Kerala Court June 1966 Judgments
Raja Gopalan Vs. Rajamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker181
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this revision, Mr. T. Chandra-sekhara Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the orders of the two courts, directing his client to pay' maintenance or what is called, in the orders, as starving allowance, to the respondent herein at Rs. 12-50 per month.2. The quantum of the amount allowed as maintenance does not loom large in this C. R. P. and in fact when the two courts have concurrently found that if maintenance is to be granted to the respondent, then having due regard to the sources of income of the petitioner and the means, if any, available to the respondent, Rs. 12-50 has to be paid per month, obviously the petitioner cannot challenge that question alone, in this Court under Section 1.15 of the Code.3. But the contention that has been taken is a larger one namely that under the circumstances, in which the petitioner asked for judicial separation, as against respondent and later on also obtained a divorce alleging and establishing un...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan Neelakantan and ors. Vs. Krishnan Kochukannan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-29-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker96
T.C. Raghavan, J. 1. Two questions come up for consideration in this Second appeal, the first being the more important one. The question is whether the failure to register under Section 69 of the Partnership Act was a bar to the suit. The trial Court held that it was not a bar, while the lower appellate Court held that it was. 2. The appellants started a chitty as a partnership; but the partnership was not registered. The respondent was a subscriber to the chitty, who bid and received the prize money. He executed a hypothecation bond, evidenced by Ex. P-1, to secure the payment of future subscriptions. On 10th October 1957 by a special resolution evidenced by Ex. P-5 the partnership was dissolved; and thereafter, the suit giving rise to the second appeal was brought on Ex. P-1. It was then contended by the respondent that the suit was not maintainable, since the partnership was not registered. 3. The counsel of the appellants draws my attention to the Division Bench ruling of the Madra...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavan (K.) Vs. Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Stor ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-1966
Reported in: (1968)ILLJ51Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as sweeper in the Plant Quarantine and Fumigation Station in Cochin with effect firm 8 January 1968 by the Plant Protection Adviser to the Government of India, Directorate of Plant Protection, Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Exhibit P. 1 is the office order appointing the petitioner. By Ex. P. 2 dated 17 December 1964 the petitioner was informed that his services were terminated at the expiry of one calendar month from the date of the notice, under Rule 6 of the Central Civil Services (Tamporary Service) Rules, 1949, to be referred hereafter as the Temporary Service Rules. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash Ex. P. 2 and to have it declared that the petitioner continues in service.2. That the order of termination, Ex. P. 2, having been issued under the Temporary Service Rules, did not involve any violation of the constitutional guarantee under Article 311 of the Constitution, was freely admitted he only point u...
Tag this Judgment!Devji Gokuldas Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-27-1966
Reported in: [1967]19STC121(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. The main prayer in this writ petition is to quash the assessment orders evidenced by exhibits P5 and P5(a) by which the petitioner was assessed to sales tax for the years 1961-62 and 1962-63. By a notice dated 3rd January, 1965, the petitioner was informed by the Ist respondent that the latter proposed to assess him to sales tax in the manner indicated therein. Prior to the said notice itself, the petitioner had in response to a demand of the 1st respondent produced his accounts before the 1st respondent. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner by his letter dated 16th January, 1965, requested the 1st respondent to return the account books to enable him to file his objections after the books were perused by his auditor. A copy of the communication is exhibit P2. This communication was refused by the 1st respondent; whereupon a communication was sent by registered post [vide exhibit P2(a)] by which the 1st respondent informed the petitioner that the account ...
Tag this Judgment!Kannakunnummal Ammed Koya Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1966
Reported in: 1967CriLJ494
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The scene of the incident in this case is the verandah of a building belonging to P. W. 3. It abuts on a road and has three rooms facing north, with a long verandah in their front. The western room is let to P. W. 1 who runs a copra business there; and in the other two rooms P. W. 3 himself conducts a grocery shop and a tea shop. At the western end of the verandah is a platform which the scene mahazar shows to be 8 ft. long, 3 ft. wide and cement plastered. Adjoining this verandah is an accessory verandah I1/2 ft. in width. The height of the platform from the accessory verandah is 3 feet 3 inches. The shops of P. W. 3 are usually attended to by him and, in his absence by his sons. Ahmedkutty was a son of P. W. 3 whose pass in the B. Sc. degree examination was announced only 3 or 4 days before the incident. On June 23, 1966, P. W. 3 was not in. station. At about 10 a.m. Ahmedkutty went to attend the shops and relieved his brother who was there till then. He got a dai...
Tag this Judgment!Panthalakunnummal Pokkutty's daughter Kunheema Umma and Ors. Vs. Putha ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker97
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. Defendants 1 to 4 are the appellants and the appeal arises 0111 of an application filed by them for redelivery of the properties delivered to the decree-holder-auction purchaser in execution of the decree 2. The decree was for arrears of rent. In execution of the decree, the decree-holder purchased in court auction the leasehold interest of defendants 1 to 4 in the plaint items. The Court sale was on 25-3-1957. The Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Ordinance. 1957 (Ordinance I of 1957) came into force on 11-4-1957. Ordinance 1 of 1957 was replaced by the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act, 1957 (Acl I of 1957) which came into force on 31-5-1957. Section 4 of the Act was to the following effect:'Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the lime being in force or in any contract, with effect on and from the commencement of this Act, no suit or other proceedings for eviction of a person from his holding or for the recovery of...
Tag this Judgment!M. Abubacker Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-15-1966
Reported in: [1968]69ITR809(Ker)
This is a reference on the motion of the assessee by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax 1922. The question referred reads as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the abatement of Rs. 704 only allowed to the assessee under article III of the agreement for relief from or avoidance of doubt taxation in India and Ceylon (in Notification S.R.O. 456 dated February 6, 1957) is correct in law ?'The assessment year concerned is 1960-61 During the accounting period relevant to that assessment year, the twelve months ended on March 31, 1960, the assessees income from business in Ceylon was Rs. 18,765. The income-tax authorities in Ceylon assessed the said income under the Ceylon Income-tax Ordinance, 1932, granted the assessee the reliefs to which he was entitled under that Ordinance and fixed the amount of tax payable by him at Rs. 704. It is common ground that the said tax has been paid.The answer to the...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Pillai Krishna Pillai Vs. Damodaran Pillai Velayudhan Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker159
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. This appeal by the 8th defendant raises the question of interpretation of the words 'when the sale becomes absolute' occurring in the third column of Article 180 of the Indian Limitation Act (IX of 1908)2. In execution of the decree, the decree-holder purchased decree schedule item 1 on 11-9-1953 and decree schedule items 4 and Son 26-9-1953. The court sale in respect of item 1 was confirmed on 11-10-1953. The 8th defendant filed a petition to set aside the court sale of items 1, 4 and 5 on 26-10-1953 under Order 21, Rule 90, C. P C., which was dismissed for default on 19-1-1957 and the sale of items 4 and 5 was confirmed on the same date. The 8th defendant filed an application on 11-2-1957 to restore the petition to set aside the court sale which was dismissed for default and it was restored on 5-7-1957. The said petition was dismissed on 19-10-1958 on the merits. The auction purchaser filed the petition for getting delivery of items 1, 4 and 5 on 17-10-1960....
Tag this Judgment!N.A. Subramonia Chetty Bros. Vs. A.S.P. Subbayya Pillai and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-07-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker111
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. 1. In this appeal filed by the decree-holder the only question is whether the Execution Petition No. 1612 of 1960 filed on 5-12-1960 is barred by limitation. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the second appeal are stated below. A simple money decree was passed by the Munsiff's Court, Coimbatore, on 18-6-1953. The decree was transferred for execution to the Munsiff's Court, Trivandrum, where execution petition No. 1419 of 1956 was filed. The said E. P. was dismissed on 10-7-1957. Subsequently the decree-holder filed E. P. 1612 of 1960 in the Munsiff's Court, Trivandrum, on 5-12-1960. It was contended by the decree-holder that the said E. P. was filed within three years of E. A. 1359 of 1959 filed on 19-6-1959 in the Munsiff's Court, Coimbatore, which is an application for a step-in-aid of execution within the meaning of Article 182, Clause (5) of the Limitation Act and therefore E. P. 1612 of 1960 is within time. The judgment-debtor contended that E. A. ...
Tag this Judgment!P.M.M. Pillayathiri Amma Vs. K. Lakshmi Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker135
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this revision, Mr. V. Bhaskaran Nambiar, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner, challenges the order of the learned Munsif rejecting R. I. A. 344/62.2. The plaintiff instituted O. S. 285/60, Munsif's Court, Payyanur for recovery of amounts stated to be due from the sole defendant one Kelu Nair, on the basis of a promissory note, executed by the latter on 17-4-48. Summons in the suit was personally served on the original defendant and the suit came up for first hearing on 22-6-60, Inasmuch as the defendant did not appear nor was he represented by counsel on that dale, the Court declared him ex parte and in turn, also passed an ex parte decree in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed I. A. 5/61 for transmitting the said decree for execution to the Cannanore Munsif's Court. In that application he had impleaded, the legal representatives of the original defendant, on the ground that the original defendant died after the passing of the decree. T...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »