Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-12-1995
Reported in : (1995)146CTR(Ker)14; 215ITR711(Ker)
m. m. pareed pillay c.j. - the assessments for the years 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 were completed by the first respondent under section 18(4) of the agricultural income-tax act, 1950, by separate orders. admittedly, that was done with a notice to the petitioner. the petitioner filed applications under section 19 of the act to reopen the assessments. as the applications were not filed within one month from the service of a notice of demand, the agricultural income-tax and sales tax officer (the first respondent) rejected the same. appeals were preferred against the assessment orders before the appellate assistant commissioner. the appeals were dismissed. second appeals were filed before the agricultural income-tax appellate tribunal (the second respondent). the tribunal allowed the appeals as per exhibit p-2 order. thereafter, the tribunal suo motu rectified the order under section 36 of the act. exhibit p-3 is the order. exhibit p-3 is challenged in the original petition.admittedly, the petitioner was served with notice in the assessment proceedings initiated against him. under section 19 of the act, he ought to have filed the applications within one month from the service of the notice of demand of tax as per the assessments made against him. admittedly, the applications under section 19 were filed belatedly.the question that arises for consideration is whether section 5 of the limitation act can be invoked in a petition filed under section 19 of the agricultural .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Feb-23-1995
Reported in : AIR1995Ker159; I(1995)DMC559
dhinakar, j.1. the two questions which are inter-linked, on the facts of the case (1) whether this appeal is maintainable under section 19 of the family courts act, 1984 and (2) whether the decree for divorce passed under section 13-b of the hindu marriage act is correct can be disposed of together.2. the appellant, and her husband, the respondent in the above m. f. a., have filed a petition before the family court for a decree of divorce under section 13-b of the hindu marriage act. after expiry of the period of six months on the motion of the husband (the respondent herein), the family court took up the matter and examined him as p. w. 1. the appellant was absent. nor did she withdraw the petition, after examining the respondent, the family court held that as the appellant did not turn up to withdraw the petition filed under section 13-b of the. hindu marriage act the appellant is a consenting party to the divorce and accordingly passed a decree for divorce.3. the respondent in this appeal raised a contention that the appeal itself is not maintainable under section 19(1) of the family courts act in as much as the decree for divorce was passed on the consent of both the parties. if we hold that the decree as passed by the family court is a consent decree then there can be no doubt that this appeal is not maintainable. but if the facts indicate that the decree is not a consent decree then this appeal is certainly maintainable and the decree for divorce so passed by the family .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jul-12-1995
Reported in : (1998)146CTR(Ker)14
m. m. pareed pillay, c.j. :the assessments for the years 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 were completed by the first respondent under s. 18(4) of the agrl. it act, 1950, by separate orders. admittedly, that was done with a notice to the petitioner. the petitioner filed applications under s. 19 of the act to reopen the assessments. as the applications were not filed within one month from the service of a notice of demand, the agrl. it and sto (the first respondent) rejected the same. appeals were preferred against the assessment orders before the aac. the appeals were dismissed. second appeals were filed before the agrl. tribunal (the second respondent). the tribunal allowed the appeals as per exhibit p-2 order. thereafter, the tribunal suo motu rectified the order under s. 36 of the act. exhibit p-3 is the order. exhibit p-3 is challenged in the original petition.2. admittedly, the petitioner was served with notice in the assessment proceedings initiated against him. under s. 19 of the act, he ought to have filed the applications within one month from the service of the notice of demand of tax as per the assessments made against him. admittedly, the applications under s. 19 were filed belatedly.3. the question that arises for consideration is whether s. 5 of the limitation act can be invoked in a petition filed under s. 19 of the agrl. it act. sec. 19 provides that where an assessee, within one month from the service of a notice of demand, satisfies the agrl. ito that .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-27-1995
Reported in : 1996CriLJ1021
k.t. thomas, ag. c.j.1. a question which has incidentally sprouted from this contempt proceeding is whether the application contemplated in article 226(3) of the constitution should necessarily be a numbered civil miscellaneous petition. we have realised that further proceedings in this contempt matter would depend upon the answer to the above question.2. we shall presently state how the said question has surfaced to the fore in this case. a chauffeur in the kerala tourism development corporation (the petitioner now) has been counting the days ahead for the superannuation of his immediate senior (one shri v.p. kunhirama kurup -who will be referred to hereinafter as shri kurup) so that the petitioner would gel promotion to the next grade (head chauffeur). the said exercise was founded on the hope that shri kurup would bow out of office on 30-4-95 on attainment of 55 years of age. but his hopes went awry as the government passed an order extending the period of service of shri. kurup to the age of sixty in relaxation of rule 60(a) of part-i of the kerala state and subordinate services rules.3. on 2-5-1995 the petitioner has filed an original petition in this court under article 226 of the constitution for quashing the said government order. petitioner also moved for an interim order of stay of operation of the extension granted to shri kurup. on 5-5-1995 learned single judge, before whom the original petition came up, passed an order: 'notice and interim stay'. shri kurup, on .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Apr-07-1995
Reported in : AIR1996Ker8
shanmugam, j.1. since the issues involved in these original petitions are of great importance viewed from any angle, the matter was referred, according to the learned judge, to be decided by a bench of this court by order dated 15-2-1991. therefore the matter was posted before the division bench.2. o. p. no. 6041 of 1981 was filed praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to constitute a committee of experts to study the reasons for the poisonous fog formation in cochin city and to suggest remedial measures. learned single judge by order dated 26-2-1986 directed the national environmental engineering research institute (neeri) to investigate the air pollution within the city and surrounding areas and further called for reports from neeri for any remedial measures and specifications envisaged for preventing air pollution. the neeri submitted their final report on 29-8-1990. the learned single judge by order dated 21-12-1990 after considering the final report of the neeri and objections filed by the respondents issued further directions in the matter. these directions were issued to the central government and the central pollution control board, state government and the various other industries in regard to the implementation of the standards prescribed by the expert committee. as these directions were not carried out, the division bench of this court by order dated 28-2-1992 issued notice to the state pollution control board. there was a further .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jul-13-1995
Reported in : 1995(2)ALT(Cri)394; 1995CriLJ3830
m.m. pareed pillay, c.j.1. the question that arises for consideration is whether the decision in rajan nair v. mohan, (1993) 1 ker lt 782 requires reconsideration. in the above decision a division bench of this court held that the action initiated by directing issue of notice to the contemner should be within a period of one year from the date of the alleged contempt. the division bench held that if the court has not initiated proceedings by passing some order within a period of one year from the date of the alleged act of contempt the bar contained in section 20 of the contempt of courts act, 1971 comes into operation. the court held that on a reading of section 20 of the contempt of courts act it is clear that it places absolute fetter on the power of the high court to initiate proceedings for contempt after the expiration of the period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.2. in the above decision n. venkataramanappa v. d. k. kaikar, air 1978 karnataka 57 was relied. in that decision karnataka high court held that section 20 of the contempt of courts act operates as an absolute bar to initiation of contempt proceeding whether suo motu or at the instance of complainant after expiry of one year's limitation, starting point of limitation being the date on which contempt is alleged to have been committed and not date of knowledge of complainant. that decision was overruled by the full bench of that court in m/s. a. v. kowdi & co. v. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jun-14-1995
Reported in : AIR1995Ker389
order1. this is a petition by five petitioners who are, in addition to being the members of the co-operative bank (ayiroo-para farmers society bank), elected members of the board of directors in pursuance of the election held on feb. 13, 1994. along with these five petitioners eight others were also elected to constitute what is known as the board of directors. they approached this court for a challenge to ext . p1 which is an order of the joint registrar of co-operative socieites, thiruvananthapuram (respondent no. 2) acting under section 32 of the kerala co-operative societies act, 1969, proceeding to remove the board of directors in the said society and as a consequence appointing part time administrator, ostensibly for a period of three months, till the newly elected committee is in a position to take charge. there is no dispute that the joint registrar passed the impunged order (ext. p1) on feb. ii, 1994 (saturday) appointing the administrator in pursuance thereof almost only for a day (feb. 12, 1994 -- sunday) because the factual matrix shows that the newly elected committee was ready to assume charge in pursuance of the order. in regard to this certain averments are placed on record which would be considered at the appropriate stage.2. since the impugned order (ext. p1) is passed under the provisions of section 32 of the act, it would be really necessary and relevant in the first instance to refer to the concerned statutory provisions for the purpose of setting at rest .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jan-03-1995
Reported in : 1995(1)ALT(Cri)408; 1995CriLJ2192
m.m. pareed pillay, c.j.1. petitioners in crl m. c. 357 of 1993 are the accused in s.c.8 of 1993. that case was instituted upon complaint by the excise circle inspector, punalur under section 20, (3) (i) of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the allegation against them is that they on-13-3-1990 at about 11 a.m. have kept 120 gms. of ganja for sale in the shop taken on lease by the second petitioner. the excise inspector had earlier filed a complaint before the magistrate court on the very allegation. that case was committed to the sessions court, kollam and it was numbered as s. c. 58 of 1991. charge was framed. it was read over to the petitioners on 2-12-1992. case was posted for trial on 16-1-1993. on that day the sessions court was apprised of the fact that the excise inspector who filed the complaint (annexure a-1) before the magistrate was not authorised by the government under section 36-a (1) (d) of the act to institute the case. thereupon, sessions judge discharged the petitioners. on the same day annexure a-4 complaint was filed before the sessions judge on the very same facts alleged in annexure a-l complaint. crl. m. c. 357 of 1993 is to quash annexure a-4 complaint.2. facts are similar in crl. m. c. 633 of 1993. the complaint was originally filed before the judicial magistrate of the first class, kottarakkaa, magistrate committed the case for trial to the sessions court on 16-1-1993. accused was discharged as .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jul-26-1995
Reported in : 1996ACJ988
thomas, j.1. appellant is aggrieved as the motor accidents claims tribunal (for short 'the claims tribunal') declined to grant interim award envisaged in section 140 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 (for short 'the act')2. the facts in brief are these: on the noon of 15-5-1993 some workmen were engaged in loading a goods vehicle kru 3544. for the safe transportation of the load in the vehicle, a rope was used for tying the load, one of the workmen, in order to make the end of the rope reach the other side of the vehicle, threw it up but accidently the rope, which was wet in the rain, became suddenly live from the electricity transmitted through a 66 k.v. high tension wire drawn above that place. in a trice all the workmen engaged in the loading exercise were electrocuted and they sustained severe burn injuries from the high voltage power passed through them. appellant sustained such amount of burns on his right hand that the said hand had to be amputated. he fifed a claim petition before the claims tribunal for compensation under the provisions of section 166 of the act. he also filed an application for interim award as envisaged under section 140 of the act. claims tribunal rejected the said application on the premises that the accident did not arise from the use of any motor vehicle and hence the interim award prayed for was not granted.3. section 140 is included in chapter x of the act with the title 'liability without fault in certain cases'. the material portion of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-21-1995
Reported in : AIR1996Ker174
orderv.v. kamat, j.1. the two petitioners have approached this court in the matter of their licence relating to their canteen stalls and as a consequence allow them to continue their business after quashing the order (ext. p9). they are the residents of chalakkudy. it is averred that petitioner no. 1 is physically handicapped. they are running two canteen stalls attached to a theatre, 'akkara theatre' owned by a firm in the name and style of 'augesthya corporation' represented in this petition by additional respondent no. 3 as the managing partner of the corporation.2. the canteen stalls are situated within the compound of the theatre. petitioner no. 1 deals in cool drinks, cigarettes, pan etc. whereas petitioner no. 2 has a tea stall. it is averred that this akkara theatre was constructed 30 years ago. the present respondent no. 3 assumed ownership 20 years thereafter, approximately 10 years prior to the petition. it is also averred that earlier these stalls were conducted by one sri paul. when from 1983 onwards the above firm purchased the theatre, the petitioners continued running the stalls on monthly rent of rs. 90/-. their prospective customers are only cine-goers. it is averred that other than the cinema theatre, these stalls are not allotted separate numbers by the chalakkudy municipality. it is further averred that there is no separate electricity or water connection other than those provided to the theatre.3. in addition, it is averred that right from the year 1983- .....Tag this Judgment!