Kerala Court December 2000 Judgments
Pokken Vs. Bhagavati Tea Estates Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-2000
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ589Ker
K.A. Mohammed Shafi, J.1. This O.P. is filed by the petitioner to quash Ext.P3 award and direct the first respondent to take back the petitioner in service with back wages from the date of suspension till reinstatement. 2. Petitioner was a worker under the first respondent. Alleging that on some night prior to May 23, 1987 the petitioner along with his co-worker one Ramakrishnan trespassed into one of the servants quarters within the compound of estate Managers bunglow and committed theft of two wooden cots, a memo of charges was issued to the petitioner. Though the petitioner denied the allegation, enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and the co-worker and he was kept under suspension pending enquiry. An enquiry officer was appointed and after enquiry it was found that the charge against the petitioner was proved. On the basis of and accepting enquiry report, by memo dated November 16, 1987 the petitioner was dismissed from service by the first respondent. As against Ext.P1 or...
Tag this Judgment!Omanakuttan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)ALT(Cri)109; [2002]108CompCas503(Ker)
ORDERKurian Joseph, J.1. An interesting novel question of general importance arises for consideration in this Criminal Revision Petition. Is a Magistrate justified in awarding rigorous imprisonment under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act')? It is profitable to extract the said Section as such before analysing the above question:-'138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.- Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing lo the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be Dunished with imprisonmen...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. V. Chithra
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR313(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This reference is made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, at the instance of the Gift-tax Commissioner, Trivandrum. The reference applications are under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958. The assessment years are 1987-88. These arise out of Reference Applications Nos. 60 and 61 of 1998. The questions of law referred to are as follows :In R. A. No. 60 of 1998 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no element of gift was involved when the assessee retired from the firm in which she was a partner ?'In R. A. No. 61 of 1998 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no element of gift was involved when the assessee retired from the firm in which she was a partner ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 17(1)(a) of the Gift-tax A...
Tag this Judgment!Khyrunneesa Vs. Alavi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: I(2001)DMC682
ORDERA. Leksmikutty, J.1. This Crl. Miscellaneous Case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is preferred against the common order of the Sessions Court, Manjeri in Crl.R.P. No. 96 of 1994 and Crl.R.P. No. 116 of 1994.2. The revision petitioner has preferred M.C. No. 95 of 1992 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Manjeri under Section 3(1)(a) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The petitioner is a divorcee and the counter petitioner was her husband. Their marriage took place on 25.12.1980 as per the customs prevailing in the Muslim community. After marriage, they lived together as husband and wife for two months. During 1981, the respondent went abroad as he got a job there. On 19.10.1990, the respondent sent a letter to the brother of the petitioner intimating that he divorced the petitioner. Even after the divorce, the respondent never provided any benefits available to the divorced wife. Hence, the petitioner had filed the petition claiming Rs. 3,000/- to...
Tag this Judgment!Madayi Khyrunneesa Vs. Kuniyachari Alavi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1228
ORDERKu. A. Lekshmikutty, J.1. This Crl. Miscellaneous case Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is preferred against the common order of the Sessions Court, Manjeri in Cr1. R.P. No. 96 of 1994 and Cr1. R.P. No. 116 of 1994.2. The revision petitioner has preferred M.C. No. 95 of 1992 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Manjeri Under Section 3(1)(a) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The petitioner is a divorcee and the counter petitioner was her husband. Their marriage took place on 25-12-1980 as per the custom prevailing in the Muslim Community. After marriage, they lived together as husband and wife for two months. During 1981, the respondent went abroad as he got a job there. On 19.10.1990 the respondent sent a letter to the brother of the petitioner intimating that he divorced the petitioner. Even after the divorce, the respondent never provided any benefits available to the divorced wife. Hence, the petitioner has filed the petition claiming Rs. 3,00...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. Smt. V. Chithra
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Ker)553
S. Sankarasubban, J.This reference is made by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, at the instance of the Commissioner of Gift Tax, Trivandrum. The reference applications are under section 26(1) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958. The assessment year is 1987-88. These arise out of Reference Application Nos. 60 and 61 of 1998. The questions of law referred to are as follows :In R.A. 60/98 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no element of gift was involved when the assessee retired from the firm in which he was a partner ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty levied under section 17(1)(a) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958 ?2. The facts which gave rise to the above reference are as follows :The assessee V. Chithra was a partner of the firm, M/s G.G. Hospital, Trivandrum. She retired from the firm during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1987-88 without receiv...
Tag this Judgment!Cherichi Vs. Ittianam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Ker184
C. Sasidharan, J.1. O.P. No. 138 of 1986 was filed by the respondents in this appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Trichur for granting letters of administration in respect of a Will alleged to have been executed by Kakkassery Ippuru on 8.5.1967. Since the appellant who was the respondent in the above Original Petition raised the contention that ippuru did not execute the Will as alleged by the respondents, the Original Petition was converted as a suit, a contentious proceeding and if was tried and disposed of by the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge found that Ext. A1 Will was executed by Ippuru and directed granting of letters of administration in respect of the Will in favour of the first respondent.2. Kunhiri was the first wife of Ippuru and they had a son by name Vareed and a daughter, the 6th respondent Kunhitti alias Molutty. After the death of the first wife, Ippuru married the 7th respondent and in that marriage, Ippuru had two daughters, Mariyamma and P...
Tag this Judgment!Kammukutty Vs. Muhammed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)ALT(Cri)100
ORDERR. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. This petition under S. 482 Cr.P.C. is at the instance of the complainant in C.C.No. 450/1994 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Parappanangadi, challenging the order in CMP No. 5577/1997 rejecting the prayer for examining the witnesses from the fresh witness schedule. The petitioner filed the complaint againstrespondents 1 to 7 alleging the commission of offences under Ss. 143, 447, 448, 427 and 506(1) read with S. 149 IPC. Along with the complaint, he filed a witness schedule. The complainant and two witnesses namely his wife and sister were examined. It was alleged that the four other witnesses scheduled in the witness list were won over by the accused and as they were not inclined to support the case of the complainant, he filed a subsequent witness list along with CMP No. 5577 of 1997. The court below dismissed the above petition holding that it shall cause prejudice to the interest of the accused as well as the interest of justice. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax and ors. Vs. T.K. Shahal Hassan Musaliar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: [2001]247ITR832(Ker)
ORDERS. Sankarasubban J.1. This is an application filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum. He prays that the second direction in paragraph 18 of the judgment (at page 407) may be corrected by including the name 'the Tax Recovery Officer' in the place of the Department. In this case we have relied on the direction given by the Supreme Court earlier. In the earlier Supreme Court judgment, it was held that the Tax Recovery Officer will only use the procedure in the Travancore Income-tax Act so far as it is possible to apply it. Hence we are of the view that necessary clarification is necessary to substitute the word 'Tax Recovery Officer' instead of the word 'Department' in direction No. 2 in paragraph 18 of the judgment (at page 407). This petition is accordingly altowed....
Tag this Judgment!Kolangarakath Kammukutty Vs. Kodakkattakath Puthenveettil Muhammed and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ871
ORDERR. Rajendra Babu, J.1. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is at the instance of the complainant in C.C. No. 450/1994 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Parappanangadi, challenging the order in CMP No. 5577/1997 rejecting the prayer for examining the witnesses from the fresh witness schedule. The petitioner filed the complaint against respondents 1 to 7 alleging the commission of offences under Sections 143, 447, 448, 427 and 506(1) read with Section 149, IPC. Along with the complaint. he filed a witness schedule. The complainant and two witnesses namely his wife and sister were examined. It was alleged that the four other witnesses scheduled in the witness list were won over by the accused and as they were not inclined to support the case of the complainant, he filed a subsequent witness list along with CMP No. 5577 of 1997. The Court below dismissed the above petition holding that it shall cause prejudice to the interest of the accused as well as the intere...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »