Kerala Court October 2000 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.
Ouseph and anr. Vs. Devassy
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Ker104
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J. 1. The revision petitioners are the defendants in a suit for specific performance. The first petitioner and the respondent are brothers. The former had obtained a loan of Rs. 734/- from the latter. While so, on 22-6-1982 an agreement was entered into between them whereby the revision petitioners, who are man and wife agreed to sell 26.5 cents of land to the respondent for consideration at the rate of Rs. 325/- per cent. Out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 8,612.56 so due, Rs. 734/- was adjusted towards the loan amount. The total consideration paid and received on the date of agreement was Rs. 7,400/- and with regard to the balance, provision was made in the agreement. The respondent was also put in possession. In due course, the respondent moved for specific performance and the suit was decreed in his favour on 31-3-1987. It was directed that the plaintiff should pay a sum of Rs. 1,212.50 on receipt of which the defendants should execute the sale dee...
Ammini @ Unni Maya Nangiar Vs. Lakshmi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-24-2000
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT987
D. Sreedevi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment in A.S. No. 90/87 of theAdditional District Judge, Thrissur, which was filed against the decree and judgment inO.S.No. 117/81 of the Munsiff's Court, Wadakkancherry. The plaintiff before the courtbelow is the appellant.2. The facts, for the purpose of this case, in brief is this: The plaint schedule property having an extent of 26 cents comprised in Sy.No. 1051/4 in Kottapuram Village belongs to the plaintiff. This 26 cents of property is a part and parcel of 42 cents allotted to the plaintiff under a partition deed of the year 1974. The plaintiff has alienated 6 cents to one Kochanthony and 10 cents to one Sankaran Asari, the remaining extent is the plaint schedule property.3. On the eastern side of the plaint schedule property there is a Edavazhi. According to the plaintiff, the defendants are residing on the eastern side of the Edavazhi and they are attending to trespass upon the plaint schedule property and t...
Abdulla Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)ALT(Cri)155
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J. 1. The challenge herein is with regard to the conviction entered against the appellant, who was the accused in S.C. 34/97 of the Sessions Court which is the special court for trial of N.D.P.S. cases, Manjeri for the offence punishable under S. 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act on the allegation that the appellant was found in possession of 35 grams of ganja while sitting near the RMS Office at the Railway Platform, Tirur on 11.12.1996.2. Charge was laid after due investigation and upon trial the accused was found guilty of the offence under S. 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced on 16.7.1997 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months.3. Mr. C.K. Abdul Rehim presented the case of the appellant before me as State Brief. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard.4. During hearing, the learned counsel for the ap...
M. Vs. R.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: II(2001)DMC556
D. Sreedevi, J.1. Petition under Ss. 10, 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act. Petitioner is the wife and the respondent is the husband. The petitioner is a member of the Church of South India and the respondent is a member of Syrian Jacobite Christian Community.2. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was practising Gynaecologist after having passed her M.B.B.S. and D.G.O. and at present she is employed at S.U.T. Hospital, Trivandrum. The respondent is an Engineer employed in Traco Cables Ltd., a Public Sector undertaking of the Government of Kerala. Their marriage was solemnized on 29th November 1993 at Syrian Jacobite Puthen Church, Kundara as per the religious customs prevailing amoung the member of the Syrine Jacobite Church. It was an arranged marriage. The proposal for the marriage appeared in the matrimonial column of the Malayala Manorama, on behalf of the respondent. This was followed by negotiation among the members of the petitioner's and respondent's families and the marr...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. K.P. Luke
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR45(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. The questions of law referred to us are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the insurance amount received by the accountable person from the insurance company in the United States,--(a) was not includible in the principal Value of the estate left by the deceased ?(b) is to be exempted from the levy of estate duty under Section 21(1)(b) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal is right in law in equating 'not includible' with 'exemption' andis not such an approach and understanding wrong and the resultant ordervitiated ?'2. The facts of this case are as follows : One Dr. K. P. Luke who was domiciled in the United States of America died in an accident on November 22, 1974. His wife, Mrs. Alice Kalarickal, received an amount of Rs. 18,06,993 as insurance amount from the insurance company in the USA. The accountable person claimed exemption on this amount on the g...
'A' vs. 'B'
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: II(2001)DMC35
ORDERD. Sreedevi, J.1. Petitioner under Sections 10, 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act. Petitioner Is the wife and the respondent is the husband. The petitioner is a member of the Church of South India and the respondent is a member of Syrian Jacobite Christian Community.2. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was a practising Gynaecologist after havingpassed her M.B.B.S. and D.G.O. and at present she is employed at S.U.T. Hospital, Trivandrum. The respondent is an Engineer employed in Traco Cables Ltd.. a Public sector Undertaking of the Government of Kerala. Their marriage was solemnized on 29-11-1993 at Syrian Jacobite Puthen Church, Kundara as per the religious custom prevailing among the member of the Syrian Jacobite Church. It was an arranged marriage. The proposal for the marriage appeared in the matrimonial column of the Malayala Manorama, on behalf of the respondent. This was followed by negotiation among the members of the petitioner's and respondent's families and the m...
Parol Mammoo, Timber Merchant Vs. Camp Bazar Palli Sabha and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Ker20
D. Sreedevi, J. 1. This Second Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment in A.S. 5/1998 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tellicherry, which was filed against the decree and judgment in O.S. 189/1983 of the Principal Munsiff s Court, Cannanore. The first defendant before the trial Court is the appellant. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of possession with arrears of rent, 2. The plaintiffs case in brief for the purpose of this appeal is this: The building in the plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiff, which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The Society is maintaining and conducting the mosques in the Camp Bazar area. The first defendant was put in possession of the building as per an oral entrustment dated 8-12-1964 on an agreement to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month. The defendant paid rent up to 8-3-1981. Thereafter as the tenant committed default in payment of rent, the plaintiff wanted ...
K. Madayya Shetty Vs. Durgaparameshwari and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Ker77
D. Sreedevi, J.1. This Second Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment In A.S. 12/1986 of the District Court, Kasaragod, which arose out of the decree and judgment in O.S. 98/1979 of the Additional Sub Court, Kasaragod. Defendant No. 10 before the trial Court is the appellant before this Court.2. The above suit was filed by the plaintiffs for partition and delivery of 1 /13 share in the plaint A schedule properties. The plaintiffs and defendant No. 33 are the widow and children of K.P. Narasimha Shetty. They claimed 1/13 share over plaint A schedule properties which, according to them, belongs to the joint family of Narasimha Shetty. They claimed their share as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, as he died after the commencement of the said Act.3. The suit was resisted by various sets of defendants setting up earlier oral partition. The second defendant raised a contention that K.P. Subbayya Shetty had executed a Will Deed, Exhibit B3, in the year 1966 and hence ...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Late Dr. K.P. Luke by L/H Mrs. Alice Kal ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Ker)351
S. Sankarasubban, J.:The questions of law referred to us are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the insurance amount received by the accountable person from the insurance company in the United States:(a) was not includible in the principal value of the estate left by the deceased ?(b) is to be exempted from the levy of estate duty under section 21(1)(b) of the Estate Duty Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in equating not includible with 'exemption' and is not such an approach and understanding wrong and the resultant order vitiated ?'2. The facts of this case are as follows : One Dr. K.P. Luke who was domiciled in the United States of America died in an accident on 22-11-1974. His wife Mrs. Alice Kalarickal received an amount of Rs. 18,06,993 as insurance amount from the insurance company in USA. The accountable person claimed exemption on this amount on the ground that the deceased ...
Mahavir Plantations Limited Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-17-2000
Reported in: [2002]126STC212(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. The petitioners are Mahavir Plantations Ltd. and Jayashree Tea and Industries Ltd., and the same question arises for consideration in all these cases. Both sides agreed that the facts in T.R.C. No. 32 of 2000 may be taken into consideration and the other T.R.Cs. can be disposed of in the light of T.R.C. No.32 of 2000.2. The petitioner is a plantation company engaged in manufacture and sale of tea. The tea produced by the petitioner in its estates is brought to Cochin and entrusted to tea brokers for sale in auction. The petitioner's tea is sold in auction by the brokers. Tea being an item taxable at the point of first sale in the State under item 193 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, the petitioner's sale in auction is the taxable sale. The petitioner submits that until 1984-85 all the planters including the petitioner were paying tax in their own name though the brokers were conducting the auction sales. However, on the basis of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »