Kerala Court January 2003 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.
Syndicate Bank, Represented by Its Manager C. Sridhara Kamath, S/O. La ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker284; I(2004)BC234; [2003]117CompCas312(Ker)
1. Against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 39/1990 on the file of the Sub Court, Kasaragod, this appeal is filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money. An amount of Rs. 25,000/advanced by the plaintiff to the first defendant and the second defendant was the surety. On the date of advancement of money, the defendants have jointly executed a memorandum of agreement in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 12% per annum with the compound interest with quarterly rests. As per the agreement, the amount has to be repaid in monthly instalments of Rs. 325/from 12-10-1984 and the last instalment was due on 12-2-1991. The said amount was borrowed by the first defendant for business purposes. The first defendant had hypothecated the goods and the machinery which is described as B schedule in the plaint. The defendants further agreed to pay overdue interest at 12.5% per annum. An amount of Rs. 36,621/- is due from the defend...
Syamala Vs. Gopakumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC278; 2003(2)KLT918
ORDERR. Basant, J. 1. Against the dismissal of a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act the complainant has preferred this Revision Petition. 2. On the fundamental facts there appears to be no dispute at all. The cheque was one for Rs. 75,000/-. It was dated 30th March, 1994. The complainant/revision petitioner herein is not the payee. The payee is the mother of the revision petitioner. The said cheque when presented for encashment was dishonoured on 23rd April, 1994 on the ground that there is no sufficient amount available in the account to honour the cheque. The deceased payee sent a registered notice of demand dated 26th April, 1994. It was returned unclaimed on 19th May, 1994. Within two days of the date on which the demand notice was issued (26thApriI 1994) the payee died (on 28th April 1994). The accused did not of course make the payment of the amount demanded within the stipulated time to the legal heir. It is in these circumstances that the complainant, as the legal heir of the...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.C. John
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Ker)352
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The following questions of law are referred by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the IT Act at the instance of the CIT, Kochi for decision by this Court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in the light of the provisions of Section 115E, the assessee is eligible for the rebate under Section 88 of the IT Act, 1961?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the computation of the tax liability denying the rebate under Section 88 was by way of a prima facie adjustment, which could not be made under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act?'2. The brief facts necessary are as follows : The respondent-assessee is a nonresident Indian. The assessment year concerned is 1994-95. The only income of the assessee is income from investments made in India. In the return filed by the assessee for the year. 1994-95 he made a claim for rebate under Section 88 of the Act on PPF of Rs. 40,000 and M...
M. Sathyanesan Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker356
ORDER1. The petitioner is a formerDistrict Committee Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), He has filedthis petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with the prayer that the reportdated September 28, 2002, a copy of whichhas been produced as Ext. P5 with the writpetition, submitted by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. P. Mohankumar Commission of Inquiry, be quashed, A few facts as relevantfor the decision of this case may be brieflynoticed.2. In October 2000, a liquor tragedy had taken place in the State of Kerala. The State Government had constituted a Single Man Inquiry Commission to enquire into the liquor tragedy, The Commission was also asked to enquire and report about the possible involvement of Government Officers and public men in abetting or aiding the smuggling of illicit liquor.2A. On August 17, 2002, the petitioner was given a notice by the Commission. In this notice, it was inter alia pointed out that an amount of Rs. 3,37,000/- had been paid to the petition...
Cit Vs. K.C. John
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN793(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.The following questions of law are referred by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi for decision by this court :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in the light of the provisions of section 115E, the assessee is eligible for the rebate under section 88 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the computation of the tax liability denying the rebate under section 88 was by way of a prima facie adjustment, which could not be made under section 143(1)(a) of the Act?'2. The brief facts necessary are as follows : The respondent-assessee is a non-resident Indian. The assessment year concerned is 1994-95. The only income of the assessee is income from investments made in India. In the return filed by the assessee for the year 1994-95 he made a claim for rebate under section 88 of ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Celinamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC682; III(2003)ACC264; 2003ACJ623; 2003(1)KLT701
J.B. Koshy, J.1. In all these appeals, the main question for consideration is whether passengers of private vehicles carried not for hire or reward (gratuitous passengers) are covered by insurance policies called 'Act policies' which are taken only to meet the minimum requirements of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the old Act'). Facts are not disputed. In all these appeals, the accidents took place during the period 17.1.1980 to 10.3.1988, that is, during the period when old Act was in force as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the new Act') came into force only with effect from 1.7.1989. All these appeals except M.F.A. No. 1158 of 1994 were filed by the insurance companies as the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals fastened the liability on the insurance company. In M.F.A. No. 1158 of 1994 arising out of O.P. (M.V.) No. 116 of 1991, the Tribunal held that under 'Act policy', the insurer is not liable to indemnify the ow...
Jose Vs. Co-operative Stores Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT978
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. Landlord is the revision petitioner. Rent Control Petition was filed under Sections 11 (2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafterreferred to as 'the Act'). According to the petitioner, the petition schedule room wasobtained by the petitioner under document No. 207/85 from his father. The respondenthad taken the premises on lease from the father of the petitioner on a monthly resit ofRs. 250/-. After the assignment in favour of the petitioner, the matter was duly intimatedto the tenant. The tenant then attorned to him. The petitioner needs the petitionschedule room for his bona fide occupation. He intends to start business in coldstorage. The petitioner has no other building in his possession and he was to start thebusiness for earning his livelihood. The petitioner has made preliminary arrangementsfor starting the cold storage business. It is alleged that the tenant is guilty in keepingthe rent in arrears. ...
Pareeth Vs. Sub Inspector of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT128; (2003)IIILLJ837Ker
Cyriac Joseph, J. 1. The petitioner in this Original Petition is one M.S. Pareeth, Proprietor of M/s. Madathil Traders, Nadakal P.O., Erattupetta, Kottayam District. The respondents are - Sub Inspector of Police, Erattupetta Police Station; Circle Inspector of Police, Erattupetta; The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pala; Ramli, K.T.U.C.(J), KTUC(J)Office, Muttom Junction, Erattupetta; C.H. Basheer, I.N.T.U.C., INTUC Office, Aruvithura, Erattupetta; Sekharan, A.I.T.U.C., AITUC Office, Vadakkekkara Unit, Erattupetta; Pari, S.T.U., STU Office, League House, Market P.O., Erattupetta and Joy George, C.I.T.U., CITU Office, Thekkekkara, Erattupetta. The main prayer is for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate police protection to the petitioner to carry on his business within his premises through his permanent workers. The petitioner also prays for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to carry on his trade and business within his premises by employing his own permane...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bindu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-2003
Reported in: III(2003)ACC293; 2003ACJ1331; AIR2003Ker225; 2003(2)KLT299
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. In all these appeals, the main question for consideration is whether passengers of private vehicles carried not for hire or reward (gratuitous passengers) are covered by insurance policies called 'Act policies' which are taken only to meet the minimum requirements of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the old Act'). Facts are not disputed. In all these appeals, the accidents took place during the period 17.1.1980 to 10.3.1988, that is, during the period when old Act was in force as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the new Act') came into force only with effect from 1.7.1989. All these appeals except M.F.A. No. 1158 of 1994 were filed by the insurance companies as the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals fastened the liability on the insurance company. In M.F.A. No. 1158 of 1994 arising out of O.P. (M.V.) No. 116 of 1991, the Tribunal held that under 'Act policy', the insurer is not liable to indemnify the o...
Kumari T. Punitha Vs. Commissioner for Entrance Examinations and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker158
J.M. James, J. 1. The petitioner, Kumari T. Punitha, D/O. S. Thiyagarajan, Puthukottai, Tamilnadu, in O. P. No. 13172/ 2002 of this court, is the appellant. She belongs to Hindu 'Paraya' community, which is recognised as a Scheduled Caste, as per the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, vide Serial No. 56 of the Schedule, in short 'the orders of 1976'. The father of the appellant is residing in Kerala from 1982 onwards and is working in H. M. T. Limited from 9-8-1992. While studying in 12th standard at Kendriya Vidyalaya, NAD, Aluva, she applied for the entrance examination for admission to the Professional Degree Courses 2002, for Engineering and Medical /Agricultural Courses. The application was submitted in the form prescribed exclusively for admission to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. The caste of the appellant was certified in Ext. P1 certificate by the Tahsildar of Puthukkottai. The 2nd respondent, Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk, Kochi-1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »