Court : Kerala
Decided on : Feb-18-1993
Reported in : (1993)111CTR(Ker)152; [1994]205ITR79(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. This batch of eight revisions are connected cases. Identical questions arise for consideration in all of them. T. R. C. No. 140 of 1991, T. R. C. Nos. 11, 14 and 15 of 1993 are filed by one, Dr. George Peter. T. R. C. Nos. 141 of 1991, 12, 13 and 16 of 1993, are filed by one, Shri George Oommen. Dr. George Peter and Shri George Oommen are brothers. They are partners of a registered firm, namely, Good Hope Plantations. The firm originally owned two rubber estates, viz., the New Good Hope Estate and the New Hope Estate. On August 1, 1979, the New Good Hope Estate was partitioned between the two brothers and the firm Good Hope Plantations continued with the New Hope Estate. A settlement deed was brought into existence by Shri George Oommen by which a trust was created. The scope of the trust and other matters connected therewith are in controversy.2. For the purpose of this batch of eight revisions, it is sufficient to notice the following facts :In this batch of ei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : May-26-1993
Reported in : [1994]79CompCas213(Ker)
Varghese Kalliath,J. 1. Both these appeals are against the judgment of the company judge in proceedings under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appeal, M.F.A. No. 65 of 1993, is by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 in the petition, C.P. No. 27 of 1988. The appeal, M.F.A. No. 64 of 1993 is by the fourth respondent in C.P. No. 27 of 1988, Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 in both the appeals are the same. Respondent No. 5 in M.F.A. No. 65 of 1993 is the appellant in M.F.A. No. 64 of 1993, and respondent No. 6 is the Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Company Law Administration, New Delhi. In M.F.A. No. 64 of 1993, respondent No. 5 is the company--the Palghat Exports Pvt. Ltd., 132/147, Shanmugha Road, Palghat. Respondent No. 6 is K. Santhosh Hebbar, managing director of the company. Respondent No. 7 is the chairman of the company and respondent No. 8 is the company director, L. Viswanathan. Respondent No. 9 is the Union of India, rep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-10-1993
Reported in : 1993(2)ALT(Cri)130; 1994CriLJ1316
K.T. Thomas, J.1. This is a case in which the story of a murder committed in a cinema theatre at Kalamassery has been told by the prosecution. The nub of the story is that the gate keepers of the theatre had to pay heavily for thwarting the attempts made by two ticketless cinema goers to gate crash into the auditorium of the theatre, as one of them lost his life and the other was mauled brutally. Six persons were arraigned before the Sessions Court for the offences and five of them were convicted of different offences and sentenced to different terms of imprisonment including murder. Separate appeals have been filed by them.2. The scene of occurrence was 'Preethi' theatre at Kalamassery. Time was around 10-30 p.m. on 4-12-1986. The occurrence commenced like this : When the second show of the cinema started two persons (2n and 6th accused) made a bid to get into the auditorium without tickets. The gateman (P. W. 3) resisted the attempts and there ensued a scuffle between them. Three oth...
Tag this Judgment!