Kerala Court May 1999 Judgments
Psi Data Systems Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-31-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Ker23
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. This is an application under Section 391 of the Companies Act for sanction of a scheme of arrangement and compromise between the Company and its preferential share-holders. The Company, according to the affidavit, is not functioning on profitable basis. It is impossible for the Company to discharge its liabilities towards the preferential share-holders. Therefore, an arrangement has been thought of to release thepreferential share-holders by converting their stake in the company as loan due to them from the company. This will protect, according to the company, the preferential shareholders. It is in that respect this application under Section 391 of the companies Act has been filed to record and sanction that compromise. 2. A notification for the meeting of the preferential share-holders has been issued and a meeting had been convened. The Chairman has filed his report. In the meeting not only the preferential share-holders but also equity share-holders an...
Tag this Judgment!G.P. Vijayakumar Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker367
ORDERD. Sreedevi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order on I. A. No. 1269 of 1998 in G. O. P. No. 33 of 1993 of the Additional District Court, Ernakulam.2. Petitioner has two minor children viz., Vivek Vijayakumar and Vandana Vijayakumar, who own immovable properties. Petitioner and his children are Hindus. Since the properties of the minor children had to be sold for their welfare, the petitioner filed G. O.P. No. 33 of 1993 before the Additional District Court, Ernakulam under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, for permission to sell the property of the minors. The court granted permission and the sale proceeds were deposited in a bank under fixed deposit scheme. Minor Vivek Vijayakumar is aged 18 years as on 14-7-1998, his date of birth being 14-7-1980. Hence, the petitioner filed the above I.A. No. 1269 of 1998 for return of the fixed deposit receipt in the name of Vivek Vijayakumar. The Court below dismissed the petition, holding that by vir...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavanji Hansaraj Vs. Lourdes Church, Perumanoor and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker425
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. 1. The defendant is the appellant. The defendant is the tenant of a building leased out to him by the first plaintiff church. After terminating the tenancy the first plaintiff Church through its Kaikars filed the suit for eviction. The building is admittedly located in an area to which the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act stood extended. The plaintiff filed the suit without approaching the Rent Control Court established under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the ground that the building belonging to the first plaintiff-Church were exempt from the purview of the Act in lieu of the notification issued under Section 25(1) of the Act as per G.O. (MS) No. 14/92/HSG. The defendant resisted the suit contending that the suit was not maintainable. It was contended that the first plaintiff was not properly represented in the suit. The Notification under Section 25 of the Act relied on by the plaintiffs...
Tag this Judgment!Hameed Vs. Jameela
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-1999
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT586
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. The first defendant in a suit for partition is the appellant. The plaintiff is the daughter of one Aboobacker and the first defendant is the son. Defendants 2 to 9 are also the children of Aboobacker. Defendant No. 10 is the widow of Aboobacker. Aboobacker died on 25.2.1974. Plaint E Schedule property having an extent of 17 cents was sold by Aboobacker during his life time. Overruling the contentions of the first defendant the plaintiff was given a preliminary decree for partition awarding the plaintiff seven out of 104 shares in plaint A to D and F Schedule properties. This preliminary decree for partition was confirmed by the appellate court repelling the challenge by the first defendant. Feeling aggrieved the first defendant has filed this Second Appeal.2. Defendants 1, 4 and 9 sons of Aboobacker had purchased the shares of their sisters other than the plaintiff. The defendants denied the entitlement of the plaintiff to a share. Though the defendants set u...
Tag this Judgment!T.N. George and anr. Vs. Anna Jacob and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-25-1999
Reported in: II(1999)ACC173; 2000ACJ76
Hariharan Nair, J.1. In this appeal the owner and insurer challenge the claim with regard to quantum of compensation payable in respect of the accident which took place at 7.00 a.m. on 8.11.1986 resulting in the death of Chacko Mathew who was the predecessor of the petitioners who are respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in this appeal.2. The deceased was aged 65 years at the time of the accident. The court below passed an award for Rs. 74,750 out of which Rs. 72,000 was towards the loss of earnings for the dependants on the assumption that the victim would have survived with earning capacity for another 10 years and would have set apart at least Rs. 600 per mensem out of his income of Rs. 900 per mensem derived from a petty business in hill-produce.3. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the multiplier adopted in the case and the multiplicand are both incorrect. It is pointed out that there was no reliable evidence to conclude that the victim was having income at the rate of Rs. 900...
Tag this Judgment!Prasad Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-25-1999
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ1018Ker
Ar. Lakshmanan, Ag. C.J.1. The matter arises in a very short compass. The first appellant is a casual labourer in agriculture and appellants 2 to 4 are registered toddy tappers. Sixth respondent was the licensee and contractor of toddy shops 12 to 21 of 1993-94 of Adimaly Excise Range in Idukki District. According to the appellants, the sixth respondent had actually conducted the shops and, therefore, he is liable to pay Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Contribution under Kerala Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Contribution Act, 1969. According to them, the sixth respondent remitted some amount and defaulted payment of the balance. They contended that since they were not involved or connected in any manner with the conduct of the toddy shops licensed in favour of the sixth respondent, they are not liable to pay any contribution.2. Ext. P1 is the order passed by the original authority and Exts. P2 and P2(a)are the appeals before the Government. Ext. P3 is the petition submitted by the first appel...
Tag this Judgment!P.E. Thomas Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-21-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4037
ORDERG. Sasidharan, J.1. The petitioner wants this Court to give a direction to the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class III, Punalur, to take Annexure-II complaint on file and proceed with the same in accordance with law. The petitioner filed a complaint as CMP No. 2009 of 1999 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class III, Punalur, against one B.V. Jyothi Babu and certain others employed in the Pathanapuram Taluk Office alleging offences under Section 420, 323, 327, 506, 392, 307 and 120B read with Section 34, IPC and also under Section 7 and 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the petition it is stated that on 29-4-1999 the learned Magistrate gave back the complaint to the petitioner on the ground that since there were allegations in the complaint regarding commission of the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act also, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences. Thereafter the petitioner filed a complaint in the Court o...
Tag this Judgment!P.E. Mathew Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-03-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker345
Ar. Lakshmanan, J.1. These two Original Petitions raise the same question with regard to the validity of Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which says that a decree for dissolution of marriage passed by a District Judge has to be confirmed by a three-Judge Bench of the High Court. According to the petitioners, this confirmation is required only for Christians and so it is discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Articles 13(1), 14, 15(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that since this section is to consistent with Part III of the Constitution, it violates Article 13(1) which says that all pre-Constitutional laws have to be consistentwith Part III of the Constitution. The other grounds of attack are as under:(a) The section is applicable only to Christians and, therefore, it amounts to a discrimination based on religion and so is violative of Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India; (b) The Section is also ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Excel Glasses Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-03-1999
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Ker)117
OM PRAKASH, C.J.By these four Original Petitions filed under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, against the combined order of the Tribunal, the CIT 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 :O.P. No. 23660/98'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the absence of confirmation from the agents for the services said to have been rendered by them, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the assessee has established the nexus between the payment of commission made to the agents and the services rendered by them to the assessee and in allowing the entire claim and is not the order of the Tribunal unsupported by relevant and cogent evidence ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payment made to H.M.M. Ltd., is an allowable deduction for the asst. yr. 1987-88 ?(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, did...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›