Kerala Court August 1999 Judgments
O.V. Manu Kurikkal Vs. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ma ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-30-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Ker54
Ar. Lakshmanan, Ag. C.J. 1. Mr. A. Inees for appellant, Mr. Alexander Thomas, Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. K. V. Gopinathan Nair for respondent No. 3. 2. The appellant is the petitioner in O. P. 12364/99. He filed this appeal against the judgment in the Original Petition which was filed against Ext. P 2 order by which a temporary permit was issued on the route Eriyad-Manjerto the third respondent by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority on the direction of the second respondent viz., The Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram. The appellant's contention was that the Chairman, Regional Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to grant a temporary permit and that the temporary permit can be granted only if there is an existence of temporary need under any of the various clauses coming under Section 87(1) (a) to (c) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and that there should be an existence of temporary need and a finding to that effect while grantin...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Sushama Vs. Mercy Antony and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Ker83
ORDER1. The question that has been referred for consideration of this Bench is whether Civil Revision Petitions are maintainable against orders passed by the appellate Court in Election Petitions under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994. A learned Judge of this Court, in Saraswatl v. Kamala, 1997 (1) KLT 855 : (1997 AIHC 2307) has taken the view that a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable from the decision of the District Court In an appeal filed under Section 113 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act against an order passed by the Munsiff s Court In an Election Petition.2. C.R.P. Nos. 227/98, 619/98, 843/98, 1190/97, 1942/97 and 815/98 arise out of orders passed by the District Court in appeals from orders of the Munsiff's Court in Election Petition filed under the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994. Petitioner in C.R.P. 1942/97 originally filed O.P. 6074/97 challenging the very same appellate order, but, app...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C.W.S. (India) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1999
Reported in: [2000]242ITR429(Ker)
K.K. Usha, J.1. These tax references at the instance of the Revenue arise out of the orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I. T. A. No. 533/Coch. of 1989, dated June 7, 1994 and I.T.A. No. 679/Coch. of 1989, dated June 10, 1994. The relevant assessment years are 1983-84 and 1984-85. The question referred for opinion of this court in I. T. R. No. 8 of 1996 is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-see is entitled to claim weighted deduction in a sum of Rs. 4,27,256 spent for the promotion of sales outside India ?'2. The questions referred in I. T. R. No. 9 of 1996 for opinion of this court are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of Rs. 9,365 relating to the issue of rights shares ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim weighted deduction under Section 35B, amounting to Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Rasheed Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4746
K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20-1-1999 passed by the Sessions Court, Kollam, in S.C. No. 168/96. The accused is the appellant.2. The appellant was indicted for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances' Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') in crime No. 177/96 registered by Kilikolloor Police. It is alleged that on 6-8-1996at about 11-25 a.m. at the by lane proceeding from Palkulangara railway cross to Capex junction in Kilikolloor Village the appellant was found in illegal possession of 16 grams of ganja in 11 small packets for the purpose of sale in contravention of the provisions of the Act and as such he has committed the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of the Act.3. Since the appellant pleaded not guilty of the charge, the prosecution adduced evidence. P.Ws. 1 to 7 were examined and Exts: P1 to P7 and M:0s. 1 to 4 were marked. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rehman Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALT(Cri)188; 1999CriLJ4801
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the accused in Crime No. 43/98 registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad, alleging the offence punishable under Section 134A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act') to quash the entire proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The allegation made against the petitioner is that the petitioner herein, who is an employee in the Indian Telephone Industries with is a semi Government concern, acted as polling agent for Shri. V.S. Vijayaraghavan, a candidate in the General Election held on 28-2-1998 in polling booth No. 77 Pudussery U.P. School and as such he committed the offence alleged against him.3. The petitioner has contended that he is only an employee in the Indian Telephone Industries which is a company under the Government of India the employees of which are not Government servants and, therefore, he was not in the service o...
Tag this Judgment!Hajara and ors. Vs. Udayan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC183; 2000ACJ876
G. Sivarajan, J.1. Claimants are the appellants. The appeal is filed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P. (MV) No. 1993 of 1994. They claimed a total compensation of Rs. 2,60,000 under various heads for the death of the husband of the claimant No. 1 and the father of claimant Nos. 2 to 5 in a motor accident. The Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,89,000. Not being satisfied with the award claimants have filed this appeal.2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the annual income fixed and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal are very low. He submitted that, at any rate, the Tribunal was not justified in limiting the compensation for the loss of dependency at Rs. 1,50,000 when it was found that the appellants are entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,72,800 under that head. He further submitted that the reason stated by the Tribunal in this regard is contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts. T...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Joseph Kuzhijalil Vs. Joseph Pulikunnel Alias P.S. Joseph and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALT(Cri)442; 2000CriLJ1264
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. The question raised in this proceeding filed invoking Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Sections 10, 12 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is whether this proceeding is maintainable at the instance of the petitioner on the ground that what is alleged is a criminal contempt of the subordinate Court and the sanction sought for by the petitioner before the Advocate General under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Section 10 thereof was refused by the Advocate General. The Registry returned the papers to the petitioner by seeking a clarification whether the contempt of Court case is maintainable in view of the dismissal of the petition for sanction by the learned Advocate General. Counsel for the petitioner represented the petition with the endorsement that the sanction of the Advocate General was not necessary in the light of the decision of the Division Bench in Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee v. Pritish Nandi, (O....
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan Panicker K. Vs. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-1999
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR64]; (2000)ILLJ498Ker
Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The third respondent in O. P. No. 8522 of 1988-M is the appellant herein.2. Hindustan Machine Tools Limited, Kalamassery, the first respondent herein and the petitioner in O. P. No. 8582 of 1988 (hereinafter called 'the Company') is a Government Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of machine tools and printing press machinery at its factory at Kalamassery. For the benefit of the workman, a canteen is situated outside the factory premises, but, however, within the estate of the company. The canteen was being run on contract basis by licensees/contractors to whom it was awarded for a specific period by inviting competitive tenders in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Government of India governing the Award of contracts by the Government undertakings. During the year 1975 the Company invited tenders for running the canteen and one Sri A. C. Kunju Mohammed was the successful tenderer to whom t...
Tag this Judgment!Rural India Handicrafts Marketing Association Vs. Kottayam Municipalit ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Ker30
ORDERS. Sankarrasubban, J. 1. The petitioner is the Rural India Handicrafts Marketing Association. It is a Society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Cultural and Scientific Charitable Societies Registration Act having registration No. 499/1993. It is stated that the Society is a secular voluntary association working for the welfare of the craftsman community. Among its main objectives include the full-fledged development and promotion of handicrafts through the organisation of exhibition and sales of handicrafts throughout the country. According to the petitioner, it has been successful in assisting Indian Craftsmen to find markets for their products and thereby of immense help to them in avoiding middle men and conventional shop owners. The Society decided to conduct Onam Exhibition-cum-Sale in Mamman Mappila Town Hall, Kottayam from 8-8-1999 to 24-8-1999. The decision was taken as early as in August, 1998. Pursuant to the decision, the petitioner forwarded an application to the ...
Tag this Judgment!C.C. Aravindan Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Ker28
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Question that has come for consideration in this case is whether the State Government is justified in demanding forest development tax from the petitioner for the coffee seeds purchased by him in the auction conducted on 19-9-1996 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kalpetta under Section 75A of the Kerala Forest Act. 2. Divisional Forest Officer, Kalpetta held a public auction on 19-9-1996 for the sale of dried coffee cherry obtained from coffee plants raised in the vested forest of Pambra, Cheeyambam and Kallumala during the year 1995-96. The terms and conditions of auction were published in the Kerala Gazette dated 4-7-1995 and 3-9-1996. Petitioner was the highest bidder and the sale was confirmed in his favour by the Conservator of Forests, Northern Circle, Kozhikode by order dated 25-10-1996. The total value of the coffee cherry purchased by him was Rs. 36,36,702/-. As per the sale conditions published in the Gazette notification, he was liable to pay ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »