Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: kerala Year: 1993 Page 1 of about 34 results (0.010 seconds)

Mar 26 1993 (HC)

Keepattel Bappu alias Moidunni and Ors. Vs. Mugharikutty's son Kizhakk ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Mar-26-1993

Reported in : AIR1993Ker273

..... . in substance she says that when it was found difficult to get the property partitioned, she has approached certain persons by name ramunni nair and valayudhan and they promised to mediate the matter. her case is that she has agreed to abide by their decision and entrusted the assignment deed in her favour executed by beevathu to the ..... mediators and also entrusted some signed papers. she has indicated that by using the signed papers, the mediators with ulterior motives may have made some agreements to deprive her of the property. in the reply notice it is also stated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 29 1993 (HC)

Nalini and ors. Vs. Padmanabhan Krishnan and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jul-29-1993

Reported in : AIR1994Ker14

g. rajasekharan, j.1. defendants 5 to 7 in a suit for declaration of title and possession and consequential injunction, are the appellants.2. the suit property is 10 cents comprised in survey fields 3897 and 3895 in vadakkevila village. they are listed as 'a' and 'b' schedules to the plaint. the plaintiff traces title to 'a' scheduled property under exts. a1 to a3. ext. a3 is the document under which the vendor of the plaintiff's father, got the property in 1112 (m.e.) (corresponding to 1937). on the strength of ext. a3, the vendee vavakunju executed ext. a1 on 23-4-1114 (m.e.) (corresponding to 1939) to the plaintiff's father. after the death of the father, the heirs entered into ext. a2 partition on 21-12-1967. in that partition, in addition to ext. a1 property, plaint 'b' schedule property and another section of property were allotted to the share of the plaintiff.3. regarding 'b' schedule property, no title deed is produced. but the plaintiff relies on ext. a2. it is said that the acquisition of 'b' scheduled property by the father of the plaintiff was in the year 1105 (m.e.). that document of acquisition was not forthcoming. both the properties (a and b schedules) are lying contiguously and it is common case that they are lying as a single plot within well defined boundaries.4. plaintiffs title and possession to the property is disputed by defendants 5 to 7, the legal heirs of one janardhanan. according to them, the property comprised in survey no. 3897 ('a' schedule's .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 08 1993 (HC)

Sainalabdeen Musliar Vs. District Collector

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jul-08-1993

Reported in : (1994)ILLJ529Ker

sreedharan, j.1. writ petitioner in o.p. 9732/1992challenges the judgment of the learned single judge dated march 23, 1993 dismissing the said original petition.2. the short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal are as follows, kallada bricks and tile works was owned by the father of the third respondent. on his death, the business devolved on third respondent, his mother and brother and sister. third respondent was the managing partner of the factory. 4th respondent was an employee in that factory. he was dismissed from service. that gave rise to industrial dispute 31/1988. labour court, kollam directed the management to reinstate the worker with all back arrears and other attendant service benefits by its award dated april 17, 1989. as the workman was not paid his wages in terms of the award, he approached the labour court, kollam by moving claim petition 85/1989 under section 33c(2) of the industrial disputes act, hereinafter referred to as 'the act'. that court, by order dated september 18, 1991, fixed the amount payable to the workman at rs. 52,388/-.3. after the award in i.d. 31/1988, writ petitioner purchased the factory and its site under three documents executed by third respondent and his relations, the legal heirs of deceased varghese daniel, the father of the third respondent. these documents were executed on september 6, 1991, november 15, 1991 and june 28, 1992. pursuant to these sale deeds, writ petitioner-appellant was running the factory. while .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1993 (HC)

Pullala and Rosary Estate Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Feb-04-1993

Reported in : [1994]205ITR149(Ker)

k.p. balanarayana marar, j.1. this is a revision under section 78 of the agricultural income-tax act, 1991. the assessee is the revision petitioner.2. the petitioner, messrs. pullala and rosary estate, is an assessee before the agricultural income-tax officer, trichur, and assessed in the status of tenants-in-common. the petitioner owns 100.07 acres in pullala estate planted with coffee and 242.60 acres planted with coffee, rubber and pepper in rosary estate. these properties belong to eight persons as co-tenants. they were assessed by the agricultural income-tax officer in the status of tenants-in-common under the name and style 'messrs. pullala and rosary estate'. the properties were leased on april 1, 1979, to a partnership by name 'messrs. pullala and rosary' for a period of 11 months on a yearly rent of rs. 84,000. the lease was periodically renewed. the stock of agricultural produce was also taken over by the lessee who took over the properties as a going concern. the petitioner was assessed for the assessment year 1980-81 and the assessment was completed by order dated march 29, 1986, a copy of which is annexure 'b'. that was appealed against. annexure 'c' is a copy of the appellate order. the lessee-partnership was also assessed for the same year and the assessment completed by order dated march 29, 1986, a copy of which is annexure 'd'. that also was the subject-matter of an appeal. while so, the respondent, commissioner of agricultural income-tax, issued a notice .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 1993 (HC)

Dr. George Peter Vs. State of Kerala

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 eight revisions, the common order passed by the deputy commissioner, agricultural income-tax and sales tax, alappuzha, dated march 30, 1991, is assailed. the assessments for the years 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 were revised in suo motu revisional proceedings by the deputy commissioner, by proceedings dated march 30, 1991. the original assessment orders against both the brothers/assessees for the year 1981-82 was passed on december 9, 1982, for the year 1982-83 on february 26, 1983, for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 23 1993 (HC)

Smt. P. P. Chirutha Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Sep-23-1993

Reported in : [1994]208ITR277(Ker)

k. s. paripoornan j. - at the instance of an assessee to agricultural income-tax, the deputy commissioner of agricultural income-tax and sales tax, kozhikode, has, by order dated august 17, 1987, referred the following question of law for the decision of this court :'should not the power under section 34 of the agricultural income-tax act be exercised within a reasonable time and can the proceedings now initiated thereunder be maintained in view of the long lapse of time ?'the applicant is the legal representative of one v. p. kunhikannan, an assessee to agricultural income-tax. we are concerned with the assessment years 1959-60 to 1964-65. shri v. p. kunhikannan was assessed for the above years as per the assessment orders passed against him. the details are given hereinbelow :assessment yeardate of order1959-60 to 1961-6210-2-19621962-6330-1-19631963-6424-3-19651964-6524-3-1965the revenue took the view that while settling the self-acquired properties of the assessee to his wife and children, he has transferred 29.93 acres of dry land and 1.19 acres of wet lands to his wife, chirutha, as per the deed dated july 7, 1958. it was felt that this is hit by section 9(2) of the kerala agricultural income-tax act. stating that this aspect was not noticed for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1964-65 and so the assessment orders aforesaid are erroneous in law, the deputy commissioner of agricultural income-tax and sales tax, kozhikode, issued a notice dated july 10, 1980, proposing to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 10 1993 (HC)

Balanoor Tea and Rubber Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Feb-10-1993

Reported in : [1993]203ITR504(Ker)

k.s. paripoornan, j.1. the petitioner is a public limited company. it is an assessee under the agricultural income-tax act. in this batch of four cases, we are concerned with four assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84. for the first three years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83, assessments were made under the agricultural income-tax act on march 20, 1985. the assessment for the year 1983-84 was made on february 16, 1986. the commissioner of agricultural income-tax took the view that the aforesaid assessment orders dated march 20, 1985, and february 16, 1986, are vitiated and prejudice has been caused to the revenue. therefore, he initiated proceedings in revision under section 34 of the agricultural income-tax act by issue of notices dated november 14, 1990, and december 18, 1990. they were served on the petitioner-assessee. notwithstanding the objections of the assessee, the commissioner of agricultural income-tax, by a common order dated september 24, 1991, set aside the assessments of the petitioner-assessee for the four years and ordered a remit of the case to the agricultural income-tax office, perinthalmanna, for the limited purpose of re-examining the company's claim for deduction of gratuity. the said common order passed by the commissioner of agricultural income-tax for the four years is assailed in these revisions.2. we heard counsel for the petitioner, mr. premjit nagendran, and also counsel for the respondent-revenue, senior government pleader, mr. v. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 1993 (HC)

Nelliampathy Tea and Produce Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Agricult ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Feb-18-1993

Reported in : (1993)111CTR(Ker)93

k. s. paripoornan, j. :the revision petitioner is a public limited company. it is an assessee under the agrl. it act. the respondent is the revenue. we are concerned with the asst. yr. 1980-81. the assessment for the year 1980-81 was completed on 21st march, 1986. the commr. of agrl. it initiated suo motu revisional proceedings under s. 34 of the act as per notice dt. 18th october, 1989, as in his view a sum of rs. 2,31,239 has not been considered for assessment. he took the view that the income from coffee was fixed at rs. 5,76,892 as against rs. 8,08,131 conceded by the assessee. the revision petitioner/assessee objected to the initiation of the said proceedings. it also contested the matter on the merits. one of the objections taken was that the proceedings were initiated not within a reasonable time and so unjustified or barred. the commr. of agrl. it, by proceedings dt. 30th march, 1991, set aside the assessment order made by the assessing authority for the year 1980-81 on 21st march, 1986 and ordered a remit. the assessing authority was directed to dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law. aggrieved by the order passed by the commr. of agrl. it dt. 30th march, 1991, the assessee-company has come up revision.2. we heard counsel for the revision-petitioner. one of the questions raised for decision is whether the suo motu order of revision was passed within a reasonable time. it is common ground that on this aspect of the matter there is a bench decision of this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 1993 (HC)

N. Kurian George and anr. Vs. Tahsildar, Kottayam

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Sep-16-1993

Reported in : AIR1994Ker59

ordert.v. ramakrishnan, j.1. a notice issued under section 15(1) of the kerala buildings tax act, 1975 (for short 'the act') for rectification of an order of assessment already completed and the notice of demand issued after rectification of the assessment are under challenge in this o, p. filed by the two joint owners of a 4-storey building in kottayam town.2. admittedly, the building has 4-stories, each having a plinth area of 307 square metres. construction of the building was completed in october, 1985. according to the petitioners the building was entrusted to a partnership firm called m/s. nisha continental for running a hotel on the basis of an unregistered deed fixing a monthly rent of rs.8,000/-. the firm was one admittedly constituted by the petitioners and their minor children as partners as per a partnership deed registered with the registrar of firms with registration no. 2340/85 on 26-7-1985. a hotel is being run in the building in question called hotel nisha continental. the building is seen entrusted to the firm on the basis of a document called agreement of licence entered into between the first petitioner, who is referred to as the owner of building, and hotel nisha continental, a partnership firm represented by its managing partner, the second petitioner described as the licensee of the building. the firm is allegedly running a hotel called hotel nisha continental in thebuilding. 3. on completion of the building, petitioner no. 1 submitted ext. p 1 return .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 1993 (HC)

T.C. Chacko Vs. Annamma and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jan-13-1993

Reported in : AIR1994Ker107

varghese kalliath, j.1. these two appeals come up before us on a reference by a learned single judge of this court. both these appeals arise from one suit -- o.s. no. 144/81. it was filed by the wife against her husband. s.a. no. 827/85 is by the husband and s.a. no. 777/86 is by the wife.2. the wife instituted the suit against the husband for recovery of the amount of stridhanam and ornaments received by the husband on the occasion of her marriage. she also claimed maintenance from the husband.3. the trial court found that the wife is entitled to a decree for recovery of an amount of rs. 3,000/- and jewels of 10 sovereign. the claim for maintenance was disallowed. both husband and wife preferred appeals before the lower appellate court. defendant/husband challenged the decree allowing recovery of rs. 3,000/- and the jewels. plaintiff/wife challenged that part of the decree refusing to award maintenance.4. the court below considered the appeals together and passed a common judgment, the court below allowed both the appeals thereby plaintiff's prayer for maintenance was allowed, but the prayer for recovery of rs. 3,000/- and the jewels or its value was refused. both husband and wife filed appeals, s.a. no. 827/85 and s.a. no. 777/86.5. the court below found that the suit for recovery of rs. 3,000/- and the jewels or its value is barred by limitation and so that relief was refused. the court below did not agree with trial court in regard to the claim of the plaintiff/wife for .....

Tag this Judgment!


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