Kerala Court August 2000 Judgments
K. Selvaraj @ Surendran Vs. P. Jayakumary
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4748; II(2001)DMC13
Kurian Joseph, J.1. A destituted wife and her child, both in distress, claiming maintenance from the husband/father are the petitioners in M.C No. 173 of 1992 on the files of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the 1st petitioner-wife, both the husband and wife are Hindu Nadars and they were joined in wedlock in January, 1982. During the subsistence of the said marriage, she became pregnant and during the fourth month of pregnancy she was taken to her house and was neglected thereafter. She gave birth to the 2nd petitioner on 8.3.1983. Unable to maintain herself and the child, she claimed maintenance for herself and the child from the counter petitioner-husband who had sufficient means to provide maintenance to them. The husband denied the existence of marriage between the parties as also paternity of the child.2. The Family Court framed issues regarding existence of marriage between the parties, entitlement of the 1st petitioner-wife to separate maintenance and the quan...
Tag this Judgment!Transport Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Company ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1191
Sankarasubban, J.1. This C.M. Appeal is filed against the judgment in A. S. No. 183 of 1984 of a learned single Judge of this Court. Defendant is the appellant. O.S. No. 437 of 1980 on the file of the IIIrd Additional Sub-Court, Ernakulam was filed by the respondents herein against the present appellant. The suit was filed by the respondents for recovery of an amount of Rs. 80,560.89. First respondent is the United India Insurance Company Ltd. and the second respondent is the Hindustan MachineTools Ltd. The suit was filed by the respondents, first respondent being acting as power of attorney holder of the second respondent.2. According to the plaint averments, the Hindustan Machine Tools Limited, Kalamassery consigned to the National Aeronautical Laboratory, Bangalore one NH-26/ 1500 mm. Centre Lathe with accessories. The second plaintiff entrusted the said Lathe to the defendant on 3-11-1977 at Kalamassery. Defendant is a carrier. The defendant carried the consignment under G. C. Note...
Tag this Judgment!Lissy Lyju and anr. Vs. Tahsildar and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Ker82
Koshy, J. 1. All these original petitions are filed challenging the orders of assessment under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act). The buildings in question, though integral ones, portions of which are alleged to belong to various persons separately and they claimed separate assessment in their names. Their claim is based upon the definition of 'building' in Section 2 (e) of the Act as well as Explanation 2 to the above sub-section. It is also submitted that tax is payable by the owner and if a separate ownership in separate flat, apartment or separate portions is proved, there should be separate assessment based upon the definition of 'owner' as well as the liability to pay tax. These buildings are also commercial buildings and a contention was raised by the Revenue that, in any event, Explanation to Section 2 (e) of the Act is not applicable to commercial buildings. Considering the various contentions, thelearned single Judge referred these matter...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Vs. K. Mohanan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ1784; [2000(87)FLR699]; (2001)ILLJ368Ker
M. Ramachandran, J. 1. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kozhikode had, by a common order dated August 3, 1991, disposed of two claims, W.C.C.Nos. 184 and 186 of 1990 filed before him claiming compensation under the Act. The claim arose consequent to a motor accident. KRZ 9239, a stage carriage vehicle, on February 22, 1990 was under the charge of K.Mohanan (applicant in WCC No. 184/1990) and K. Kunhimoideen (applicant in WCC No. 186/1990) who were respectively the conductor and driver thereof. Another bus coming from behind had hit the above vehicle, at Cheruvannur on the said day. As a result of the accident, they claimed, they had sustained severe injuries. They were given treatment in the out patient section of the Medical College Hospital, Calicut and thereafter were receiving, according to them, medical attention for a considerable period. The claimants version was that they were completely disabled to do their work and consequently claimed Workmen's Compensation from ...
Tag this Judgment!Ambadi Valappil Ramla Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ434
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. Petitioner is the wife of one Thallassery Parambil Abdul Saleem, who has been detained in the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA Act').2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband arrived at Thiruvananthapuram by Qatar Airways Flight No. QR 240 from Abudabi. On enquiry by the Officers, Abdul Saleem (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') informed his name and address. On examination of his customs clearance gate pass, it was noticed that on arrival the detenu had opted for green channel and he had not paid any customs duty. To a question whether he had any gold or any other valuable item on his person or inside his baggage, the detenu replied in the negative. Thereafter, the detenu was taken along with his baggage to the X-ray room inside the baggage hall. A detailed examination was conducted by the Offic...
Tag this Judgment!Mar themotheous Birth Centenary Press Vs. Santhosh Raj
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ1085; [2000(87)FLR736]; (2001)ILLJ200Ker
1. The employer in WCC No. 126 of 1991 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Thrissur is the appellant herein. One Santhosh Raj, claiming to be a workman employed by the appellant, had filed an application under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. His case was that in the course of his employment, on December 5, 1988, his right hand got entangled in the printing machine and three fingers got amputated. As no compensation was paid to him, according to him, he was constrained to file the application. 2. The employer resisted the application. It was stated that the establishment is a charitable institution and the claimant was a student who received training there. The accident according to them had occurred due to his carelessness and the applicant was not receiving any payments, he being not an employee.3. Parties had adduced evidence in support of their respective stands. By order dated May 15, 1993 the Commissioner had allowed the claim. The compensation was as...
Tag this Judgment!Transport Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-2000
Reported in: III(2002)ACC738
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This CM. appeal is filed against the judgment in A.S. No. 183 of 1984 of a learned Single Judge of this Court. Defendant is the appellant. O.S. No. 437 of 1980 on the file of the III Additional Sub-Court, Ernakulam was filed by the respondents herein against the present appellant.The suit was filed by the respondents for recovery of an amount of Rs. 80,560.89. Respondent No. 1 is United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and the respondent No. 2 is the Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. The suit was filed by the respondents, respondent No. 1 being acting as power of attorney holder of the respondent No. 2.2. According to the plaint averments, the Hindustan Machine Tools Limited, Kalamassery consigned to the National Aeronautical Laboratory, Bangalore one NH-26/1500 mm Centre Lathe with accessories. The plaintiff No. 2 entrusted the said lathe to the defendant on 3.11.1977 at Kalamassery. Defendant is a carrier. The defendant carried the consignment under G.C. Note No. 15719 date...
Tag this Judgment!O.A. Joseph and Etc. Vs. Chairman, Board of Governors Sainik Schools S ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Ker7
ORDERC.S. Rajan, J.1. Petitioner in O.P. No. 21271/ 99 is a parent of a Cadet in Sainik school, Kazhakoottam studying in the XIIth standard of the CBSC course. The petitioners in O.P.No. 21288/99 are the President and Secretary of the Parents' Association of the Sainik School, Kazhakoottam. The sons of these petitioners are studying in standard IX. The Scheme to establish Sainik School was introduced in 1961 with the primary aim of preparing the boys academically, physically and mentally for entering into the National Defence Academy. According to the Sainik Schools Society Rules and Regulations 1997 (Ext. P1 in O.P.No. 21288/99), the objectives of establishment of the Sainik schools are : 1. To remove regional imbalance in the officer cadre of the defence services. 2. To develop qualities of body, mind and character which will enable the young boys of today to become good and useful citizen of tomorrow. 3. To bring public school education within the reach of the common man. The Sain...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sitaram Textiles Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-2000
Reported in: [2001]248ITR139(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. The above reference arises from I. T. A. No. 620 (Coch) of 1994. The following questions of law are referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'): '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of the relevant provisions, the Tribunal is right in law in holding- (i) it is only in respect of Clause (a) of Section 43B that the distinction between accrual of liability and 'any sum payable' under such accrual was done away with under the terms of Explanation 2 to Section 43B (ii) the distinction between the 'sum payable' and the 'accrual of liability' for such sum is maintained intact in Clause (d) as Explanation 2 is not made applicable to that clause in Section 43B (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also going by the well known principles of auditing extracted in the enclosure, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding- (i) Clause ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sitaram Textile Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)164CTR(Ker)252; [2000]113TAXMAN241(Ker)
Sankarasubban, J.The above reference arises from IT Appeal No. 620 (Coch.) of 1994. The following questions of law are referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'1 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of the relevant provisions, the Tribunal is right in law in holding(i) it is only in respect of clause (a) of section 43B that the distinction between accrual of liability and 'any sum payable' under such accrual was done away with under the terms of Explanation 2 to section 43B ?(ii) the distinction between the 'sum payable' and the 'accrual of liability' for such sum is maintained in act in clause (c) as Explanation 2 is not made applicable to that clause in section 43B?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also going by the well-known principles of audit in extracted in the enclosure, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding -(i) clause (d) of section 43B...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »