Kerala Court March 2001 Judgments
St. Joseph's Hospital, Karuvanchal Vs. Jimmy P.K. and Ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-20-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Ker316
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J. 1. Petitioner is the Director of a hospital. First respondent filed a complaint against the hospital before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur regarding the treatment of his wife late Simi. A notice was issued on 17-2-1999 to the hospital showing the posting date of the case as 14-4-1999, But 14-4-1999 was declared as a holiday and the case was taken up on 16-4-1999 and the petitioner was declared ex parte. Aggrieved by the above, petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order under Order IX, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That was rejected by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur by Ext. P6, Against the above order this writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Since the order challenged in this petition is the order of the Tribunal, Article 227 will only apply in this case. The procedure in respect of a complaint is specifically mentioned in Section 13 of the Consumer Protection...
Tag this Judgment!Ali Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT(Cri)25
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. These two appeals arise from one and the same judgment passed by the Special Judge for trail of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act cases, Vadakara in S.C.No. 32/97. The two appellants are accused 1 and 2 respectively in the aforesaid case involving offence under S. 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act.2.The prosecution alleged that at about 5.30 p.m. on 5.7.1996 PW.7 Sub Inspector of Panniyankara Police Station received information that a person dressed in white shirt and dhoti nad another person in brown pants and striped shirt and aged about 30-35 years were engaged in the sale of brown sugar near Meenchanda Railway Gate at Kozhikode. After recording the information and sending a report to the Circle Inspector of Police, who is the Official Superior, he proceeded to the spot along with other policemen. On the way, they also took PW-3 and PW-6, two independent witnesses along with them. On reaching the portion near the northern side of the Railway Gate, Meenchan...
Tag this Judgment!Somasundaram Vs. P. Chandra Bose and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4370
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The petitioner, who is the accused in C.C. No. 153/94 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Alappuzha, is aggrieved that Crl. M.P. No. 7651/98 filed by the counsel assisting the Public Prosecutor, who is conducting the case, was allowed enabling him to recall P.Ws. 4 and 5 who were already examined.2. Mr. S. Vijaya Kumar, who appeared for the petitioner, submitted that the powers of a counsel who is allowed to assist the Public Prosecutor are limited and that he is incompetent to file an application of the nature involved here. The right to recall a witness vests with the Assistant Public Prosecutor and the mere fact that some one is appearing to assist him does not clothe him with the authority to file an application to recall the witness.3. Even though the respondents entered appearance, the counsel was found absent on 12-3-2001 and 14-3-2001 and the case was adjourned to this date and today also the learned counsel for the respondents is found abse...
Tag this Judgment!Pallathumpadikkal Rayankutty Vs. Saidalavi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Ker218
D. Sreedevi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment in A.S. No. 59/86 of the Sub Court, Tirur, which was filed against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 184/83 of the Munsiff's Court. Tirur. Defendants 2 to 4 are the appellants. During the pendency of this appeal the first appellant passed away and his legal representatives are recorded as appellants 2 and 3 as per order dated 28-10-1999.2. The plaintiffs filed the above suit for redemption of mortgage in respect of the plaint schedule property. The plaint property originally belonged to Saidalikutty, the father of plaintiffs 1 to 6 and the husband of 7th plaintiff as set apart to his share in the family partition in 1949. Saidalikutty mortgaged the property in favour of the 1stdefendant. The mortgagor was allowed to take the income and to adjust the same towards interest on the amount borrowed. Saidalikutty died and his right devolved on his legal representatives who are plaintiffs 1 to 7. The 1st defendant ass...
Tag this Judgment!Lini Mohan John Vs. Mohan John
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Ker309
ORDERD. Sreedevi, J.1. Petitioner under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act.2. Petitioner is the wife and the respondent is the husband. They are Indian Christians governed by the Indian Divorce Act for the purpose of materimonial reliefs. Their marriage was solemnised on 14-7-1986 at the St. George Orthodox Church, Paliyekkara, Thiruvalla. While they were living together a child was born to them and she is now 10 years of age. The petitioner has filed this O.P. for a decree of divorce on the ground that she was treated with cruelty and that she was deserted and neglected for more than a period of two years. The petitioner has alleged that she has been subjected to mental and physical cruelty. She has narrated the instances of mental cruelty, as failure to look after the welfare of the child, addiction to gambling and refusal to speak the truth. According to the petitioner, even after the birth of the child, his attitude towards her has not changed, but only worsened. Even when she wa...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.M. Zainalabdeen Musaliar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-2001
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Ker)243; [2001]250ITR534(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This income-tax reference is at the instance of the Revenue. The following questions have been referred to this court, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition in its entirety ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had acted on materials or evidence before it to hold that the figures given before the sales tax authorities could not be the correct figures and that since there were only two figures before the Tribunal and that one figure was not based on any proper material the other figure is the only figure which it may adopt ?'2. The facts of the case are as follows : The assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from cashew export. For the assessment year 1981-82, the original assessment was made with the addition of Rs. 45,650 as profit on unaccounted sales of cashew kernels totalling to 415...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnanlal and Co. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-2001
Reported in: [2001]123STC124(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This tax revision case is filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam in T.A. No. 370 of 1996. Revision petitioner was engaged in arrack business. There were three inspections in the petitioner's shop. It was found that the petitioner was not properly maintaining the account. On inspection, there was a shortage of arrack. As per the records, the shortage was 1,660 litres of arrack, which according to the petitioner will be worth only Rs. 100. Hence, an addition of an amount of Rs. 3,34,110 was proposed for the said variation. The assessing authority increased the valuation by Rs. 2,000 while the appellate authority reduced it by Rs. 1,000. In addition to that, an assessment was made with regard to curry rent.2. So far as the first question is concerned, it is true that the accounts were rejected. But according to us, the addition made on the ground that sale of arrack was suppressed is not correct. As was stated in Kuruvila Chacko v. St...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Parthas Trust
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-2001
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Ker)245; [2001]249ITR120(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. The question of law referred in this case is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and fact in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation. The facts are as follows : The assessee is a private trust. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on certain buildings. According to the Assessing Officer, the buildings had not been registered in the name of the assessee-trust. On appeal, the first appellate authority held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the buildings as they were constructed by the trust (though the land in which they stood were not registered in their name). The Tribunal held that even if the land does not belong to him, the assessee would be entitled to depreciation. The Tribunal also held that there is nothing in Section 32 which bars such a claim being made. 2. Learned counsel for the Department, Sri P. K. Ra...
Tag this Judgment!C.T. Joseph Vs. I.V. Philip
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Ker300
Sankarasubban, J.1. Both these appeals are filed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 258 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kottayam. A.S. No. 180 of 1991 is the appeal filed by the plaintiff, while A.S. No. 105 of 1991 is the appeal filed by the fourth defendant. The suit was filed for realisation of Rs. 2,06,985/-. The case of the plaintiff is as follows :2. First defendant is a Partnership Firm carrying on the business of dealers in rubber in Paika. Defendants 2 to 6 are its partners and they are close relatives. The plaintiff was having dealings with the first defendant --Firm for more than 10 years. On a final settlement of accounts arrived at between the plaintiff and the first defendant represented by its partner the fourth defendant on 19-8-1985 the amount due to the plaintiff from the first defendant -- Firm was settled at Rs. 2,06,985/-. The fourth defendant handed over to the plaintiff a cheque for the said amount drawn on Grindlays Bank, Wellingto...
Tag this Judgment!Kunnamkulam Book Company Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-2001
Reported in: [2002]125STC229(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. These four tax revision cases are filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Palakkad in T.A. Nos. 131, 132, 133 and 134 of 2000. Petitioner is the manufacturer and dealer of books, note books and other paper products. The assessment years are 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89. One of the questions that was posed before the Tribunal was whether there was manufacturing process in changing the paper into books. Under entry 136 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, paper (other than news print), card boards and their products was taxed at the point of first sale in the State by a dealer who is liable to tax under Section 5. According to the assessee, it is not the first purchaser. It purchased papers and tax was being paid and thereafter, it converted the same into note books and sold them. According to the assessee, the sale of such note books will not attract tax liability. It is not the first sale...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »