Kerala Court August 2001 Judgments
Rajendran Vs. Jose
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT(Cri)415; 2002CriLJ3911
ORDERT.M. Hassan Pillai, J. 1. Heard.2. The grievance highlighted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner against that part of the judgment impugned (judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Earnakulam in Crl. A.298/98) is that instead of directing the court below to take steps under the provisions of Ss. 431 and 421 Cr.P.C. to recover the compensation awarded the learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal preferred by him directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months if default is committed in payment of compensation awarded.3. The contention urged before me by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner very strongly is well merited. S. 357(3) Cr. P.C. is an important provision and the power to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition thereto, it cannot be argued (Counsel for 1st respondent rightly not argued below me) that compensation awarded is fine. It is money other than fine payable by virtu...
Tag this Judgment!Rubberind Enterprises Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-2001
Reported in: [2002]128STC63(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. The assessee in this case claims the benefit of S.R.O. No. 1003 of 1991. But, according to the department, this notification has been superseded by S.R.O. No. 372 of 1992 and this has been upheld by the Tribunal. The question to be considered is whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of S.R.O. No. 1003 of 1991. S.R.O. No. 1003 of 1991 is a notification issued under Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. It reads as follows : In exercise of the powers under Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, the Government hereby make an exemption in respect of the tax payable under the said Act on the sale or purchase, as the case may be, of goods specified below payable by persons or units with regard to their turnover, subject to the conditions and restrictions specified therein. The goods involved in this case is rubber. That is referred as third item in the notification which is as follows :'Tax on the purchase of rubber by small-scale in...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Vs. Moongalar Estate
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: I(2002)ACC478; II(2002)ACC319; 2002ACJ478; (2001)IILLJ1582Ker
V.P. Mohankumar, J.1. The substantial question of law raised in this appeal is whether the death of a workman due to aggravated chronic obstructive airway disease would be described as accident arising out of and in the course of employment coming within the ambit of S. 3(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the entitle the legal her to claim compensation thereunder. The brief facts are as under.2. The wife of the deceased workman is the appellant. The workman Chellaswamy was employed in the estate of the respondent as a Tractor Driver. He used to work in the shift from 2 pm to 9p.m. everyday carrying tea leaves plucked from the plantation to the factory. It was alleged that on 7.8.1993 he suffered a personal injury in that on 7.8.1993 after coming back from his place of employment at about 9 p.m. he complained of severe chest pain, that he was taken to the estate dispensary from where he was taken to the employer's hospital where he was unde...
Tag this Judgment!United Engineering and Constructions Vs. Rajan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ856
K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. This M.F.A. is preferred by the 2nd opposite party in W.C.C.21/94 in the court of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kollam challenging the imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- invoking the provisions of Sub-section 3 of Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act.2. The 1st respondent who was a workman under the appellant instituted the above claim for compensation before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Dhalli, Shimla against the 2nd respondent in this appeal as the sole opposite party and that claim petition was transferred by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Lollam by invoking Section 21(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act for enquiry and disposal. Accordingly after enquiry the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kollam by the impugned order awarded Rs. 89,730/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum from 15.11.1991, the date of the accident and dire...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Varghese Vs. Additional Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-2001
Reported in: [2002]126STC247(Ker)
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Petitioner is proceeded against as per exhibit P4 in respect of sales tax arrears for the period 1987-88 to 1993-94. According to the petitioner, his involvement in the partnership firm by name Filtrol Chemicals, Mattoor, Kalady was only for a limited period and he is prepared to pay the liability, if any, to that extent. It is also submitted that the petitioner had given due intimation regarding his retirement from the firm to the first respondent. It is submitted by the petitioner that without conducting a proper enquiry under Section 17(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, coercive steps are now taken against the petitioner in respect of the liability. It is seen from exhibit P4 that there is already an attachment of the property belonging to the petitioner. What remains is the sale of the property. The limited prayer of the petitioner is that once the first respondent conducts a proper enquiry as contemplated under Section 17(3) of the Act, there, will ...
Tag this Judgment!Peter Mathew Vs. Betty John
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT(Cri)404; 2001CriLJ4555
ORDERN. Krishnan Nair, J. 1. This is a petition filed under S. 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure C order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate III, Thrissur in Crl.M.P. No. 2146/2001 in C.C. No. 770/99. 2. The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 770/99 on the file of the J.F.C.M. III, Thrissur. The case arose on a complaint filed by the first respondent against the petitioner alleging the commission of the offence punishable under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Police has also registered crime No. 144/99 of the Peechi police station against the petitioner on the basis of a private complaint filed by the first respondent alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Ss. 409 and 420 of the IPC. The petitioner preferred a petition before the lower court under S. 210 of the Cr.P.C. for staying the proceedings in C.C. 770/1999. The lower court dismissed h petition by a common order in Crl.M.C. No. 2148/2001 in C.C. 686/99 and Crl. M.P. No. 2146/2001 in C.C. N...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vijaya Retreaders
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR53(Ker)
P.K. Balasubramanyan,J.1. This income-tax reference is at the instance of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The questions referred to are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-see is entitled to deduction under Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that 'the assessee was employing a process which was akin to manufacture resulting in the production of commercially a new commodity different from the old and worn out castings' and is not the above finding wrong and unreasonable in law and fact ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that no new Article or thing with a substantially changed identity of a product is emerged from the preretreaded tyre, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that 'even if retreading does not amount to manufa...
Tag this Judgment!Kamarudheen Vs. Shoukkathali
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT(Cri)480; 2002CriLJ1289
N. Krishnan Nair, J. 1. This petition is filed under S. 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the common order dated 3.3.2001 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram in Crl.M.P. No. 1525/2001 and Crl.M.P. 1524/2001 in S.T. 6706/1998. 2. The petitioner is the accused in S.T. 6706/1998. The case arose on a complaint filed by the first respondent against the petitioner alleging the commissioner of the offence punishable under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was examined as PW1 and two other witnesses were examined as PWs. 2 and 3. After the examination of the accused under S. 313 of the Cr.P.C. the case was posted for defence evidence. Though sufficient opportunity was given to the accused to adduce defence evidence, no witness was cited or examined on the defence side. Therefore, the learned Magistrate posted the case for arguments on 3.3.2001. On that day, the accused filed C.M.P. No. 1525/2001 and C.M.P. 1524/2001 to resummon the complainant to examine him as a...
Tag this Judgment!Gourikutty Vs. Raghavan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ1356
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. These two appeals are preferred against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 37 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode. A.S. No. 240 of 1991 is filed by the 6th defendant, while A.S. No. 513 of 1991 is filed by defendants 1 to 3. The facts relevant for the purpose of the appeal are as follows:2. The suit was filed for damages. The seventh plaintiff in the suit underwent an operation for Tubectomy conducted by the sixth defendant on 11.9.1971 in the Government General Hospital, Calicut. The fifth defendant performed Anesthesia for the said purpose. After the operation, the seventh plaintiff did not regain consciousness even after so many days. The first plaintiff, the husband of the seventh plaintiff was under the hope that his wife would regain consciousness. It is stated that even today she remains unconscious. According to the plaintiffs, it is due to negligence of defendants 5 and 6 that the mishap occurred. At the time of operation, th...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. M.K. Gourikutty and Etc. Vs. M.K. Raghavan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Ker398
Sankarasubban, J. 1. These two appeals are preferred against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 37 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode. A. S. No. 240 of 1991 is filed by the 6th defendant, while A.S. No. 513 of 1991 is filed by defendants 1 to 3. The facts relevant for the purpose of the appeal are as follows :The suit was filed for damages. The seventh plaintiff in the suit underwent an operation for Tubectomy conducted by the sixth defendant on 11-9-1971 in the Government General Hospital, Calicut. The fifth defendant performed Anesthesia for the said purpose. After the operation, the seventh plaintiff did not regain consciousness even after so many days. The first plaintiff, the husband of the seventh plaintiff was under the hope that his wife would regain consciousness. It is stated that even today she remains unconscious. According to the plaintiffs, it is due to negligence of defendants 5 and 6 that the mishap occurred. At the time of operation, the s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »