Court : Kerala
P. Bhavadasan, J.1. The appellant, accused, who was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 309 Indian Penal Code were found guilty of all the offences. She was therefore convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. She was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and also sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six moths for the offence punishable under Section 309 IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The accused, who was an orphan, was married by P.W.2. They had three children aged four and a half years, two and a half years and three months respectively. The prosecution allegation is that the children were suffering from continuous illness and that had worried the mother. Unable to put up with the trauma, the prosecution would say that she administered poison to two of her children and consumed poison he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2006Ker26; I(2006)DMC155; 2005(4)KLT1
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Defendants 1 to 4 in a suit for partition are the appellants in this second appeal challenging the preliminary decree passed by the trial court, confirmed in first appeal. The first appellant having died during the pendency of the second appeal, appellants 2 to 4 were recorded as her legal representatives.2. Sri. Ramunni, a Hindu, died intestate on 25-2-1974. His estate is sought to be partitioned. The late first defendant was his widow. Defendants 2 to 4 are their children. Plaintiff and defendants 5 to 8 are, admittedly, the children of Ramunni through Kallyani, who is not a party to the suit, but examined as P.W.2.3. Defendants 1 to 4, the appellants herein, contended that there was no valid marriage between Ramunni and Kallyani and accordingly, the plaintiff and defendants 5 to 8 were the illegitimate children of Ramunni and hence not entitled to succeed to his estate.4. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court found that Ramunni and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2000]243ITR284(Ker)
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. This reference is at the instance of the Revenue. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Kochi, has referred the following questions arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated June 7, 1994, in I. T. A. No. 1286/Coch. of 1987 for the assessment year 1985-86.2. The questions referred are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also going by the principles laid down in CIT v. India Tobacco Co, Ltd. : [1978]114ITR182(Cal) and 162 ITR 66 the payment of Rs. 5,34,406 to FACT school is an allowable deduction ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in finding an 'understanding with the assessee and is not the above finding consequential findings and conclusion unsupported by an iota of evidence, material, based on surmises and conjectures ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, should not the Tribunal have equated the contribution to FACT with the contribution to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2000]109TAXMAN91(Ker)
ORDERRajendra Babu, J. This reference is at the instance of the revenue. The Commissioner, Kochi, has referred the following questions arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated 7-6-1994 in IT Appeal No. 1286 (Coch.) of 1987 for the assessment year 1985-86.2. The questions referred to are:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also going by the principles laid down in CIT v. India Tobacco Co. Ltd : [1978]114ITR182(Cal) and 162 ITR 66, the payment of Rs. 5,34,406 to FACT School is an allowable deduction ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in finding an understanding with the assessee and is not the above finding or consequential finding and conclusion, unsupported by an iota of evidence, material, based on surmises and conjunctures ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, should not the Tribunal have equated the contribution to FACT with the contribution to the Govern...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : II(1989)ACC565
U.L. Bhat, J.1. Anilkumar, a boy aged 13 years riding a cycle, was knocked down and run over by bus KLX 3742 belonging to the K.S.R.T.C., on the National Highway at Athiyannur at about 5.15 p.m. on 19-5-1980. He died instantaneously. His parents filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Trivandrum claiming a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation from the driver and the Corporation on the allegation that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus. Subsequently, their other children were also impleaded as supplemental petitioners. The Corporation and the driver filed Separate statements denying any rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and alleging that the bus was driven slowly and cautiously and since no vehicle was coming from the opposite direction, driver of the bus decided to overtake two bullock-carts on the highway and the boy who was riding the cycle in between two bullock-carts suddenly tried to cross the ro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE25H DAY OF FEBRUARY20146TH PHALGUNA, 1935 W.P.(C).No.18672 of 2010 (H) ------------------------------------------------ [AGAINST THE AWARD DATED2302.2010 IN I.D.NO.28/2010 OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM.) ------------ PETITIONER(S):- ------------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATION BANK, MANGALDEVI TEMPLE ROAD, PB NO.88, BANGALORE - 575 001. BY ADVS.SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE (SENIOR ADVOCATE) SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J.SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO SRI.P.J.VINOD JOSEPH SMT.MANEESHA KUMAR. RESPONDENT(S):- --------------------------- 1. MR. R. CHANDRA BABU, AMBALATHUVILAKOM PUTHENVEEDU, MUTHIYAVILA, KATTAKKADA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 572.2. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMNET INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL R2 BY ASG OF INDIA SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008ACJ2575; AIR2008Ker157; 2008(1)KarLJ678; 2008(2)KLT78
Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.1. The above appeals arise from the common award passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha in O.P. (MV) Nos. 699, 700 and 1104 of 1993. M.F.A. No. 442 of 1997 is filed against the award in O.P. (MV) No. 699 of 1993. The appellants who are the claimants in the said original petition are respectively the father, mother and brother of deceased Monisha. M.F.A. No. 353 of 1997 is filed by the sole claimant against the award passed in O.P (MV) No. 700 of 1993. The claimant in the said case is the mother of the deceased who is also the second claimant in O.P (MV) No. 699 of 1993. Both the appeals are filed by the claimants challenging the quantum of compensation. M.F.A. Nos. 398 and 774 of 1997 are filed by the Managing Director of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram (for short 'the K.S.R.T.C.') who is the third respondent in O.P (MV) Nos. 699 and 700 of 1993, challenging the award by which 20% liability was fixed on it....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. Education is serious business; both in terms of the results it seeks to achieve, for the recipients and the returns it offers, to the organizers. Intriguing too, for the looser is the one, who actually imparts it; the Teacher. The State is the most important stake-holder who takes upon itself the financial liability, especially so with respect to elementary education, in the context of Article 21A introduced by the 86th amendment to the Constitution of India. The State has willingly taken up such financial liability considering the balancing and compensatory aspect of nation-building, which good education purports to undertake. However, there is a general tendency to ignore the person who is pivotal in administering education, the teachers, who are often sidelined and whose grievances remain unattended. World over, it is a phenomenon that the teachers, who occupy the highest position in human society are not remunerated, commensurate with such social status. The travails of teachers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1971Ker98
Raman Nayar, C.J. 1. The Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964) as originally enacted (the original Act as we shall call it) finds a place in the NinthSchedule to the Constitution -- see Item 39 -- and therefore has the protection of Article 31-B. It has been amended three times, first by Act 12 of 1966, then by Act 9 of 1967, and now by Act 55 of 1969, the amendments made by the last mentioned Act (which we shall call the amending Act) being far-reaching. (To the 132 sections in the original Act, over 50 new sections have been added while over 60 sections have been amended. To the 62 definitions 10 have been added while 20 have been amended. The amended Act is therefore virtually a new piece of legislation). The first of these was enacted by the President while the remaining two have received his as sent -- it has been contended not in the free and proper exercise of his judgment, but, of course, we cannot go into that-- but none of them has been included in the Ninth Schedule....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1994Ker308
Varghese Kalliath, J. 1. This isa public interest litigation. Petitioner is a society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Charitable, Literary and Scientific Societies Act. It claims that it is involved in legal research legal literacy and espousing public interest causes before Courts.2. In this petition the petitioner wants to spearhead and underscore the high potency danger involved in allowing to continue the operation by the first respondent a 10,000 tonne Ammonia Storage Tank in Willingdon Islandin Port Area.3. The first respondent the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd., Udyogamandal is a public sector undertaking. It is engaged in the production of fertilisers. O. 27% of the shares in the Company is held by the public, the balance being held by the Government of India, the Government of Kerala, the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Its manufacturing units for production of chemical fertilisers are Cochin Division at Ambalamedu and Udyogaman...
Tag this Judgment!