Kerala Court November 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.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M.P. Parvathi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC610; 2005ACJ1785; AIR2004Ker159
J.B. Koshy, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging its liability to pay the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery. In this case dependents of a motor accident victim was awarded an amount of Rs. 2,81,500/-. The accident occurred on 8-10-1990. Offending vehicle was insured by the appellant Insurance Company from 15-4-1988 to 14-4-1989. Thereafter the insurance was taken at 4.15 p.m. on 8-10-1990, after the occurrence of the accident. The proposal also shows that insurance policy was taken at 4.15 p.m. on 8-10-1990. It is also stated in the insurance policy that effective date of commencement of insurance for the purpose of the Act is from 4.15 p.m. on 8-10-1990 till midnight of 7-10-1991. In such circumstances, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, if the accident happened at any time what is expressly written in the policy as the time of commencement of coverage. The Tribunal has followed a decision of this Court ...
Radhakrishna Kurup, Trustee Valiyalukkal Group Devaswom Vs. CochIn Dev ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker212
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether parties could reagitate the question of maintainability of a petition filed under Section 89(1) of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act before the District Judge, when a Division Bench of this court has already rendered a finding that it is maintainable before the District Judge and relegated the parties to that remedy?2. O.P. No. 34 of 1998 was an application preferred by the petitioner herein under Section 89(1) of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act challenging the order of the Cochin Devaswom Board removing him from the post of trustee of Valiyalakkal Group Devaswom and appointing the second respondent as the trustee. The said appointment was reported to this court and this court as per order dated 18.7.1997 in C.D.B. No 33 of 1993 approved the appointment of the petitioner as trustee of Valiyalakkal Group Devaswom. One Mr. Chandran moved this court ...
CochIn Kagaz Ltd. Vs. Bharath Cartons
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker336
ORDERK.K. Denesan, J.1. The simple question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the Court which rejected the plaint for insufficient court-fee can review the order of rejection.2. The above question has arisen in the following manner : The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 328 of 2001 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Aluva. Issues were framed in the suit on 7-11-2002 and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the balance court-fee within 15 days. The suit was posted to 7-3-2003. The balance court-fee was Rs. 1360/-. According to the revision petitioner, due to a mistake in the calculation, an amount of Rs. 1090/- alone was paid towards balance court-fee, when the case was taken up on 7-3-2003, the Court below noticed that the entire balance court-fee was not paid by the revision petitioner. Though the deficient court-fee was paid by the plaintiff on 7-3-2003 itself, the learned Munsiff rejected the plaint by judgment dated 7-3-2003. I.A....
Lalithambika Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT917
ORDERJ.M. James, J.1. The first accused, the Secretary, Kumarakom Lime Shell Co-operative Ltd. No. 17/82, Kumarakom, Kottayam District, along with accused 2 to 69, who are the members of the first petitioner Society, are facing the allegation for the violation of 4(1) read with Section 21(1) and 23 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, in short 'the Central Act', in C.C. No. 104/2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class, Ramankari. They have come up before this Court by filing this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash Annexure-I complaint filed by the second respondent, Geologist, District Office, Department of Mining and Geology, Alappuzha.2. The facts required for disposal of this petition are that, on 24.10.2000, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Pulinkunnu, Alappuzha District, had seized 66 country boats, with 250 tins (one tin = one cubic foot) of white lime shells. He took the boats and the lime shells into custody, as a...
Madhavan Vs. Chellamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: I(2004)DMC764; 2004(1)KLT908
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. The question to be decided is regarding the maintainability of appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against an order of the Family Court, returning the O.P. filed before it as not maintainable for presentation before the proper court. An application was filed before the Family Court by the Appellant. The Family Court found that the application will not lie before it and therefore it is not maintainable and therefore the Original Petition was returned for presentation before the proper court. Challenging the above order this appeal has been filed. The Registry objected the same saying that such appeal can be filed only under Order XLIII, Rule 1(a) of CPC. Sections 19(1) and 19(5) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 reads as follows:'19. Appeal.- (1) Save as provided in Sub-section (2) and notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law, an app...
Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-10-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1462; 2004(1)KLT153
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. The sole accused in S.C. No. 73/99 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Palakkad, is the appellant herein. He was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of one Sathyabhama by pouring acid on her. He was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of which, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.2. The prosecution case is as follows: The appellant/accused Sukumaran (hereinafter referred to as the accused') and the deceased Sathyabhama (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), wife of PW.8 Vasu, had a long standing enmity between them as disclosed by various letters produced before the Court below. As a result of that enmity, the accused, at about 7.30 A.M. on 9.7.1998, while Sathyabhama was returning after drawing water from a nearby tap, poured acid on her body. Sathyabhama ran tow...
M.M.N.D. Kanakasabai Vs. Tax Recovery Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-10-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Ker)627
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The petitioner who is an assessee to income-tax is presently aggrieved by an order of attachment (Ext. P1) of the immovable property in Form No. ITCP-16 issued under Rule 48 of the Second Schedule to the IT Act, 1961. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this notice has been issued without prior notice or opportunity as contemplated under the Second Schedule. The counsel also points out that TR.1075, 1076, etc. mentioned in Ext. P1 does not exist at all and that the property mentioned in Ext. P1 has been released to the petitioner pursuant to the direction issued in Ext. P2 order and covered by Ext. P3 release order. The counsel, in such circumstances, wants to quash Ext. P1 notice.2. I have also heard Shri George K. George, standing counsel for Government of India (Taxes) appearing for the respondent. He brings to my notice that the petitioner has got a remedy provided under r, 11 of the Second Schedule to the Act.3. I find merit in the said...
Minimol Vs. Anil Kumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker107; I(2004)DMC249; 2003(3)KLT1143
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J. 1. When a suit for recovery of gold ornaments and money entrusted to the defendants as parental share at the time of marriage is decreed by the Munsiff's Court before establishment of the Family Court Act, whether appeal will lie to this Court as Mat. Appeal as provided under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') if the Family Court was established before the appeal period was over, is the question considered in this order. As far as facts of this case are concerned, the appellant in this case filed a suit before the Munsiff's Court for recovery of gold ornaments and money entrusted to defendants as parental share at the time of marriage. The suit was decreed in part only. The judgment was pronounced on 25.6.1998. The certified copy was ready on 3.6.1999. After passing of the decree and before filing of the appeal, the Family Court was established at Kottayam. Therefore, contending that appeal will lie under Section 19 of th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Premier Export International
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Ker)76; [2004]271ITR308(Ker); 2004(1)KLT138
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in compliance with the direction of this Court in O.P. No. 12081 of 1998, has referred the following questions of law:1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, did processing of prawns amount to production of an article and is not the finding of the Tribunal wrong and against the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sterling Foods and Bhudiraja?2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee, a processor of sea foods, is entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income Tax Act?The assessee is doing business in export of sea foods. While completing the assessment for the assessment year 1985-86, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for investment allowance to the extent of Rs. 1,87,000/- on the ground that the assessee is not a manufacturer entitled to the grant of investment allowance. Assessee took up the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kalpetta Estates Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-2003
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Ker)31; 2004(1)KLT180
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivandrum. The following questions of law have been came up for consideration:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is the assessee entitled to carry forward and set off Rs. 1,73,242 being the difference between the income computed under Section 115J of the I.T. Act and that computed under the normal provisions of assessment for assessment year 90-91 against the income for assessment year 91 -92?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is there any provision under the I.T. Act under which the assessee could carry forward and set off the income determined under Section 115J of the Income Tax Act?2. When the matter came up for hearing either sides submit that the question has been dealt with by the Apex Court in Karnataka Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 258 ITR 770. The Apex Court in Karnataka Small Scale In...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »