Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: kerala Year: 1992 Page 1 of about 21 results (0.015 seconds)

Aug 20 1992 (HC)

P.G. Hariharan and Ors. Vs. Padaril Deceased Kunhambu's Children Balac ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Aug-20-1992

Reported in : AIR1994Ker36

..... as joint family properties of makkunni, plaintiff and defendants, all such contentions were later withdrawn as a result of ext. a1 compromise reached between the parties in the presence of mediators and the suit itself was decreed on the basis of the said compromise. as per the compromise two items of properties were kept in common including them in a separate ..... was a serious dispute regarding the assets of the family between its members which lead to the filing of the earlier suit for partition. the said dispute was settled by mediation during the pendency of the suit by entering into a compromise evidenced by ext.a1. there is no case for the parties that it was not a bona fide compromise .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 1992 (HC)

Indian Trawlers Association, Ernakulam and anr. Vs. the State of Keral ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Feb-13-1992

Reported in : AIR1992Ker360

..... employed in the industry is not always identifiable. there can be persons directly employed by the principal employer viz., the boat owner and persons employed by or through an inter-mediate employer or persons whose services are temporarily lent or let on hire to the principal employer. hence, itwas found safe for the legislature to fix the liability for contribution on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 25 1992 (HC)

Kerala Private Motor and Mechanical Workers' Federation Vs. State of K ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jun-25-1992

Reported in : (1993)ILLJ401Ker

..... officer to investigate the dispute without delay with the object of bringing about a settlement. the duty and function of the conciliation officer is, as his very name indicates, to mediate between the parties and to make an effort to settle the dispute. this court, while hearing a petition for mandamus, is not sitting in appeal over the decision of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 05 1992 (HC)

Thomas Varghese Vs. P. Jerome

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jun-05-1992

Reported in : [1993]76CompCas380(Ker); 1992CriLJ3080

..... the complainant and to make unlawful enrichment to himself, the accused caused the issuance of a lawyer's notice on september 25, 1989, alleging incorrect acts. by the intervention of mediators, the accused agreed to remit a sufficient amounts in the bank so as to honour the cheque. the complainant agreed to forgo interest on the amount. contrary to this agreement .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 1992 (HC)

Madhavan and anr. Vs. Raja Raja Varma

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Dec-04-1992

Reported in : II(1993)ACC65; 1993ACJ955

..... and 3 are the mahouts. the mahouts are keeping the elephant and they are the immediate keepers of the animal elephant, while devaswom, tha owner of the elephant, is the mediate keeper of the animal.3. though several contentions have been raised by the defendants, the court below repelled all those contentions and found that both the devaswom and the mahouts .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 26 1992 (HC)

G. Narendran and ors. Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Mar-26-1992

Reported in : AIR1994Ker54

ordert.l. viswanatha iyer, j. 1. petitioners are the president and vice president of the third respondent kadampanad panchayat. written notice of a no-confidence motion against them was delivered on 5-2-1992 under section 54(2) of the kerala panchayats act, 1960. a meeting was convened to be held on 10-3-1992 for consideration of the motion. notice was given accordingly. but that day happened to be declared a holiday by the kerala government to celebrate the success of the state football team in the santosh trophy football tournament. the district panchayat officer thereupon adjourned the meeting by his proceedigns ext. p2 relying on the proviso to rule 3 of the kerala panchayats (proceedings of panchayat meetings and committees) rules, 1962. notice was thereafter issued for holding a fresh meeting for consideration of the no-confidence motion on 2-4-1992. petitioners have come forward with this original petition with the plea that a fresh meeting to consider the no-confidence motion could not be held on 2-4-1992.2. section 54 of the kerala panchayats act deals with motions of no-confidence against the president or vice president of a panchayat. petitiners' case is that under the provisions of section 54 a meeting for the purpose of considering a motion of no-confidence shall not be adjourned for any reason. but having adjourned it, it was not possible to convene another meeting within six months because of the alleged bar created by sub-section (14) of section 54. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 10 1992 (HC)

Prabha Alias Swayamprabha and ors. Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Nov-10-1992

Reported in : 1994CriLJ569

l. manoharan, j.1. five accused persons were charged under sections 363, 367, 368, 376 and 114 read with section 34, ipc. learned first additional sessions judge, thiruvananthapuram found accused 1 to 3 guilty of the offences, punishable under sections 363 and 376, ipc and convicted them there under. first accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 376, ipc. he (first accused) was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under section 363, ipc. second and third accused each were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under section 376, ipc and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under section 363, ipc. the sentences were directed to run concurrently. accused 4 and 5 were found not guilty and they were acquitted. set off was allowed to the said convicted accused persons. in these appeals accused 1 to 3 challenge the said conviction and the sentences awarded to them.2. crl. appeal 143 of 1989 is by the 3rd accused, crl. appeal 164 of 1980 is by the 1st accused and crl. appeal 232 of 1989 is by the 2nd accused.3. pw-6, rejitha aged 16 years and 9 months was a second year pre-degree student in sagar parallel college at varkala. she used to board the bus for the college from the bus stop at villikadavu situated near the shops of p.ws. 3 and 4. on 6-10-1987 at about 9 a.m. while she was waiting for bus .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 1992 (HC)

Dr. T.E. George and anr. Vs. the Tahsildar and Assessing Authority, Ko ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Sep-30-1992

Reported in : AIR1993Ker142

orderm.m. pareed pillay, j.1. first petitioner owns a plot of land which he purchased as per ext. p-1. second petitioner owns another plot which she purchased as per exts. p-2 and p-3 sale deeds. being contiguous lands petitioners constructed buildings in both the plots together now used as hospital. the construction was completed in 1980. respondent issued notice calling upon the petitioners to file returns under section 7(1) of the kerala building tax act in respect of the buildings. assessment was made with respect to the buildings on 29-6-1985 as evidenced by exts. p-4 and p-5 and the petitioners were directed to pay rs. 11,700/- each as tax.2. four years later ext. p-6 notice was issued to the first petitioner demanding payment of additional tax. petitioners filed ext. p-7 objection on 19-7-1989. petitioners were informed that their objections were overruled.3. contention of the petitioners is that building tax once assessed under the act cannot be enhanced on the ground that local authority has enhanced the tax in the subsequent quinquennial revision. the question that arises for consideration is whether building tax once assessed under the act can be enhanced on account of the increase in the assessment as a result of the quinquennial revision by the local authority.4. section 15 of the act provides forrectification of mistakes in the case of assessments under the act. section 15(1) states:'the appellate authority or the revisional authority may, at any time within .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 1992 (HC)

Travancore Electro Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jan-09-1992

Reported in : (1992)102CTR(Ker)69; [1992]195ITR857(Ker)

t.l. viswanatha iyer, j.1. the petitioner is a company incorporated under the companies act, 1956. it is an assessee to income-tax on the files of the first respondent. the petitioner had submitted returns for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1982-83, pursuant to which assessments were completed as per exhibits p-5 to p-8. the petitioner had furnished statements containing details of the brokerage and commission paid by it at the time of these assessments and copies thereof are marked as exhibits p-1 to p-4.2. the petitioner states that they have engaged commission agents for sale of their products and the commission paid to these persons is duly debited in the commission account. according to the petitioner, none of these selling agents are persons in any way connected with the petitioner or its directors or major shareholders. these agents have rendered substantial service to the petitioner. the commission paid to them has, therefore, gone into the profit and loss account. it is the details of these payments that were furnished to the first respondent at the time the assessments for 1979-80 to 1982-83 were completed as per exhibits p-1 to p-4.3. the assessments for 1983-84 to 1987-88 were also completed making certain additions/disallowances. when the assessment for 1986-87 was taken up for consideration, the first respondent raised a question whether the commission paid by the petitioner was liable to be allowed. prolonged discussions took place pursuant to which, it is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 1992 (HC)

Mytheen Kunju Abdul Salam Vs. Mohammed Kasim Ismail and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Feb-20-1992

Reported in : AIR1992Ker257

shamsuddin, j. 1. petitioner in o.p, (lunacy) no. 159 of 1980 on the files of the district court, thiruvananthapuram is the appellant. 2. appellant filed the above application under sections 40, 41, 42, 62 and 63 of indian lunacy act iv of 1812 (hereinafter referred to as the act), seeking to declare that his father's sister, pathummal beevi kunju is a lunatic and to appoint the petitioner as the guardian of her person and properties. there is also a prayer in the petition to declare that the decree passed in o.s. no. 91 of 1975 on the file of the munsiffs court, nedumanged is void and will not bind the lunatic or her properties. the application was dismissed by the learned district judge stating that questions were put to her by him and on a perusal of the answers given by her, he was not satisfied that she was of unsound mind. in this m.p. appeal, appellant has challenged the order of the court below. 3. the aforesaid pathumal beevi kunju is a widow. the father of the petitioner was acting as the guardian, but he passed away. it is alleged in the petition that the aforesaid pathumal beevi kunju was insane for the last 25 years and that 1st and 2nd counter petitioners collusively obtained a decree in o.s. 91/75 against the alleged lunatic, without getting a guardian appointed for her under order 32, rule 15, c.p.c. 1st counterpetitioner is the paternal uncle of the petitioner and the brother of the alleged lunatic. 2nd counter petitioner opposed the application and disputed .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //