Kerala Court December 2002 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.
Aboobacker Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALT(Cri)151; 2003(1)KLT42
ORDERR. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. The important question that came up for consideration was whether the Public Prosecutor who was not in charge of the case was competent to file a request for withdrawal from the prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C.2. Out of the eleven accused arrayed in C.C. No. 22/95 pending before the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track-I), Manjeri, nine were; facing the trial for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 326 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Two of theaccused were not available for trial and the case against them was spiked. Twelvewitnesses were examined as PWs. 1 to 12 and the case stood posted for questioningthe accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. At that stage the Public Prosecutor who was not ancharge of the ebse filed a request for withdrawal from the prosecution. The courtbelow rejected the above request saying that it was a belated one. The nine accusedwho were facing the trial filed Crl.R.P. No. 1309/2002 and the State filed Crl.R.P. No....
United Brewaries Ltd. Vs. E.S.i. Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR358]; 2003(1)KLT158; (2003)ILLJ900Ker
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. It is an admitted case that incentive had been paid to the employees of the appellant. But it was not counted for the contribution payable to the Employees State Insurance. A demand was made. Thereupon a petition was filed by the appellant before the E.I. Court under Sections 75, 76, 77 of the Employees State Insurance Act seeking a relief that incentive paid does not come within the wages to attract contribution. The court below did not find that contention sustainable and dismissed the application. The court below found that the incentive paid was a part of the wages paid or payable to the workmen concerned. It is in the above background this appeal has been filed.2. The only point is whether the incentive paid in terms of the scheme evolved by the appellant in tune with Clause II of settlement Ext. P8 forms part of the wages.3. It is an admitted fact that there was a long term conciliation settlement. The payment made to the workmen once in three months is i...
Pottengal Aboobacker and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3674
ORDERR. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The important question that came up for consideration was whether the Public Prosecutor who was not in charge of the case was competent to file a request for withdrawal from the prosecution under Section 321 Cr. P.C.2. Out of the eleven accused arrayed in C. C. No. 22/95 pending before the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track-I), Manjeri, nine were facing the trial for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 326 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Two of the accused were not available for trial and the case against them was splitted. Twelve witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 12 and the case stood posted for questioning the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. At that stage the Public Prosecutor who was not in charge of the case filed a request for withdrawal from the prosecution. The Court below rejected the above request saying that it was a belated one. The nine accused who were facing the trial filed Crl. R.P. No. 1309/ 2002 and the State filed Cr...
Dy. Cit Vs. Muthoottu Mini Kuries
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: [2003]128TAXMAN240(Ker)
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. The point raised for decision in this writ appeal is whether before passing an order under section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, the assessing authority should hear the assessee. The brief facts of the case are the following :2. The respondent assessee is a firm engaged in the business of chitty. It filed the returns of income for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 respectively on 7-3-2000 and 27-3-2000. The first appellant took up the matter for assessment. The assessee was directed to appear in his office on 23-5-2000 at 11 a.m. Though the representative of the assessee appeared, no hearing took place as the first appellant was not present on that day. While so, the assessee was served with Ext. P7 order dated 12-7-2000 passed by the assessing authority under section 142(2A) directing it to get its accounts pertaining to the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 audited by Shri P.E..B. Menon, Balan & Co., XXIX/200, Ban...
Sreedharan Vs. Madanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT320
R. Bhaskaran, J. 1. The legal representatives of the plaintiff are the appellants in the second appeal. The suit was filed for injunction restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from obstructing the plaintiff in using the plaint schedule property for drying of fishing nets and for the purpose of keeping and repairing of fishing nets. The case of the plaintiff is that the marginal property is owned by the plaintiff and the plaint schedule property belonging to defendants 1 and 2 was intended to be purchased by the third defendant. The plaint schedule property is back-water shore and it lies immediately north of the marginal property.2. According to the plaintiff, he has acquired easement right by way of prescription for drying fishing nets and keeping the fishing boats and repairing them and the defendants have no manner of right or to obstruct him.3. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court have found that the plaintiffs claim cannot be allowed in view of Section 17(a) of the I...
Bhavani Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: [2003]132STC563(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The assessee is the revision-petitioner. The assessment year concerned is 1981-1982. For the said assessment year the assessee had paid tax on 63,486 kgms of tea valued at Rs. 6,90,695 which was sold in auction. The assesses had also filed return under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 including the said turnover of Rs. 6,90,695.56. The assessment was completed, inter alia, assessing the said turnover to tax. The assessee being aggrieved by certain other matters, which were decided against him, filed appeal before the Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Kollam, which was dismissed. However, in the second appeal filed before the Tribunal, the assessee had raised a ground to the effect that the turnover of Rs. 6,9.0,695 returned by the assessee as taxable turnover is not exigible to tax. The Tribunal rejected the said contention stating that such a contention was not there at the time of assessment and that the assessee itself has recorded the said turnov...
Krishnan Namboodiri Vs. Unni Maya @ Uma Devi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT141
R. Bhaskaran, J. 1. This Second Appeal is filed by the first defendant in a suit for partition. After his death, pending the Second Appeal, his legal heirs have come on record. The plaint schedule property admittedly belonged to Nangu Neeli Antharjanam. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are the children of Nangu Neeli Antharjanam. The plaintiff claimed 1/4th right as the legal heir of Nangu Neeli Antharjanam. The contention of the 1st defendant, who is the son of Nangu Neeli Antharjanam, was that the plaintiff had executed a release deed surrendering of her rights to the first defendant. It is also contended that ail other sisters had executed similar release deeds and the first defendant is the sole owner of the property. The only difference in the case of the plaintiff is that the document was not registered, though signed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also executed a power-of-attorney and that power-of-attorney was registered. The power-of-attorney could not present the docu...
Basselios Thomas I Catholicos Vs. Thomas Mar Athanasius
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT10
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. The Clergy is in Court. The Bishops are looking up to the Bar and the Bench. The sight is symbolic of the turbulent times that the society is passing through. What is the cause before the Court? An appeal against an order of interim injunction.2. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff-respondents has been allowed by the First Addl. District Judge, Ernakulam. The sole defendant has been 'restrained by a temporary injunction order from acting as the Catholicos elect or Bishop and from entering into any of the Parish churches of Malankara Church, administered under 1934 constitution, coming within the Angamaly, Kandanadu and Cochin Dioceses of Malankara Church.....' Hence, this appeal by the defendant. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal may be briefly noticed.3. The plaintiff-respondents filed the suit in their personal capacity as well as represent...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›