Kerala Court August 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.
Regi George Vs. K.K. Bhaskaran Nair and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker395
Mohammed, J. 1. This appeal arises from an order passed by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Muvattupuzha on an application filed under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant before us is the auction-purchaser who was the third respondent in the above application. 2. The application, E.A. No. 119 of 1995 was tiled by a third party seeking to set aside the auction sale conducted on 7-6-1995 in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 590 of 1986. The second respondent is the decree-holder and the third respondent is the judgment-debtor. The decree-holder filed E.P. No. 173 of 1992 seeking to execute the decree for the realisation of Rs. 65,2747- with interest at 13%. In the execution immovable properties comprised in survey numbers 290/2B, 290/2B/3/10,290/2B/4/11 and 293/7 having a total extent of 74 cents were attached. Those properties were put to auction sale as per the orders of the Court. In the auction the appellant offered Rs. 3,52,000/- and she was, declared to ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kerala Transport Company
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR183(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly, 'the Act'), relating to the assessment year 1985-86, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the pro-vision made in the books in a sum of Rs. 9,58,532 is an allowable deduction in the year in which such provisions were made or in the year in which the actual settlement took place ?'2. The facts, as i'ound by the Tribunal, are that the assessee--a partnership firm--engaged in the business of transportation of goods, made a provision of Rs. 9,58,532 in its books following the mercantile system of accounting in the previous year relating to the assessment year 1985-86 and claimed deduction in respect of the said amount. The provision represents the loss claimed by claimants for non-delivery or short-delivery of their goods.3. On verification, the Assessing Officer ...
Koduvayur S.C.B. Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-1998
Reported in: [1998(80)FLR890]; (1999)ILLJ486Ker
Koshy, J.1. Appellant in this appeal filed the original petition to quash Ext. P5 order of the Labour Court passed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Third respondent employee filed the claim petition claiming interest on the security deposit deposited by him in the Bank. Third respondent was appointed in the year 1967. An amount of Rs. 2,000/- was taken from him as security. Under the terms of agreement, the management bank was liable to pay interest on the security to the third respondent employee every year. Interest was paid to him upto July 1, 1970. In the year 1971, third respondent was proceeded against for alleged deficit in stock which was detected at the time of scrutiny of the accounts for the year 1970-71 and he was placed under suspension pending enquiry. In the domestic enquiry, he was found guilty and he was dismissed from service. His dismissal was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The Tribuna...
Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Chandramathy and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-1998
Reported in: 2000ACJ148
S. Krishnan Unni, J.1. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 206 of 1994 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Pala, are the appellants. Cross-objectors are plaintiffs in the above suit. Plaintiffs filed the suit in the court below under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 for the death of one Sasidharan who died on 29.9.1980 due to electrocution under the following circumstances. Sasidharan was employed as a driver in the lorry No. KRF 2104 of PW 2 and on the above day he was driving the vehicle in the Chittoor-Pala road and when he reached Mutholykadavu he found a big uprooted coconut tree lying across the road. PW 3 was accompanying him in the lorry. When deceased Sasidharan tried to remove the obstruction unaware about the broken electric wire lying underneath the trunk of the tree, he sustained electric shock from the live wire and met with his end on the spot. Sasidharan had a heavy vehicle licence and was earning about Rs. 75 a day as wages a...
Fr. George Panakezham Vs. Regional Transport Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker133
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is as to whether the registering authority has got legal right to sanction alteration of goods carriage vehicle into a passenger transport vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules.2. Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and theRules framed thereunder oblige every manufacturer of motor vehicle other than trailers andsemi-trailors to submit the prototype of the vehicle to be manufactured for test by the VehicleResearch and Development Establishment of theMinistry of Defence of the Government of Indiaor Automotive Research Association of India,Pune, or the Central Machinery Testing andTraining Institute, Bundni (MP) or the IndianInstitute of Petroleum, Dehradun and such otheragencies as may be specified by the CentralGovernment for granting a certificate by thatagency as to the compliance of provisions of theAct and Rules. After the commencement of theMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules 1989, all t...
K. Sukumarakurup Vs. Principal District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker332
1. This appeal filed against the judgment dated 4-3-1997, raises a somewhat ticklish, but an important question of law.2. The facts, in brief, are that to elect, a member from Ward No. 5, Alanthara Constituency in Nellanad Grama Panchayat, an election was held on 23-3-1995, which was contested by the appellant/petitioner and respondents Nos. 3 to 6. The nomination filed by the petitioner was opposed by respondent No. 3 before the Returning Officer as well as before the State Election Commission on the ground that he (petitioner) incurred disqualification, as envisaged by Section 34 (1)(g) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act'), inasmuch as he was interested in a subsisting contract made with the Kerala Government. It is averred that the said objection was overruled by the Returning Officer. Aggrieved, respondent No. 3 challenged the order of the Returning Officer before the State Election Commission, who affirmed the order of the Returning Officer on 29-8-1995. The...
Dr. A.V. Gopalakrishnan and ors. Vs. Byju N. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker10
Koshy, J.1. All these appeals arising out of the common judgment rendered by the learned single Judge in O.P. Nos. 15161, 16193, 18305, 18751 and 20433 of 1997. Writ Appeals, Nos. 526, 568, 574, 653 and 871 of 1998 are the writ appeals filed by the Slate Government as well as the Director of Medical Education jointly, challenging the judgment in all the five original petitions. The appellants in writ appeals Nos. 264, 293, 307, 312, 379 and 553 of 1998 were eventhough not originally parties to the writ petitions got themselves impleaded in the writpetitions and the impugned judgment was passed after hearing them. Writ Appeals Nos. 234, 242, 325, 326, 398, 540 and 603 of 1998 are filed with leave by persons who were not parties to the original petitions. The leave to file appeal was granted to them as their rights are also affected.2. Eventhough facts are same and appeals are filed challenging the same common judgment, for convenience we arc referring to exhibits in W.A. No. 234 of 1998...
V.S. Liaquath Ali Khan Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker22
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner is running a driving school by name Banu Motor Driving School. For the purpose of driving school for imparting instructions petitioner purchased a private service vehicle bearing registration No. KLH 4876. Vehicle is having a sealing capacity of 47 which he wanted to reduce as six. According to petitioner, if the seating capacity is reduced, he need pay fesser amount towards insurance premium.2. Petitioner therefore submitted an application before the second respondent under Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act for reducing the seating capacity from 47 to 6. Application was rejected by the Registering Authority stating that the seats fitted in the vehicle as per Rule 267 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules cannot be reduced. According to the Registering Authority, the basic intention of the use of the vehicle at the time of manufacture of the vehicle will be defeated by reducing the seating capacity and it is a national wastage as well. Petitione...
Augustine Mathai Vs. Appellate Authority and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-1998
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ314Ker
K. Narayana Kurup, J.1. The appellant claims that he was appointed as an Accountant under the second respondent Church and upon his being denied employment he moved the first respondent Appellate Authority under Section 18 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') against the alleged termination of his service. According to him, the Church is a 'commercial establishment' as defined under Section 2(4) of the Act and that his service was terminated without conducting any enquiry and without assigning any reason as enjoined under the Act and hence per se illegal. The 2nd respondent Church contended inter alia that it is neither a shop nor a commercial establishment as defined under the Act nor the provisions of the Act are not attracted to them and hence the appeal itself is not maintainable under the Act. The maintainability of the appeal was heard as a preliminary issue and the first respondent as per Ext.P1 order upheld the preliminary objection ...
N.K. Mohanraj Vs. Kandran Rajeev
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ824
ORDERP.V. Narayanan Nambiar, J.1. Annexure-III complaint, C.C. No. 718/95 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thalassery is sought to be quashed by the accused.2. An information was laid by the complainant before the Cannanore Town Police Station on 21-4-94 alleging commission of a crime, against the petitioner. Crime No. 278/94 was registered by the Cannanore Town Police under Sections 143, 147, 323, 365 read with Section 149, IPC. The FIR was re-registered in the Thalassery Police Station as Crime No. 232/94. After investigation final report was filed under Section 173(2), Cr. P.C. before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thalassery by referring the case as false. But report was filed against the complainant alleging an offence punishable under Section 182, IPC which was taken cognizance as C.C. No. 376/94. The final report in Crime No. 232/94 referring the case as false was accepted by the Court without notice to the informant. Hence he filed a protest complaint o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »