Kerala Court September 1965 Judgments
V.K. Balakrishnan Vs. Asoka Bank Ltd., Muttathangadi, Sherlalai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-29-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker42
T.S. Khishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition which raises the question whether an agriculturist debtor can claim relief under Sections 15 to 18 of Act 31 of 1958 in respect of debts incurred by him after the commencement of the Act, has been referred to the full Bench by Vaidialingam J. The answer to the question depends primarily on an interpretation of Sections 15 and 18 of the Act.2. The contention of the learned advocate for the first counter-petitioner is that in view of Section 15 and the definition of 'debt' in Section 2(c) of the Act the settlement of 'liabilities' by court under Section 18 on an application filed under Sections 15(1) of the Act must ho con lined to debts incurred before the date of commencement of the Act In support of this proposition the learned counsel cited the following observation from the decision in Balakrishnan Nair v. Mohammed Kunju 19641Ker LT 12.'Section 15(3) which provides that 'the amount and other particulars of all claims against...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Bava Vs. Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker195
Gopalan Nambiyar, J. 1. The petitioner in these writ petitions is a Firm of dealers in Tobacco. By orders of adjudication dated 31-3-1903, the Assistant Collector of Customs. (2nd respondent) demanded the payment of duly from the petitioner under Rule 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Rules, 1944. A copy of the said order of adjudication has been filed in these O Ps as Ext P-1. The petitioner preferred appeals against these orders to the 1st respondent (The Collector of Customs). The 1st respondent sent a communication to the peti-tioner dated 9-3-1964, a copy of which has been produced as Ex. P-3 in these O. Ps. and which, for the sake of convenience is set forth below.'GOVERNMENT OF INDIAMINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OFREVENUE) OFFICE OF THE COLECTOR 0F CUSTOMSAND CENTRAL EXCISE (CENTRAL EXCISEWING) Calvetti Road. Post Box No. 13, Cochin-1 A No 63/53. C No Va/2/34/63 Cr. Appeal dated 9th Jan 1964 To Shri A. S. Bava, Tobacco Merchant, Mallan cherry, Cochin-2 (By R P A D.) Sir, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ouseph Akkara Anthony and anr. Vs. Philomina
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker106
M. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. Second appeal by defendants 9 and 12. The suit property belonged to Ouseph. who left behind him two sons, Ouseph (junior) and the 12th defendant. Defendants 1 to 11 are the legal representatives of Ouseph (junior). 2. For a decree obtained against the 12th defendant the plaintiff's mother purchased in court auction the 12th defendant's share in the property, and on 25-12-1120 the plaintiff had symbolical delivery of possession thereof by court. She instituted this suit on 20-12-1132 for partition of her moiely in the property thus obtained. The 9th defendant remained ex park at the trial; and the I2th defendant contended the soil to for barred by limitation. The Munsif overruled the contention and decreed the suit and that has been affirmed by the Subordinate Judge. Defen danls 9 and 12 have come up in second appeal 3. It must be said at the outset that in the share of the 12th defendant sold to the plaintiff's late mother, the 9th defendant is not shown to have...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrasekharan Vs. Official Liquidator and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-1965
Reported in: (1966)ILLJ844Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. In the light of the decision in General Secretary, Palai Central Bank Employees' Union v. Official Liquidator, Palai Central Bank, Ltd. 1966-I L.L.J. 533, we agree with the learned Judge that the termination of the services of the 510 employees of the company, in this case, is not 'retrenchment' but only a termination of service on the 'closure' of the industry.2. Viewed as a closure, as it is only by stages, we think, that as a principle of justice, equity and good conscience, the principle of 'last come, first go' embodied in Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act should be followed by the liquidator. In the light of the said principle, the official liquidator will review the termination of the services already made and the rights of 510 employees will he adjusted accordingly.3. In directing that the principle of ' last come, first go ' should be followed, we should not be understood as denying altogether any latitude to the official liquidator. Indeed...
Tag this Judgment!M. K. Mohammed Kunhi Vs. Income-tax Officer, Cannanore, and Another.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-1965
Reported in: [1966]59ITR171(Ker)
VELU PILLAI J. - The question for decision in this writ petition by an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961, is whether, pending an appeal before it, the Appellate Tribunal can stay recovery of the penalty imposed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it can, on two grounds, first, that the power to stay recovery of tax or penalty is ancillary or incidental to the appellate power and may be exercised as such and second, that the Appellate Tribunal must be deemed to a court, and to be vested, as in the case of a civil court, with inherent powers, including the power to stay recovery. We think that the petitioner is entitled to succeed on the first ground, and that it is unnecessary to consider the validity of the second ground. That the power to stay is a necessary corollary and is incidental to the appellate power has been ruled by Rajagopala Ayyangar J., as a judge of the Madras High Court, in Swarnambikai Motor Service v. Wahita Motor Service. The short report of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Skaria Francis Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-24-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Ker128
ORDERK.K. Mathew, J.1. This is an application for a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P-2 notice. The notice directed the petitioner to surrender possession of the property in S. No. 654/11/D1 of the Lalom Village and the building thereon to the 3rd respondent, the Tahsildar. Petitioner says that he has been occupying the building for the last 26 years as a lessee and has effected considerable improvements on it and is conducting a cloth shop there. And his contention is that under Section 9(3) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act it was necessary that the concerned Land Acquisition Officer should have issued notices to the occupier and other persons interested in the land sought to be acquired intimating them that the Government intend to take possession of the land and calling for their claims for compensation, and as no notice under the sub-section was served on the petitioner the proceedings for acquisition are vitiated and that Ext. P. 2 notice must be quashed.2. The only question th...
Tag this Judgment!The Workmen of Madura Co. Ltd., Cochin, Represented by the CochIn Comm ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker167; [1966(12)FLR131]
1. O. P. 827/61 is an application for a writ of certiorari to quash an award passed by the Labour Court, Quilon. The question referred for adjudication was 'dismissal of Syrank O. M. Thommy'. Two charges were framed against O. M. Thommy by the management. The first charge was :'That you were grossly negligent and care less in the performance of your duties in that on the night of 22nd May 1962 at about 24-00 hours, while you were proceeding in (sic) Suriya as its syrang with 6 crafts in two, at a place culled Pallipuram due to your carelessness and negligence the tug crafts in two dashes against 22 fishing stakes causing extensive damage to the stakes ant the nets attached to them.' It was said in Ext. E-1 charge that the company had to pay Rs. 500 to settle the claim of fisherman and that Thommy is liable to pay the same to the company Thommy submitted a reply to the management (Ext. M-1). On 6-8-1962 the management issued another show cause notice stating that Thommy was guilty of in...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen of Madura Company, Ltd. and ors. Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-1965
Reported in: (1966)ILLJ498Ker
K.K. Mathew, J.1. Original Petition No. 827 of 1964 is an application for a writ of certiorari to quash an award passed by the labour court, Quilon. The question referred for adjudication was ''dismissal of serang O.M. Thommy.' Two charges were framed against O.M. Thommy by the management. The first charge was:That you were grossly negligent and oareless to the performance of your duties in that on the night of 22 May 1962 at about 24.00 hours while you were proceeding in tug Suriya as its serangr with six crafts in two, at a place called Pallipuram due to your carelessness and negligence the tug crafts in two dashed against 22 fishing stakes causing extensive damage to the stakes and the nets attached to them.2. It was said in Ex. E. 1 charge that the company had to pay Rs. 500 to settle the claim of fishermen and that Thommy is liable to pay the same to the company. Thommy submitted a reply to the management (Ex. M. 1). On 6 August 1962 the management issued another show-cause notice...
Tag this Judgment!Francis Manjooran and ors. Vs. Government of India, Ministry of Extern ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker20
M.S. Menon, C.J.1. (O. P. 1135/65): The petitioner is a young graduate in medicine and surgery. He obtained facilities for higher training and study in the United States of America and applied for a passport. The application was rejected. This petition challenges the validity of that rejection.2. There is no statute hi tills country governing the issue of a passport or a refusal thereof. Any legislation in that behalf under entry 19 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution--admission into, and emigration and expulsion from India; passports and visas--is still a matter for the future.3. There is, however, a statute taking power to require passports of persons entering India, the Indian Passport Act, 1920. Rules, the Indian Passport Rules, 1950, have been framed under Section 3 of that enactment.4. V. G. Row v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 Mad 240, took the view that there is no provision forbidding an Indian citizen from entering India without a passport. That view was not acc...
Tag this Judgment!illikkal Devaswom Vs. Pottakkatt Narayanan Raghavan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-17-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker96
Gopalan Nambiyar, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 172 of 1956, Sub-Court, Ernakulam, against the dismissal of its suit to set aside an order passed on a claim petition preferred by it under the following circumstances,2. The suit property ' of an extent of nearly 60 cents belonged to the plaintiff-Devaswom, and was sold in court-auction for Rs. 125, on 25-4-1118 and purchased by the 2nd defendant, under a sale certificate which has been filed as Ex. B. The sale was confirmed on 27-5-1118. Paragraph 5 of the plaint alleged that the 2nd defendant orally conveyed the property to the plaintiff-Devaswom on 20-12-1122, and on the same day at the request or insistence of Devaswom executed an unregistered sale-deed, which has been filed as Ex. A. Thereafter, the 1st defendant, in pursuance of a decree obtained by him against the 2nd defendant attached the suit property on 17-8-1124. The Devaswom filed a claim petition to release the property from attachment. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »