Kerala Court January 2004 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.
V. Suseelan Vs. T.P. Leela
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: [2004]139TAXMAN386(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.This appeal is filed by the husband against the judgment of the family court, Thrissur in O.P. No. 719 of 1997.2. O.P. No. 719 of 1997 (originally filed before the sub court, Thrissur as O.S. No. 308 of 1992) was filed by the appellant against his wife for a declaration that the petition scheduled immovable properties which were purchased in the name of the wife actually belonged to him. The first item in the schedule was 14 cents of property with a building thereon and the second item is another 14 cents of property. The wife, first respondent herein, filed three cases against the husband seeking return of certain immovable properties as well as gold ornaments. The petition filed by the husband as well as the three petitions filed by the wife were dismissed by the Family Court. Since appeal is filed only against the judgment in O.P. No. 719 of 1997, we are considering only that matter.3. It is the definite case of the appellant that he was employed in the Gulf countries....
Azad Rahim Vs. Gift Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Ker)410; [2004]271ITR468(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. GTA No. 2 of 2002 arises out of the order in GTA 3/Coch/2000 relating to the asst. yr. 1996-97. Appellant therein is one Azad Rahim, daughter of Mrs. Fathima Rahim, GTA Nos. 3 of 2002 and 4 of 2002 arise out of GTA 1/Coch/2000 and 2/Coch/2000, respectively. GTA No. 1/2000 was preferred by Mr., Fathima Rahim as the legal heir of late Sri. A.A. Rahim and GTA 2/Coch/2000 was preferred by Mrs. Fathima Beevi. Common order was passed in GTA Nos. 1/Coch/2000 and 2/Coch/2000 and separate order has been passed for the year 1996-97. Azad Rahim is the appellant in GTA No. 3/Coch/2000. Common questions arise for consideration in all these appeals and hence, we are disposing of these appeals by a common judgment.2. Late Sri A.A. Rahim and his wife Smt. Fathima Beevi jointly executed a settlement deed No. 1606 of 1995 on 20th April, 1995 settling their immovable properties described in the schedules in favour of their sons, daughters and grandson. AO held that the properties...
Azad Rahim Vs. Gto
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-2004
Reported in: [2004]137TAXMAN508(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.G.T.A. No. 2 of 2002 arises out of the order in G.T.A. 3/Coch/2000 relating to the assessment year 1996-97. Appellant therein is one Azad Rahim daughter of Mrs. Fathima Rahim. G.T.A. No. 3/02 and 4/02 arise out of G.T.A. 1/Coch/2000 and 2/Coch/2000 respectively. G.T.A. No 1/2000 was preferred by Mrs. Fathima Rahim, as thelegal heirof late Sri. A.A. Rahim and G.T.A. 2/Coch/2000was preferred by Mrs. Fathima Beevi. Common order was passed in G.T.A No. 1/Coch/2000 and 2/Coch/2000 and separate order has been passed for the year 1996-97. Azad Rahim is the appellant in G.T.A No. 3/Coch/2000. Common questions arise for consideration in all these appeals and hence we are disposing of these appeals by a common judgment.2. Late Sri A.A. Rahim and his wife Smt. Fathinia Beevi jointly executed a settlement Deed No. 1606/95 on 20-4-1995 settling their immovable properties described in the schedules in favour of their sons, daughters and grandson. Assessing officer held that the...
Pakran Vs. Kunhiraman Nambiar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT824
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The present owner of the building, 2nd petitioner before the Rent Control Court and the other legal heirs of his father, 1st petitioner before the Rent Control Court are the revision petitioners. The parties will be referred to as landlord and tenant or by their ranks before the Rent Control Court. The schedule building is one of the two rooms in the ground floor of a double storeyed building situated on the principal junction of Perambra, a small town in Malabar. The petitioners sought eviction before the Rent Control Court invoking the grounds of arrears of rent (Section 11(2)), user of building in a manner as to reduce its value and utility (Section 11(4)(ii)), the tenant putting up or acquiring possession of other buildings (11(4)(iii)), cessation of occupation (Section 11(4)(a)) and additional accommodation (Section 11(8)) of the Rent Control Act.2. The Rent Control Court did not grant relief to the petitioners on any of the grounds. That Court even he...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lalitha Bai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: II(2004)ACC298; 2004ACJ1199; 2004(1)KLT891
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. This appeal has been jointly filed by the insurer and the owner in the year 1995. Subsequently, it was held by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Chinnama v. Raju (2000 (2) KLT 155) that, 'appeal would be maintainable by the driver or the owner and not by the insurer and, thus, a joint appeal when filed could be maintainable by the driver or the owner.' In the light of the pronouncement, C.M.P. No. 928/2003 was filed by both the appellants together to strike of the first appellant in the appeal, viz., the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. This petition was allowed on 14.2.2003. The driver was also deleted from the party array as per order dated 14.2.2003 in C.M.P. No. 443 of 2003.2. Now the appeal is by the owner alone. The only contention of the insured/owner is that multiplier adopted by the Tribunal below is on a higher side at 23. It can at the best be only at 17 or 18. Therefore, the quantum of the compensation awarded is too high.3. An appeal is provide...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Latheef
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: II(2004)ACC282; 2004ACJ1561; 2004(1)KLT747
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the insurer can be directed to pay compensation to an injured in a motor traffic accident when the insured has been found not liable for the compensation.2. Abdul Latheef, the first respondent, herein was travelling as a passenger in a bus bearing Reg. No. KEF 7990. The vehicle was owned by the 3rd respondent and the 2nd respondent was the driver of the bus. A lorry hit against the bus and thereby the first respondent sustained injuries. The lorry which hit against the bus could not be traced out. The injured claimed Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation against the driver, owner and insurer of the bus as OP (MV) 2950/90 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. The owner, driver and the insurer of the bus contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus in causing the accident and hence they were not liable for the compensation. After considering the evidence, the Tr...
Wilson Vs. Lalitha Bai Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC921; 2005ACJ166; 2004(2)KLT636
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. This appeal has been jointly filed by the insurer and the owner in the year 1995. Subsequently, it was held by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Chinnama v. Raju, 2000 (2) KLT 155, that, 'appeal would be maintainable by the driver or the owner and not by the insurer and, thus, a joint appeal when filed could be maintainable by the driver or the owner'. In the light of the pronouncement, C.M.P. No. 928/2003 was filed by both the appellants together to strike of the first appellant in the appeal, viz., the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. This petition was allowed on 14th February, 2003. The driver was also deleted from the party array as per Order dated 14th February, 2003 in C.M.P.No. 443 of 2003.2. Now the appeal is by the owner alone. The only contention of the insured/ owner is that multiplier adopted by the Tribunal below is on a higher side at 23. It can at the best be only at 17 or 18. Therefore, the quantum of the compensation awarded is too high.3. ...
Arunkumar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT1039
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. A learned Judge of this Court has referred these petitions for consideration by a Division Bench. The question referred is as follows:If, in a criminal case, there are more than one accused and if only a few of them faces trial, the other being absconding, and in case the trial ends in acquittal of the accused, can the absconding accused invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charges against them.2. At the outset, we will make it clear that no straight jacket formula can be applied in such a situation. It will depend upon the relevance of the witnesses examined; the overt act complained of; what the witnesses, who had not been examined during the trial of the acquitted accused, would have to say going by the case records, if examined during the trial of the absconding accused; and several other relevant factors. Therefore, each of the cases will have to be examined based on its own facts and circumstances.3. There may be a case where...
Jacob Vs. Mohammed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: 2004ACJ1200; 2004(1)KLT893
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. Can the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the High Court calculate compensation in a different method than that is provided under the Second Schedule, when claims are filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act'). Facts of the case are not disputed.2. A youngster at the age of 28 died in a motor vehicle accident on 27.5.1997 when a tempo van having Reg. No. KL-10/B 1017 driven by the second respondent hit the motor cycle ridden by the deceased. The parents, brothers and sisters filed a claim for compensation under Section 163(A) of the Act against the owner, driver and the insurer of the tempo van alleging negligence on the part of the driver of the tempo van. The above was numbered as O.P.(MV) No. 544/97 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The owner and the driver (first and second respondents) did not appear before the Tribunal and they were declared exparte. The Insurance Company obtained permission ...
Shajilal Vs. Leena
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT653
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. This Appeal is at the instance of the petitioner in O.P. (Election) No. 24 of 2002 before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner filed the above Election Petition for setting aside the bye-election conducted on 17.1.2002 to Ward No. B-12 of Varkala Block Panchayat and to declare that the petitioner was the elected candidate. The above petition was dismissed by the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram by Order dated 13.2.2003. The above order is under challenge in this Appeal.2. The appellant and respondent were candidates in the bye-election held on 17.1.2002 to Ward No. B12 of Varkala Block Panchayat. The scrutiny of the nominations was conducted on 20.12.2001 and the appellant raised an objection that the first respondent was holding the post of Nodel Prereak in the Varkala Block Panchayat attached to the Kerala State Literacy Mission and thus he was disqualified to contest the election and though such a contention was raised, the authorities had ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »