Kerala Court July 1999 Judgments
M.P. Rajan Vs. Kerala State Election Commission, Thiruvananthapuram an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker399
Balasubramanyan, J. 1. The appellant is the petitioner in the Original Petition. The Original Petition was filed praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 a notice issued to the petitioner by the Secretary of Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat informing him that as per Section 35 (k) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act he had become disqualified to be a member of the Kizhakkambalam Panchayat with effect from 14-1-1998 and Ext.P9 copy of an order passed by the State Election Commission rejecting the applications filed by two members of the Kizhakkambalam Panchayat requesting the Election Commission to make an enquiry into the question whether the petitioner in the Original Petition had lost his membership and a petition filed by the petitioner himself complaining that the Panchayat was in error in not restoring to him his membership in the Panchayat on the basis of his application made under Section 37 (2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. There is a prayer for a declaration ...
Tag this Judgment!John Mathew Vs. Vechoochira Grama Panchayat and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-29-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Ker65
ORDERG. Sivarajan, J. 1. The petitioner is a resident of the first respondent Pachayat. He has filed this Original Petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to conduct Ext. P1 auction only after establishing a slaughter house as provided in Section 231 of the Kerala Panehayat Raj Act, 1994 as well as the Rules framedthereunder. He has also sought for a direction to the first respondent not to permit the sale of meat in open places and in totally unhygienic conditions. It is stated in the O.P. that the Panchayatas per Ext. P1 has sought to auction the right to sell meat in 'Ennooramvayal' Public Market, 'Chathanthara' Public Market and other places within its Jurisdiction for the period from 1-4-1999 to 31-3-2000, that the right to sell meat involves slaughtering of animals and that under the provisions of Section 231 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, no person shall slaughter within the Village Panchayat area except in a public or licensed slaughter house. It is further ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Asian Techs Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-29-1999
Reported in: [1999]240ITR396(Ker)
Mrs. K.K. Usha, J.1. This reference at the instance of the Revenue arises out of the order passed by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I.T.A. No. 172/Coch of 1989. The relevant assessment year is 1984-85. The following questions are referred for the opinion of this court: '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of Section 32(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act as it stood at the relevant time the Tribunal is right in holding and in directing the Assessing Officer to take the written down value as at the beginning of the year without further reducing it by the amount of initial depreciation ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Circular No. 372 dated December 8, 1983 : [1984]146ITR9(Guj) , item XIV-paragraph 22.5) has correctly interpreted the provision of law ?'2. The relevant facts are as follows : The assessee was granted depreciation under Section 32(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The asses...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Suneer Sharma Vs. Dr. Madhurlata Sharma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-29-1999
Reported in: II(1999)DMC745
N.G. Karambelkar, J.1. Appellant/defendant-husband Dr. Suneer Sharma has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 8.5.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No. 220/97 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in Case No. 576-A/91.2. Facts not disputed are that the appellant and the respondent were married on 16.11.1984 at Kherapati Colony, Gwalior. At the time of marriage, appellant was possessing M.B.B.S. degree and the respondent-wife Was possessing post-graduate degree in medical science. At that time, appellant was serving as a medical officer in Co-operative Sugar Factory at Panipat. In the same year the respondent wife got an appointment as medical officer in N.F.L., Panipat where she was also allotted an official residence in the campus of the hospital. The couple lived peacefully for a period of about 2 years in the ancestral residence of the appellant at Panipat. However, when after a lapse of 2 years, the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Kochuthampi Rawther Hassankutty Vs. Peerumuhammed Puthumaliyar Rawther ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Ker17
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. Defendant No. 3 in a suit for specific performance is the appellant in this case. He is an assignee from the 1st defendant who entered into an agreement with the plaintiff. The suit was decreed and confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate Court. Exhibit A10 is the agreement for sale dated 3-10-1978.2. Can an agreement without mutuality be enforced? Can a decree for specific performance be granted in the absence of averment regarding readiness and willingness of the plaintiff in terms of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act? Can a decree for specific performance be granted, when there is much disparity in price due to lapse of time? These are the substantial questions of law formulated in this appeal. Can an agreement for sale be enforced when there is mistake of fact regarding the identity of a property agreed to be sold, is also argued as a question of law. Therefore, these are the substantial questions of law arising in this case.3. The description of t...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Pollachi Vs. Santha and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-26-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC306; 2000ACJ61; AIR2000Ker49
Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the Insurance Company challenging an interim award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, in O. P. (M. V.) No. 675 of 1995, under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, awarding compensation.2. When the appeal came up for admission before a Division Bench of this Court, it doubted the correctness of the interpretation given to Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act by another Division Bench of this Court in Thomas v. Mathew (1995) 2 Ker LT 260 : (1995 AIHC 978), and referred this matter to a Full Bench, and hence this appeal before us.3. In the instant case, the motor accident occurred on 31-5-1994, due to the collision of a tempo van and a lorry. Lorry was insured with the appellant. Driver of the tempo van died in the accident. Legal representatives of the deceased preferred a claim petition under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', and the Tribunal passed an inte...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Mahesh
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-26-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC586
K. Narayana Kurup, J. 1. Accused four in number in C.P. No. 4/98 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thalassery stands charged under Sections 366 and 344 r/w Section 34, I.P.C. and under Sections 4 and 5 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 (for short 'the Act') in Crime No. 41/96 of Dharmadam Police Station. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery committed the case to the Sessions Court as per his order dated 31.3.1997. On receipt of the case records along with the committal order it is registered as SC No. 109/98 and thereafter the Sessions Court noted that the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate has committed the case under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act also to the Sessions Court. According to the Sessions Court, the offences under Section 366, I.P.C. is triable by it. However, as per Section 8 of the Act, no Court other than a Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class shall take cognizance or try offence under that Act. Therefore, the offences punish...
Tag this Judgment!M.H. Surendran and anr. Vs. the District Collector, Trissur and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Ker103
1. The Writ Appeal has been referred to a Full Bench by Reference Order dated 7-12-94 by Pareed Pillay, Ag.C.J. (as he then was) and T. V. Ramakrishnan. J. In the Reference Order the Division Bench expressed the view that the Division Bench in Narayanan Thampi v. District Collector, (1988) 2 Ker LT 48, requires reconsideration with regard to the dicta therein that time limit under Sub-Rule 8 of Rule 6 of the Kerala Panchayats (Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter called the 'Rules') is only directory and not mandatory.2. The appellants before us are the petitioners in the Original Petition. They challenge Ext. P4 order passed by the District Collector, Trichur under Rule 6 of Clause 8 of the Rules granting a licence to the 5th respondent for the construction of a cell model burial ground in Sy. No. 183/1 of Edathuruthy village of Kodungallur Taluk on certain conditions. The case of the petitioners-appellants Is as follows :--The appellants are the residents of Edathurut...
Tag this Judgment!Adhikarath Valappil Kunhumuhammed Alias Kunhippa and ors. Vs. Korath I ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker383
Ar. Lakshmanan, Ag. C.J. 1. Heard Mr. T. Krishnan Unni for the appellant, Mr. Chandrasekhar for the contesting respondents and the Government Pleader for the other respondents. This writ appeal is directed against thejudgment of the learned single Judge in O.P. No.11968 of 1999 dated 2-6-1999. The appellants arerespondent Nos. 12, 13 and 14 in the originalpetition.' The petitioners in the original petition,who are respondents 1 to 3 herein, filed the writpetition to direct respondents 1 and 2 in theoriginal petition to grant the petitioners adequatepolice protection to enjoy their properties mentioned in Ext. P2 injunction order without anyobstruction or interference by respondents 4 to14. 2. It is submitted by counsel for respondents 1 to 3/ petitioners in the original petition that the refusal by the police to render assistance to enjoy their property is illegal when a Civil Court has passed orders in their favour and that the police has a duly to grant protection to them to enforce ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N.J. Albert
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: [2000]241ITR141(Ker)
K.K. Usha, J.1. This reference at the instance of the Revenue arises from an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Cochin Bench in I. T. A. No. 376 (Coch.) of 1979. The relevant assessment year is 1978-79. The following question is referred for opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-see is entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35B(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The reference was originally answered by this court in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by judgment dated February 11, 1987, in the light of a decision of this court in I.T.R. Nos. 7 and 8 of 1982 reported in CIT v. C. Tharian and Sons : [1987]166ITR607(Ker) . The matter was taken in appeal by the assessee before the Supreme Court. By order dated March 24, 1999, the Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration by this court with the following observations :'The High Court answered the questions quoted belo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »