Kerala Court May 1998 Judgments
M.K. Chandran and Etc. Vs. Commissioner of Police, Kochi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-20-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker347
Mohammed, J.1. The issues involved in these two cases are identical and hence they are being dealt with and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The main question relates to the interpretation of the provisions contained in Rule 100 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules') dealing with safety glass on wind screens and windows of motor vehicles. Section 110(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') authorises the Central Government to make rules with respect to the use of safety glasses including prohibition of the use of tinted safety glasses. In exercise of the said power the Central Government framed Rule 100 prescribing the usage of safety glass for wind screens and windows of motor vehicles other than agricultural tractors.3. The petitioner in O.P. No. 8127 of 1991 against the judgment of which W.A. No. 919 of 1991 has been filed, is the owner of an ambassador car and the proprietor of a business unit known as 'M/s. Kumara Pillai Enterpr...
Tag this Judgment!Sujir Ganesh Naik Vs. Sujir Keshav Naik
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-20-1998
Reported in: [2001]252ITR176(Ker)
K. Narayana Kurup, J. 1. Defendant in O.S. No. 137 of 1983 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kollam, is the revision petitioner. The revision is directed against the order of the trial court allowing I.A. No. 1960 of 1996 in part and issuing summons to the Commissioner of Income-tax to produce theincome-tax and wealth-tax returns of the defendant for the period subsequent to April 1, 1964, up to 1968-69 as shown in the petition filed by the plaintiff under Section 120 of the Civil Rules of Practice. The suit is for declaration that Sujir Ganesh Naik and Company, a partnership firm of which the plaintiff and defendant were partners stood dissolved or is deemed to have been dissolved with effect from December 31, 1982, or March 14, 1981, settlement of accounts and other reliefs. The defendant contended, inter alia, that plaint A schedule items, 1, 6 to 14 and 16 to 19 are not properties of the firm as alleged by the plaintiff and that they belong to the defendant as full owner. In other word...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India and Ignatius Vs. Kuttappan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-20-1998
Reported in: [2000]99CompCas309(Ker)
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. 1. S. A. No. 164 of 1997 is by the first defendant and S. A. No. 444 of 1997 is by the fifth defendant in O. S. No. 408 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Irinjalakuda. The suit was filed by the first respondent in these second appeals as the plaintiff, for a declaration that the proceedings initiated against him for recovery of amounts due to the first defendant, a nationalised bank, under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act were illegal and invalid and to declare the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property ignoring the sale conducted pursuant to the initiation of such proceedings and for recovery of possession of the property sold. There was also a prayer for the grant of a perpetual injunction restraining the fifth defendant, the purchaser at the revenue sale, from effecting any improvements in the property. Overruling the defences offered by the defendants, the trial court decreed the suit. The first defendant filed an appe...
Tag this Judgment!Jayachandran Vs. Baburaj
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD(Cri)613; 1999(2)ALT(Cri)152; [2001]103CompCas79(Ker); 1998CriLJ3671
S. Marimuthu, J.1. This appeal is filed by the complainant, one Jayachandran, questioning' the judgment of acquittal delivered by the JudicialMagistrate of First Class, Trichur, in S. T. No. 690 of 1992. The case of the appellant as culled out from the judgment of the trial court as well as from the argument of learned counsel appearing for him would be that a cheque was issued in his favour for a sum of Rs. 25,000 by the accused/ respondent and when the cheque was put in the bank for collection, it was returned with an endorsement that there was no sufficient fund in the account of the respondent. On receipt of the memo of the bank, within 15 days, the appellant issued a notice to the respondent. The notice was returned unserved. Therefore, the appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'). Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the acquittal of the respondent is erroneous and it requires interference by ...
Tag this Judgment!Balan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-19-1998
Reported in: 1999(108)ELT355(Ker)
ORDERP.V. Narayanan Nambiar, J. 1. A common question arises in these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases and so they are being disposed of by a common order.2. Reports are filed by the Excise Inspectors in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging offence under various sections of the Abkari Act including Section 57A of the Abkari Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Excise Inspector and party conducted search of liquor shops belonging to the accused and took samples of liquor which was sent to the chemical examiner who reported that the same contained noxious and other prohibited articles which are injurious to health and hence it is alleged that they committed offence punishable under Section 57A of the Act as well.3. The prayer in the petitions is to quash the proceedings pending before the respective courts on the ground that the Excise Inspectors are not authorized to conduct search, seizure, take samples from the arrack shops when offence...
Tag this Judgment!Malayala Manorma Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Ker)61
OM PRAKASH, C. I.By this application made under s. 256(2), the assessee requires us to direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following questions for the opinion of this Court :(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and also in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court reported as Modi Industries Ltd. & Ors. vs . CIT : [1995]216ITR759(SC) was the Tribunal justified in law in holding that the period of limitation for rectification does not run from the date of regular assessment, but only from the date on which the assessment was revised giving effect to the appellate order on 6th July, 1987 ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Hind Wire Industries Ltd. vs . CIT : [1995]212ITR639(SC) are applicable to the facts of the case ?(iii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was justified...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›