Kerala Court June 1998 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.
Chacko P.C. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-1998
Reported in: (1998)IILLJ587Ker
A.C. Lakshmanan, J.1. Though a Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported in 1997 (1) KLT 788 expressed their displeasure and sorrow by the unseemly controversy between the Advocate General (hereinafter referred to as 'the A.G.' and the Director General of Prosecution hereinafter referred to as 'the DGP') and disposed of the said case with a fond hope that the unhappy episode will be forgotten and not allowed to recur to sully the image of the two offices, the controversy, which appears to have been simmering, has come to the surface again.2. The root cause for the current controversy is the office direction issued by the Director General of Prosecution under Ext.P-1 dated February 5, 1998 informing the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association and the High Court Advocates Clerks' Association that copies of all criminal cases may be directly forwarded to his office with memo (after the cases are numbered in the registry section of the High Court and before sent to the Bench ...
Jane Andrew AustIn and anr. Vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of Travanco ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker136
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.This revision petition is filed by defendants 2 and 6 in O.S. 227 of 1981 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kollam. The plaintiff in the suit is State Bank of Travancore, Sakthikulangara Branch, Kollam. The suit was filed for recovery of money on the basis of a mortgage. A preliminary decree was passed by the trial Court as follows :--'In the result, a preliminary decree is passed on the following terms: An account of the amounts due to the plaintiff under plaint accounts 1 to 9 as on the date of preliminary decree by way of principal and interest, costs of the suit, charges and other expenses shall be taken by appointing a Chartered Accountant of the Courts choice. On passing a final decree declaring the amount due to the plaintiff, within 6 months, the defendants shall pay into Court the sum declared with subsequent interest at the rates specified in the plaint and subsequent costs, charges and expenses till the date of deposit. In case the defendants ...
Official Liquidator, New Kerala Chits and Trades (P) Ltd., CochIn Vs. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker379
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. This application is filed by the Official Liquidator under Section 446(1), (2) and (3) of the Companies Act to stay all proceedings in O.S. 802/97 pending before the Munsiff's Court, Belgaum.2. According to the applicant, M/s. New Kerala Chits and Trades (P) Ltd. is under liquidation and by order dated 18-1-1980 in C.P. No. 14/78 this Court ordered winding up of the company and appointed the Official Liquidator as the Liquidator of the company. He has also contended that a decree was passed in C.C. No. 274/82 against the respondent and for recovery of the decree amount of Rs. 40,216/- revenue recovery proceedings were initiated through the District Collector, Belgaum. The respondent has filed O.S. 802/97 before the Munsiffs Court, Belgaum in Karnataka State for a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants including the Official Liquidator from recovering the amount through revenue recovery proceedings without obtaining leave of this Court as r...
T.D. Rajalakshmi Vs. District Election Officer, Ernakulam and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker140
Mohammed, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by a candidate who contested the by-election to No. 72 Ernakulam Assembly constituency to the Kerala Legislative Assembly. She was supported by a national political party called 'Bharatheeya Janatha Party'. She challenges the withdrawal of symbol 'conch' allotted to her initially by the Returning Officer.2. The case put forth by the petitioner in the writ petition is condensed thus : The nomination paper submitted by the petitioner was found valid by the second respondent Returning Officer. Subsequently, Ext. P1 notice was issued to her stating that symbol to the contesting candidates would be allotted at 3 p.m. on 20-5-1998 and she was also requested to be present on the said occasion. Pursuant to the said notice she attended the meeting at the relevant time along with other candidates. A list of free symbols as contemplated under Sub-clause (2) of Clause 12 of the Election Symbol Reservation and Allotment Order, 1968 was made available...
Francis Savio Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)180; 1998CriLJ4735
S. Marimuthu, J.1. This appeal is filed by one Francis Savio questioning the judgment of acquittal delivered by the Sessions Judge, Kottayam in Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1991.2. The present appellant as complainant filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the 2nd respondent as accused before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Vaikom in S. T. No. 404 of 1990. The Magistrate on examining the evidence found the 2nd respondent/accused guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and thereby sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months,3. The above judgment of the Magistrate was challenged in the appeal before the Sessions Judge, who allowed the appeal on the following grounds :(i) The ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not specifically averred in the complaint.(ii) The return of the cheque by the bank on the head 'refer to drawer' does not mean that there is no sufficient fund in the acco...
Achuthan Pillai and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR458(Ker)
Om Prakash, C. J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the capital receipt in respect of mesne profits is subject to tax, as a capital receipt ?'2. The relevant facts, as stated by the Appellate Tribunal in its order dated February 4, 1992, are that as per lease deed dated August 15, 1960, one Achuthan Pillai, the managing partner of the assessee-firm, was granted a 30 years' lease of 99.68 cents of land in the Willington.Island effective from September 23, 1959, by the Cochin Port Trust. Certain buildings were constructed on this land by the lessee--Achuthan Pillai--who then leased out the buildings to Voltas Ltd. for ten years effective from February 1, 1961, under the lease deed dated August 18, 1961, on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,375. La...
P. Krishnan Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: 1999ACJ871; [1998]94CompCas478(Ker)
S. Marumuthu, J. 1. This appeal is filed questioning the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Thalassery, passed in O. S. No. 63 of 1989. The plaintiff is the appellant and the defendant is the respondent herein.2. The above suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 58,271 from the respondent/defendant, for carrying out repairs to the appellant's vehicle (bus), KRZ 2124 on March 10, 1988. The above bus, which has been insured with the respondent, met with an accident near Chittariparamba, while it was proceeding from Thalassery to Peravoor, as a result of which the passengers travelling in the bus sustained injuries and the bus also was heavily damaged. As per the terms of the insurance policy, the appellant has to be indemnified by the respondent.3. The defendant/respondent controverted the above averments of the appellants on the ground that as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the insured, namely, the appellant must first refer the dispute to an arbitrator, befor...
T.O. Alias Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-11-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR335(Ker)
P. Shanmugam, J. 1. The petitioner challenges exhibits P-7, P-8 and P-10 orders. By exhibit P-7 order, the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax modified the earlier assessment under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred exhibit P-9 appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax. By exhibit P-10 communication, the petitioner's appeal was returned with a request to be presented before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and stating that the Commissioner of Income-tax was not competent. The original petition is filed against these orders.2. It is seen from the exhibits that in the course of completion of the block assessment, a proposal was issued to the assesses to fix the cost of construction of a building at Rs. 18 lakhs and to tax the proportionate share of the difference as the undisclosed investment made by the assessee. In his reply dated April 16, 1997, the assessee requested to refer the matter to the valuation cell. Accordingly, the...
Seeyan Plywoods Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-11-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR395(Ker)
B.N. Patnaik, J. 1. The petitioner is an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner deals in manufacture and sale of plywood, veneers, etc. The petitioner-firm started an industrial undertaking in 1974 at Baliapatam in Cannanore District. The petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act was allowed during the assessment year 1977-78. This was confirmed by this court in I. T, R. No. 123 of 1987 (CIT v. Seeyan Plywoods : [1991]190ITR564(Ker) ). Thus, under the law the petitioner is entitled to have the benefit of deduction under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act. But, on September 14, 1984, the Income-tax Officer (first respondent) rejected the claim for deduction under Section 80HH of the Act for the assessment year 1982-83. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Calicut, was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Income-tax Officer to examine the claim Under Section 80HH afresh. On March 17, 198...
Manilal Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALT(Cri)369; 1998CriLJ3785
ORDERS. Marimuthu, J.1. This revision is directed, impugning the judgment of conviction delivered by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in Cr1. Appeal 46/90.2. The revision petitioner was found guilty under Sections 465, 467, read with 109, I.P.C. and thereby he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment. Questioning the above judgment, the revision petitioner preferred the above said appeal before the 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, who allowed the appeal by acquitting the revision petitioner. The defacto complainant, examined as PW 1, preferred a criminal revision before this Court, 85 of 1991. This Court, in the said revision, remanded the matter to the Sessions Judge, for fresh disposal, in accordance with law. The 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, after remand, found the revision petitioner guilty, under Section 471, I.P.C. and thereby sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for two years. Now the point is whether the judgment of the Sessions Judge, convicting the revision ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »