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.
The Deputy Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Trade Links Enter ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ523Ker
A. Lekshmikutty, J.1. Against the judgment in T.C. No. 82 of 990 of the E.I. Court, Alappuzha, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party. The respondent, the Trade Links Enterprises, M/s. Trade Links and M/s. Trade Link Agencies are functioning in the same premises. On Suryanarayanan is the Proprietor of M/s. Trade Links. He is the Manager of M/s. Trade Link Agency also. He is also the Power of Attorney holder of the respondent. The total number of employees working in M/s. Trade Links and Trade Link Agencies were more than 19. Trade Link were the importers and dealers of photographic equipments and allied goods. M/s. Trade Link Agencies were dealers in Audio Visual Products and Photographic materials. Therefore the appellant is a covered establishment by clubbing the 3 establishments together. 2. The respondent challenged the above action of the appellant. The Employees Insurance Court held that the action of the appellant in clubbing together the establishments for purpose of co...
Parampat Muhammadali, S/O. Alavi and Younger Brother Parampat Ummer, S ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker286
A. Lekshmikutty, J.1. These Two appeals arise from the common judgment passed in O.S. No. 56/1988 and O.S. No. 67/1988 on the file of the Sub court, Manjeri. The appellants in A.S. No. 177/1992 are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 67/1988 and appellants in A.S. No. 43/1993 are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 56/88 on the file of the Sub Court, Manjeri. Both the suits are filed by the respective parties for partition of the properties scheduled in the respective plaint.2. For the sake of convenience the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 56/1988 can be referred as the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 67/1988 can be referred as the defendants. The case of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 56/1988 is that the property scheduled in the plaint was set apart to the share of Alavi, the father of the plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendants 1 to 4 and husband of the 5th plaintiff as per partition deed No. 1684/1977. He was in possession and enjoyment till his death on 12-8-1984. The plaintiffs and defendants are the legal...
E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT469; (2003)IIILLJ365Ker
A. Lekshmikutty, J.1. The first opposite party filed this appeal against the judgment in I.C. No. 61/1992 on the file of the Insurance Court, Alappuzha. The respondent a covered establishment under the E.S.I. Act filed an application before the learned Insurance Court challenging the assessment and recovery proceedings initiated by the appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,167/- towards contribution and Rs. 1,416/- towards interest. The amount sought to be recovered is with respect to the E.S.I, contribution payable for an amount of Rs. 2,03,681.99 paid as handling charges and sundry charges during the period from 1984 to 1987. The respondent contended that Pune Regional Office within the jurisdiction concerned works were done was closed in March 1986 and the distribution works were entrusted to Ware Housing Corporation of Maharashtra and the claim of the appellant is barred by limitation prescribed in Section 77 of the E.S.I. Act. The court below accepted the contention of the res...
Achuthan Vs. Recovery Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC565; 2003(3)KLT195
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. In this O.P. the petitioner-debtor impugns Ext.P1 order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in favour of the 3rd respondent-State Bank of Travancore in T.A. No. 1036 of 1997. 2. Heard Sri. T.G. Rajendran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. M.Pathros Mathai for the 3rd respondent-Bank and also the Central Government Standing Counsel for 1st respondent-Recovery Officer attached to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam and the 2nd respondent-Union of India. 3. A decree by sale.of mortgaged properties and also personally for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,66,823.36 with future interest at 14% per annum was passed by the Tirur Sub Court against the petitioner and seven others and while the proceedings for execution for recovery of the amount by sale of the mortgaged property were pending, those proceedings were transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal by virtue of Section 30 of Act 51 of 1993 and the Tribunal passed Ext.P1 order. I am told that a recovery certi...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S. Ratnam Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Ker)171
G. Sivara Jan, J.1. The following question of law is referred to this Court under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, at the instance of the CIT, Cochin :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80HHC on own exports as well as exports made through export houses?'.2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that this question is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Sea Pearl Industries and Ors. Etc. v. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 578 in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Though notice was served on the respondent/assessee, there is no appearance. It is seen from the appellate order of the Tribunal that the respondent/assessee did not appear there also.3. We have perused the judgment of the Supreme Court relied on by the Revenue. The question considered by the Supreme Court reads as follows:'Whether, o...
K. Ayyappa Vs. N. Mony and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC601; 2003ACJ1602
A. Lekshmikutty, J.1. Against the award passed in O.P. (MV) No. 1472 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, this appeal is preferred by the respondent No. 1, owner of the vehicle. The applicant as claimant filed the above said O.P. (MV) for award of compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. As per the claimant, the scooter driven by the respondent No. 2 hit against him and he sustained injuries on 12.3.1989. The respondent No. 1 is the guardian of the respondent No. 2 who was a minor at the time of accident. The O.P. was initially allowed by the Tribunal by awarding an amount of Rs. 13,000 with 12 per cent interest per annum from the date of application against the appellant.2. Claim petition was originally filed before the M.A.C.T., Thiruvananthapuram. On the constitution of the M.A.C.T., Ney-yattinkara, it was transferred to M.A.C.T., Neyyattinkara and renumbered as O.P. (MV) No. 1472 of 1993. The appellant was u...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Peter Devassia
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker147; 2003(1)KLT467
K.K. Denesan, J. 1. When this Writ Appeal came up for admission before the Division Bench, it was submitted by the appellant's counsel that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Manohar Lal Azad and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 6210 of 2000), the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Lonan Benjamin (2002 (1) KLT 46 DB) was not correct. The Bench presided over by Srikrishna, C.J. as His Lordship then was, felt that the matter be heard by a Full Bench and passed the order of reference which reads:'Appeal admitted. Respondents waive service through learned counsel. A Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Lonan Benjamin, 2002 (1) KLT 46 has taken the view that the expression 'minimum imprisonment of six months' used in paragraph 4(a) of the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, despite the explanation attached to Paragraph 4(a), would be fulfilled if the under trial imprisonment period is more than six months even in a case not ending in convicti...
Uma Minerals Vs. Malabar Cements Limited
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker146
1. Plaintiff is the appellant. Suit was instituted for realisation of money. Plaintiff is a partnership firm, wholesale dealer in industrial minerals. Plaintiff had entered into an agreement with defendant for supply of sweetener lime stones at the rate of 100 to 150 MT per day to be increased to 300 MT necessary for manufacture of cement, as per order dated 28-4-1988. On the request made by the defendant, plaintiff identified good lime stones from Cuddappa and Dronachalam and a report was sent to the defendant quoting the ex mine rates given by Andhra Pradesh Government. Plaintiff later informed the defendant by letter dated 16-7-1988 that the materials could be moved out from Andhra Pradesh only on payment of mineral rights tax. Defendant later amended the purchase order and agreed Lo pay extra the mineral rights tax and surcharge in addition to the cost of materials, transportation charges and other expenses already agreed upon. P'urchase order was accepted by the plaintiff by lette...
Valsarajan Vs. Saraswathy
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT(Cri)134; II(2003)DMC344; 2003(2)KLT548
ORDERN. Krishnan Nair, J.1. This revision is directed against the Order dated 5th August, 1999 of the Judge, Family Court, Kozhikode in C.C 373/1998, The respondent herein filed a petition for maintenance against the petitioner under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. before the Family Court, Kozhikode. Though the petition was stoutly opposed by the petitioner, the lower court by the impugned order allowed the petition directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 350 per month. The said order is seriously challenged in this revision.2. The petitioner married the respondent on 22nd April, 1987 and a child was born in the wedlock. Their marriage was dissolved by a decree passed by the lower court on 18th October, 1997 in O.P. 219/1993. An earlier application for maintenance filed by the respondent was dismissed on the ground that she was living in adultery. After the dissolution of the marriage, the respondent filed the application for maintenance alleging th...
Moni Mathai, S/O. E.C. Mathai, Vs. the Federal Bank Limited, Represent ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker164; IV(2004)BC489; [2004]118CompCas650(Ker)
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The Original Petition is filed forquashing an award passed by the Lok Adalath held by theDistrict Legal Services Authority constituted under theKerala State Legal Services Authorities Act (DistrictAuthority for short). The first petitioner is the son ofpetitioners 2 and 3. The first petitioner availed a loanfrom the first respondent-Bank on 29-1-1996. The secondand third petitioners were the co-obligants for the loanamount. The petitioners committed default in repayingthe debt. It is averred that the petitioners received anotice from the first respondent asking them to attend aLok Adalath to be held on 14-1-2000. It is furtheraverred that usually cases pending before the civilcourts alone are posted before the Lok Adalat but thepetitioners did not receive any such notice from any ofthe civil courts. It is also averred that the firstpetitioner expressed his willingness to settle the caseprovided the first respondent reduces the rate ofinterest. It is alleged th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »