (iii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act) and thereby sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 3 months. Before the Magistrate, on the prosecution side 5 witnesses were examined and Exts. P1 to P34 were marked:2. The above judgment of the learned Sessions Judge confirming the conviction and sen-tence delivered by the Magistrate is challenged in this Crl. Revision Petition. The only point that was urged before me is whether the conviction and senten...
Tag this Judgment!Ajithkumar B. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-1998
Reported in: [1998(79)FLR753]; (1999)ILLJ780Ker
Ar. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. Ashok B.Shenoy for petitioner and Mr. Gopalakrishna Kurup for respondent No. 3 and Muraleedharan Nair, Government Pleader for respondent No. 1. The petitioner is a workman who was employed as a salesman in the second respondent Co-operative society. He was appointed by the third respondent, President, Ponkunnam Consumer Sahakarana Sangham Ltd. and was placed on probation for a period of one year. According to the petitioner he was not paid the wages at the rate of minimum rate of wages fixed by the Government of Kerala by notification No:GO(RT) 750/87/LBR dated May 15, 1987 issued under Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 in respect of employees in shops and commercial establishments. According to the petitioner the provisions of the said Act squarely govern the petitioner and the second respondent society. It is his case that he was paid wages at the rate lesser than the minimum rate of wages as fixed by the aforesaid notification. Being entitled un...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. K.N. Indira Devi and anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: [1998]231ITR693(Ker)
Mrs. K.K. Usha, J.1. The above original petitions are filed by an assessee under Sections 60(2) and 60(3) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, for orders directing the Commissioner, Agricultural Income-tax, Thiruvananthapuram, to refer questions of law extracted in the petition for opinion of this court. The common issue arising in these petitions is whether a sole coparcener with his wife and daughter or daughters can be treated as a joint Hindu family coming under Section 4(2) of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, and whether the members of that family can be assessed under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, as tenants-in-common. Since the petitioners contended that the decision of this court in Deputy Commr. of Agrl. LT. v. R. S. Chidambaram [1994] 209 ITR 531 ; [1993] KLJ 576, would require reconsideration in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Gowli Buddanna v. CIT : [1966]60ITR293(SC) ; N. V. Narendranath v. CWT : [1969]74ITR190(SC...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax (Law), Board of Revenue ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: [1998]231ITR719(Ker)
K.K. Usha, J. 1. These tax revision cases are at the instance of the Revenue. They arise out of a common order passed by the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode, in A. I. T. A. Nos. 289, 290, 291 and 292 of 1989. These tax revision cases are coming up for hearing before us on a reference along with 0. P. Nos. 1893 of 1993, 10950 of 1992 and 9468 of 1992 (K. N. Indira Devi v. Deputy Commr. of Agrl. I. T. and Sales Tax : [1998]231ITR693(Ker) ), where similar issues are raised. The above-mentioned three original petitions have been disposed of by us under a separate judgment.2. The common questions raised in these tax revision cases are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in finding that the respondent and his four familymembers constituted a joint Hindu family even after the partition in 1978 and also by virtue of Section 4(2) of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) A...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »