Kerala Court February 1999 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.
A. Gopalkrishna Bhat and ors. Vs. Kaveri Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker247
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the Appellate Authority (LR), Kannur in A.A, No. 6/90. Petitioners are the owners of 2 scores and 8 cents of agricultural land comprised in R.S. No. 624/1 A, R.S. 622/5A, R.S. 622/1, R.S. 603/2B and R.S. 602/5 of Beypur Village of Kasaragod Taluk. Respondents 1 to 12 are the tenants of the petitioners. The petitioners are small holders and hence application was filed for resumption of the holding before the Land Tribunal, Kannur and the same was registered as O.A. No. 56/71. Finally, this Court confirmed the order of resumption of one half of the holding in favour of the revision petitioners as per order in C.R.P. No. 1672/84 dated 11-2-1987. But inspite of the order passed by this Court, till now the petitioners have not been given possession of the land allowed to be resumed. The petitioners filed application No. A31/88 for arrears of rent due on 13-4-1985, 13-4-1986 and 13-4-1987 before the Land Tribun...
Malayil Bankers Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-1999
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Ker)143
Shanmugam, J.The petitioner is a firm carrying on the business of money-lending. This original petition is preferred seeking to quash Exts. P4 and P5 assessment orders and the notices of demand. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to issue the statutory notice under section 142 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. This original petition cannot be maintained since the petitioner has an effective statutory remedy of appeal against the assessment orders. That apart, the petitioner had earlier filed O.P. No. 3966 of 1998 challenging the very order of assessment for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97 on the ground that the assessment period is included in the block assessment and, therefore, there cannot be a separate independent assessment. He had also filed O.P. No. 20252 of 1998 against the levy of penalty. By a common judgment dated 6-1-1999, that apart, the, original petitions earlier filed by the petitioner were dismissed. In the above circum...
Railway Employees Consumer Co-op. Society Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-1999
Reported in: [2000(84)FLR624]; (1999)IIILLJ1009Ker
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether the Central Government is the appropriate Government under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for referring the dispute between the petitioner society and the third respondent under Section 10 of the I.D. Act to the Labour Court, Ernakulam. 2. This writ petition is filed by the Southern Railway Employees Consumer Co-operative Society Ltd. Society is registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The area of operation of the society is between Cochin Harbour Terminus to Vallathol Nagar, Ernakulam Junction to Kottayam, the Ernakulam Goods and Ernakulam Junction to Alleppey. The membership of the society shall be open to the railway staff residing within its area of operation. The society is running a consumer store as well as a ration shop. Third respondent was appointed as salesman-cum-attender of the petitioner-society and he joined duty on May 30, 1991. He was dr...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Forbes Ewart and Figgis P. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-1999
Reported in: [1999]238ITR762(Ker)
K.K. Usha, J. 1. These references arise out of a common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I. T. A. Nos. 534 and 535/Coch. of 1987 and 234/Coch. of 1988. The relevant assessment years are 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85. Following is the common question referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :''Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-see is entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The relevant facts are as follows : The assessee is a closely held company deriving income from its business as tea brokers. The assessee is also a partner in two firms, namely, (1) Forbes (Tea Brokers), Coimbatore, and (2) Forbes and Company (Tea Brokers), Coonoor, which are also engaged in the business of tea auction. The assessee has a rubber mixing mill at Ettumanoor which is used for grinding, masticating and mixing rubber for others on job work basis with raw m...
Nizar Vs. Hyrunneessa
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC229
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi, J. 1. This Crl. M.C. is filed by the respondent in M.C. No. 3/1994 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Payyoli to quash Annexures-A and B orders passed by the Trial Court and the Revisional Court against the petitioner.2. The M.C. was filed by the 1st respondent against the petitioner claiming amounts under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The Trial Court after trial by order dated 18.5.1996 directed the petitioner to pay the 1st respondent Rs. 10,500/- being the value of the balance Mahar of 3 1/2 sovereigns, Rs. 4,500/- being the maintenance during the period of Iddat, Rs. 30,000/- being the value of 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments, Rs. 50,000/- given to the petitioner by the father of the 1st respondent and Rs. 90,000/- by way of future maintenance. The petitioner assailed that order before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode in Crl. R.P. No. 44/96. The Revisional Court allowed the revision in part ...
Peethambaran Vs. Ramachandran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-1999
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ832Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. First respondent in this Writ Appeal filed the Original Petition before this Court seeking police protection to him, to his workers, supervisors and his materials from the Appellant-Unions (Respondents 3 and 4 in the Original Petition). He was awarded the work of 'construction, of 350 bedded ward for Government Ayurveda College Hospital, Puthiyakavu at Tripunithura'. After completing the preliminary works, he started to engage labourers for doing different works. He put up a notice (Ext. P-l) inviting registration of workers who are interested to do different works. According to him, in response to Ext. P-1 notice, about 150 workers registered their names for different works and he started the work on January 6, 1999. At that time third and fourth respondents and a group of people came to the site and obstructed the workers and manhandled one of the workers and threatened the supervisor. Petitioner approached the Police for protection by Ext. P-2. Even though Sub Inspe...
S. Chandrasekharan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4442
ORDERD. Sreedevi, J.1. Petitioner has filed this original petition for a declaration that Section 250 Rowdy History Sheet and Section 265 General Instructions regarding surveillance contained in the Kerala Police Manual as unconstitutional since the same offends the fundamental right guaran-teed under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P-1.2. Petitioner is an active trade-union worker. He is a member of the District Working Committee of the Bharathiya Mazdoor Sangh and an office bearer of Bharatiya Janatha Party and a member of the Temple Committee of Devi Temple, Valiyakulangara at Ochira. For about a decade, he was an active political worker and trade union worker. His political activities mainly confined to Kayamkulam, Ochira, Karunagappally and its suburban areas. He challenges Ext. P-l, which is a rowdy list prepared by the Ochira Police, wherein his name is shown as item No. 2. According to him, by enlisting him i...
Sandha Vs. Narayanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: II(1999)DMC411
K.A. Mohammed Shafi, J.1. The 1st petitioner in M.C. No. 106/93 on the file of the Family Court, Kozhikode is the revision petitioner.2. The revision petitioner alongwith her three children filed the M.C. before the Family Court claiming maintenance from the respondent under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Family Court after trial by order dated 16.2.1995 directed the respondent to pay maintenance to petitioners 2 to 4, children of the 1st petitioner and the respondent at the rate of Rs. 200/- to petitioners 2 and 3 and at the rate of Rs. 150/- to the 4th petitioner per month from the date of the award and disallowed the claim for maintenance made by the 1st petitioner by accepting the contention of the respondent that the 1st respondent is not entitled to maintenance as she is living in adultery. This revision petition is filed by the 1st petitioner challenging the finding that she is not entitled to maintenance from the respondent.'3. The facts that the marriage betwe...
Naranath Thazhakuniyil Sandha Vs. Kottayat Thazhakuniyil Narayanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC508
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi1. The 1st petitioner in M.C. No. 106/93 on the file of the Family Court, Kozhikode is the revision petitioner.2. The revision petitioner along with her three children filed the M.C. before the Family Court claiming maintenance from the respondent under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The Family Court after trial by order dated 16.2.1995 directed the respondent to pay maintenance to petitioners 2 to 4, children of the 1st petitioner at the rate of Rs. 200/- to petitioners 2 and 3 and at the rate of Rs. 150/- to the 4th petitioner per month from the date of the award and disallowed the claim for maintenance made by the 1st petitioner by accepting the contention of the respondent that the 1st petitioner is not entitled to maintenance as she is living in adultery. This revision petition is filed by the 1st petitioner challenging the finding that she is not entitled to maintenance from the respondent.3. The facts that the marriage between the revision petitioner and the r...
Zainaba Vs. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: II(1999)ACC567; 2001ACJ1100
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The amounts due to the petitioner as well as to other claimants are under fixed deposit by order of the Tribunal in O.P. (MV) No. 2018 of 1990. According to the petitioner, the fixed deposit has already matured. Petitioner preferred an application for release of the said amount in order to meet the expenses of the marriage of her grand-daughter. According to the petitioner, her daughter is a divorcee and she required the money for their livelihood. The application was rejected by the Tribunal stating that the Tribunal was not satisfied that the need is genuine. I am of the view that since five years are already over and the petitioner is a widow and she is claiming only her share, there is no reason to reject her claim for release of the fixed deposit.2. In such circumstances, if the petitioner makes an application before the Tribunal, the share due to her would be ordered to be released to her.The original petition is disposed of as above....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »