Kerala Court June 2002 Judgments
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Alimohammed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALT(Cri)274; 2002CriLJ3722
B.N. Srikrishna, C.J.1. These two appeals involve the question as to whether the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, should interfere with a detention order not actually executed and served on the detenu.2. The facts necessary to appreciate the contentions urged in these two appeals are as under:3. An order of detention was passed on 23.1.1996 vide, Ext. R2(a), in the following terms:'Whereas the Government of Kerala is satisfied with respect to the person known as Sri. Ali Mohammed, Akkara House, Palakkapalli, Pookkottoor Panchayat, Velluvambram P.O., Malappuram District that with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods, it is necessary to make an order directing that the said person shall be detained.Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1)(ii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974), the Government of Kerala direct...
Tag this Judgment!Mini Vs. Station House Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALT(Cri)168
ORDERG. Sasidharan, J. 1.These petitions are filed challenging the orders made by the Magistrate in applications filed by the petitioners in different crimes for getting interim custody of the vehicles alleged to have been used for the commission of the offences. The vehicles have been taken into custody alleging commission of the offences under the Kerala Nadeetheera Samrakshanavum Manalvaral Niyanthranavum Act, 2001. Thevehicles were produced in court and were given to the Station House Officer for being kept by him. The learned Magistrate in the order points out Section 23 of the Act which deals with confiscation of the vehicle used for commission of the offences. There is also direction given by the Magistrate in the order made in application for getting interim custody that the Tahsildar has to take necessary steps to make order of confiscation of the properties seized by the police. There is provision in the Act which says that the vehicle used for commission of the offence can b...
Tag this Judgment!Kode Industrial Chemicals Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: [2004]134STC41(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. Assessee is the petitioner. The year of assessment is 1991. The question for consideration in this case is whether the nickel catalyst is used as raw material in the manufacture of soaps. The petitioner is the manufacturer of nickel catalyst. According to the petitioner, the sale of nickel catalyst was fully to M/s. Kerala Soaps and Oils Limited, Kozhikode which was a company fully owned by the Government of Kerala. The purchasing company represented to the petitioner that the nickel catalyst purchased by it is for use as raw material in the manufacture of soaps and that it will issue form 18 declaration to the petitioner so that the rate of tax is only 2 per cent under Section 5(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 read with rule 28 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963. Accordingly, the petitioner raised invoices on M/s. Kerala Soaps and Oils Limited, Kozhikode charging sales tax at the rate of 2 per cent and the company issued form 18 declaration...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanan Vs. Soudhabi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT289
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. The revision petitioner was the second respondent in R.C.P. No. 6 of 1986, on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kasaragod. The respondent/landlady filed the Rent Control Petition for eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the ground of bona fide need of the landlady and allegation of sublease by the tenant. It is alleged that the revision petitioner/second respondent in the Rent Control Petition was a sublessee under the original tenant, first respondent in the eviction petition. It was their joint contention that the first respondent in the R.C.P. took the premises on lease but, thereafter, he started business in partnership with the revision petitioner. Therefore, there is no exclusive transfer of possession to the second respondent as first respondent himself continues to be the tenant and there is no sublease. The Rent Control Court found that the partne...
Tag this Judgment!V.A. Sivaraman Vs. Vasu and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)19; III(2003)BC73; 2003CriLJ929
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. 1. The complainant in S.T. 50/1991 of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur is aggrieved that the complaint filed by him alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the first respondent herein ended up in acquittal of the accused. 2. The allegation in the complaint was that the accused, who as a goldsmith, had taken loan of 150 gms of gold from the complainant, who was a gold dealer, agreeing to return the same in May, 1990; that there was failure in that regard based on which the matter was talked over and pursuant to settlement an agreement was executed on 29.9.1990 wherein the accused agreed to return the gold by 30.11.1990; that subsequently, on intervention of mediators, the accused issued three cheques of which Ext. P. 1 which is the subject-matter of the present case was one; that in due course the cheque was presented for payment and was dishonoured for want of funds and that in spite of Ext. P4 notice issued t...
Tag this Judgment!Gopi Vs. Sudarsanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4194
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 326 of 1992 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal and the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 330 of 1993 of the Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. He challenges the concurrent findings of the said two courts that he is guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act as also the sentence of R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 5000/- (in default R.I. for three months) imposed therefor.2. In his complaint the present first respondent alleged that he is a financier; that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- in two instalments of Rs. 2,05,000/-and Rs. 65,000/- on 11.3.1991 and 15.3.1991 respectively; that towards repayment of the said amount Ext. P1 cheque was issued based on an assurance contained in an agreement that the cheque would be returned in case the amount was repaid before 31.3.1992; that on presentment the cheque was dishonoured for want of funds o...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Hassan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALT(Cri)133
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. 1. The State challenges the judgment of acquittal passed in C.C. No. 35 of 1994 bythe Sessions Court, Ernakulam. 2. The said case involved offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The prosecution alleged that while trying to maintain law and order at the scene of occurrence, which was in front of the Rayonpuram Post Office at Perumbavoor at about 10.45 A.M. on 8.12.1993, the accused, who does not belong to any Scheduled Caste, intentionally insulted PW1, who was the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Perumbavoor shouting and that in consequence of the said statement the complainant Asst. Sub Inspector was humiliated. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty, Eventhough many witnesses were cited, only PWs. 1 and 9 spoke in terms of the prosecution case.' The trial court found that in the absence of better evidence, especially from the MLA, who was allegedly at the spot during the time of occu...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR289(Ker)
K.K. Denesan, J.1. The following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, at the instance of the assessee :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred on the foreign tour of a wife of the director of a company is not an allowable deduction under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company. In computing the total income for the assessment year 1987-88, the assessee claimed deduction for a sum of Rs. 74,656 as foreign travel expenses of the wives of the directors of the company. The Assessing Officer did not allow the claim stating that the foreign tour of the wives of the directors was not for the purpose of the business. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance concurring with the Assessing Officer. Before the Tribunal the assessee contended that the claim was allowable in view of the decision of the Tribunal (Bombay Bench) in t...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Ker)539
K.K. Denesan, J.The following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, at the instance of the assessee :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred on the foreign tour of a wife of the director of a company is not an allowable deduction under the Income Tax Act, 1961 '2. The assessee is a private limited company. In computing the total income for the assessment year 1987-88, the assessee claimed deduction for a sum of Rs. 74,656 as foreign travel expenses of the wives of the directors of the company. The assessing officer did not allow the claim stating that the foreign tour of the wives of the directors was not for the purpose of the business. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance concurring with the assessing officer. Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that the claim was allowable in view of the decision of the Tribunal (Bombay Bench) in the case of Glaxo Laborat...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Gladstone Vs. Geetha Gladstone and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC617
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. Defendant in O.S. 308 of 1995 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapurarn filed this appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Court below awarding an amount of Rs. 1,500/- to the first plaintiff and Rs. 2,756/- to minor second plaintiff per mensem as maintenance with effect from 14th August, 1993.2. The appellant married the first respondent on 12th August, 1982 as per the customary rites. The second respondent is their daughter. At the time of marriage, the appellant was practising as Physician in a private nursing home. In the year 1986, he was appointed as Assistant Surgeon, E.S.I. Hospital, Chavara, Puthenthura. From the year 1989 onwards the plaintiffs and defendant started residing at their house at Kumarapuram near Medical College. The appellant got admission for Master of Surgery in the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram in 1992. According to the respondents, on 14th August, 1993, the appellant-defendant deserted them and started residin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›