Kerala Court July 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.
Vishnu (Minor) and anr. Vs. Bhanumathy Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Ker34
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether non-compliance with Section 10(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act would entail dismissal of the application. 2. Petition under Section 10(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act was filed by the respondent herein, who is the grandmother of the first petitioner. Second petitioner is the father of the first petitioner. Respondent's daughter who was the mother of the first petitioner, is no more. Petition was filed before the Family Court on 13-7-1995. Second petitioner filed objections on 19-8- L998 after three years of filing of the O.P., stating that petition had to be rejected due to non-compliance with Section 10(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act. According to second petitioner, respondent did not file a declaration expressing her willingness to act as guardian of the first petitioner. Compliance with the provisions of Section 10(3) is, according to second petitioner, mandatory and therefore p...
Tatson Food Industries Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-1999
Reported in: [2000]119STC265(Ker)
K.K. USHA, J. 1. These tax revision cases at the instance of the assessee arise out of two orders of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam. Relevant assessment years of T.R.C. Nos. 198, 209, 288 and 281 of 1994.are 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 respectively. Appeals in respect of these years were disposed of by the Tribunal by a common order dated November 17, 1992. T.R.C. Nos. 299 and 301 of 1994 arise out of a common order dated December 8, 1992. Relevant assessment years are 1980-81 and 1985-86.2. The common question arising in these tax revision cases is whether chilli powder, coriander powder and turmeric powder are different and distinct goods from chilli, coriander seeds and turmeric. Following a Bench decision of this Court in Ambika Provision Stores v. State of Kerala [1987] 67 STC 170, the Tribunal held that chilli powder, coriander powder and turmeric powder are different and distinct goods from chilli, coriander seeds and turmeric. The ...
Kader S/O Moidunni and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4151
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The question involved in this case is whether the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ponnani has committed any illegal irregularity or impropriety in the matter of taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 324, 307 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as also Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act against the petitioners herein. The F. I. statement was taken based on Ext. A1 complaint presented by the first respondent on 27-9-96 with regard to an incident which is alleged to have taken place more than 4 years preceding the said date, on 22-9-92. According to the petitioners, the Court below has committed an abuse of the process of the Court in the matter of taking cognizance, not only because of the inordinate delay involved in the matter, but also because of the gross negligence on the part of the complainant to prosecute his cause with due diligence. Yet another irregularity pointed out is the failure on the par...
Elam Plakkat Mathew Alias Joly Joseph Vs. Mulam Kothrayil Kochurani Al ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker354; I(2000)DMC126
Ar. Lakshmanan, Actg. C.J.1. Husband is the petitioner in this reference. Respondent is his wife. The marriage was solemnised in accordance with the Christian rites on 24-6-96. It is alleged that even prior to the marriage respondent was pregnant by somebody else and she delivered a baby on 27-1-97. The petitioner filed O. P. 122/97 before the Family Court for an injunction to restrain the respondent from using his name as the father of the child born to her. When the Original Petition came up for evidence on 23-1-98 the respondent admitted that the petitioner is not the father of the child born to her and O. P. 112/97 was allowed in his favour. It is further alleged that the petitioner has been living separately from the respondent prior to one year from the filing of the petition and that the respondent was impregnated by somebody else, could not live with her and that she is living in adultery and therefore the petitioner is entitled for a decree on the ground of adultery. The respo...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Joseph and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ2091; [2000(86)FLR64]; (2000)ILLJ1063Ker
Hariharan Nair, J. 1. Both these appeals are filed by the insurer, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Madras. The challenge is with regard to the fastening of liability on the appellant with regard to the compensation due to two workmen under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 2. Respondents 1 to 4 are the claimants. They filed application under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act claiming compensation for the death of two sons of the 1st respondent in an accident arising out of and in the course of their employment under the present 5th respondent on March 15, 1995. The two sons, Babu and Ashok Kumar were employed under the 5th respondent at the factory site at Kaiporikara. While hoisting an iron beam to the 5th floor of the building under construction the beam fell down resulting in eventual death of the two victims on the same day. 3. The fatal accident and the fact that the 5th respondent was the employer are not under challenge in these appeals. The feet that there was an ins...
Niyamavedi Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ778
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P. No. 15174/98 against the judgment dated 7-4-1999. The petitioner is 'Niyamavedi', represented by its member Advocate Mr. Denizen Komath. According to petitioner, it is an organization which caters to the public interest and consists of mainly laywers and the original petition is preferred in the larger interest of the general public. The prayer in the original petition is for a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the entire materials, documents and evidences collected mainly by the Intelligence Bureau and the Research and Analysis Wing, namely, respondents 4 and 5, during the investigation into Crime No. 246/1994 of Vanchiyoor Police station which was renumbered as R.C. No. 1 l/S/94 and lodge a complaint in accordance with Section 13 of the Indian Official Secrets Act and prosecute all the culprits of the ISRO Espionage case in accordance with law and for consequential relief's. Crime N...
Anoop Auto Finance Vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-1999
Reported in: [1999]107TAXMAN318(Ker)
1. The petitioner is a financier mainly engaged in the business of hire purchase of motor vehicles. It is claimed that the petitioner is the owner of two Mahindra Jeeps with registration numbers KLS-A/3854 and K-L5-A/1393, of which the additional 5th and 6th respondents are the registered owners. According to the petitioner, they are the real owners of the said vehicles since the said vehicles are subject-matter of hire purchase agreement with respondents 5 and 6. It is stated that the said two vehicles were repossessed by the petitioner for default in payment of instalments by the additional 5th and 6th respondents and were garaged in the premises of the additional 7th respondent for repairs and maintenance. While the said two vehicles were kept in the garage, the first respondent conducted a search of the said premises and seized the said vehicles. The petitioner submitted application for release of the said vehicles before the first respondent. The same was disposed of by the fourth...
Dr. Joseph Manadan and Etc. Vs. Transport Commissioner, Govt. of Keral ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Ker20
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. These two original petitions relate to implementation of Section 128 and 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, they are disposed of together. Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows :'128. Safety measures for drivers and pillion riders : (1) No driver of two wheeled motor cycle shall carry more than one person in addition to himself on the motor cycle and no such person shall be carried otherwise than sitting on a proper seat securely fixed to the Motor Cycle behind the driver's seat with appropriate safety measures;(2) In addition to the safety measures mentioned in Sub-Section (1) the Central Government may prescribe other safety measures for the Drivers of two wheeled motor cycles and pillion riders thereon.' Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows :'129. Wearing of protective head gear :Every person driving or riding (otherwise than in a side car on a motor cycle of any class or description) shall, while in a public plac...
K. Ramakrishnan and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker385
Narayana Kurup, J. 1. This is an original petition highlighting the public health issue of the dangers of passive smoking and in which prayers are made to declare that smoking of tobacco in any form, whether in the form of cigarette, cigar, beedies or otherwise in public places is illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India; issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ commanding the respondents to take appropriate and immediate measures to prosecute and punish all persons guilty of smoking in public places treating the said act as satisfying the definition of 'public nuisance' as defined under Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code. We heard Mr. P. Deepak, counsel for the petitioners, the Advocate General for the State and counsel for other respondents. 2. In the writ petition originally there were only respondents 1 to 9 viz. State of Kerala, Director of Panchayat, Director General of Police, Commissioners of Police, Thiruvananthapura...
E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Hindustan Tile Works
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-09-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ425Ker
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The E.S.I. Corporation challenges the order passed by the Employees' State Insurance Court, Kozhikode whereby the penalty imposed under Section 85B of the E.S.I. Act on the respondent herein was reduced from Rs. 62,070/- to Rs. 10,000/-.The respondent herein committed delay in payment of contribution due to it for various wage periods from October 1991 to July 1993. Ext. P1 show cause notice was hence issued proposing imposition of damages. That was followed by an opportunity for personal hearing on September 27, 1995. Ext P2 representation was submitted by the respondent during the personal hearing, but after considering it, the proposal contained in Ext. P1 was confirmed and the penalty of Rs. 62,070/- was imposed.2. The E.S.I. Court considered the question of propriety of this penalty in the light of the provisions in Section 85-B of the Act as also of the decision in Regional Director, E. S. I. Corporation v. Sakthi Tiles, 1988 (2) KLT 280 and passed the i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »