Kerala Court February 1970 Judgments
Madhavan Pillai Vs. Mrs. Katherine M. Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Ker316
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. The husband aged 62, who is a Hindu, petitioned for judicial separation against his wife aged 48, who is a Roman Catholic Christian, on grounds of cruelty and adultery. The wife denied the allegations. The additional District Judge, Ernakulam dismissed the petition finding that the husband has not proved both the grounds. The appeal is filed against the said decision.2. The parties were married in Delhi on the 22nd day of April, 1948 before the Registrar of Marriages under the provisions of the Christian Marriage Act. There are three daughters bom to them after their marriage and they are Sudha, Geeta and Uma aged 16, 14 and 8 years.3. At the time of marriage the husband was Deputy Controller of Rubber in the Government of India. Towards the end of April, 1948, the wife left for her native place at Trivandrum. The husband was in Delhi till the beginning of 1949 when he was transferred to Calcutta where the wife joined him. They were residing in Calcutta as hus...
Tag this Judgment!Kunji Thomman and ors. Vs. Meenakshi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Ker284
1. Defendants 5, 8 and 9 in O. S. 45 of 1960 on the file of the Additional District Court of Parur are the appellants.2. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff for partition and recovery of one-half share in plaint items 1 to 9 after declaring that the alienations made by defendants 1 and 2 in respect of plaint items 6 to 9 in favour of defendants 5 to 9 are not binding on her share therein. The trial Judge granted a preliminary decree allowing the plaintiff to recover after partition by metes and bounds 1/3rd share in plaint items 1, 2, 4 and 5 and declared that the alienations in respect of plaint items 6 to 9 are not binding on her interest in those items.3. The plaint items which are nine in number belonged to Vattu Govindan who was a member of the Kudumbi community following Hindu Mitakshara Law modified by custom. Krishnan, Parvathi and Lakshmi are the children of Vattn Govindan through his wife Gouri Bai (referred to in this judgment as senior Gouri Bai). Krishnan's wife is Go...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. John and ors. Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Ker281; (1970)IILLJ359Ker
ORDERM.U. Isaag, J.1. The petitioners in the first and third writ petitions are the same. Petitioners 1 and 2 are First Grade Draftsmen, while the third petitioner is a Second Grade Draftsman in the Public Works Department of the State, The first two petitioners have got the requisitie qualification for being promoted as Junior Engineers, while the third petitioner has got the necessary qualification for being promoted as First Grade Overseer/Draftsman. There are two petitioners in O. P. No. 3393 of 1968. The first is an engineering graduate qualified for being appointed as a Junior Engineer, while the second is a holder of a diploma in engineering; and he is qualified for being appointed as First Grade Overseer/Draftsman.2. The Engineering and Technical persons of the Public Works Department, Public Health Engineering Department and the Town Planning Department of the State launched a 'No Work' programme with effect from 11th August 1967 and it continued in force till 5-10-1967. Natur...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Advocate
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Ker161
Raman Nayar, C.J. 1. Despite the absence of express provision like that in Sub-section (6) of Section 12 of the Indian Bar Councils Act, the High Courts have all along been exercising the power to direct the reinstatement of a pleader dismissed under Section 13 of the Legal Practitioners Act in view of his subsequent rehabilitation regarding the power as an inherent power. We should think that the power inheres in the disciplinary jurisdiction vested in the High Court by Sections 12 and 13 of the Legal Practitioners Act rather than in the jurisdiction to make rules for admission to the profession conferred by Section 6. That being so we are of the view that Section 55 of the Advocates Act preserves this power of the High Court notwithstanding the repeal of Sections 12 and 13 of theLegal Practitioners Act by Section 50 (4) of the Advocates Act with effect from 1-9-1963 on which date Chapter V of that Act came into force. For, that section says that notwithstanding the repeal the 'discip...
Tag this Judgment!K. Venkatachalam Aiyer Vs. J. Melby D'Cruz and Ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Ker190
ORDERSadasivan, J.1. The revision petitioner is the Liquidator of the 1st respondent company. He was the Additional 3rd respondent in Payment of Wages Act Appeal No. 2 of 1964 on the file of the District Court. Quilon and the Liquidator of the 1st respondent in Payment of Wages Application 4 of 1963 on the file of the Authority under Payment of Wages Act (Labour Court), Quilon. The application before the Authority was submitted under Section 16 read with Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act for direction against the Revision petitioner for payment to the applicants of delayed wages as mentioned in the schedule to the application. The application was presented by a group of persons who were employed in the revision petitioner's industrial establishment T. M. P. No. 2 at Chavara. This company was originally started as 'Associated Minerals concern' in the year 1939 and after the closure of the same for a period of about two years from 30-4-1949 to 1-2-1951 on account of lock-out, the...
Tag this Judgment!Naseema Textiles, Azhikode Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Ker192
ORDERSadasivan, J. 1. The only point arising in this revision petition is whether the requirement of a suit notice under Section 80, Civil P. C. has strictly been complied with before instituting the suit. The suitis one brought against the Union of India. for damages for non-delivery of one bale of handloom piece goods booked from Cannanore Camp Bazar town booking office, on the southern railway to Ahamadagarh railway station on the northern railway. The suit notice was issued by the lawyer on behalf of M/s. Nazeema Textiles, Azhikode; but later the suit was filed by Nazeema Textiles. Azhikode through its proprietor T. P. Ebrahimkutty. From the notice, it would appear that the notice was issued on behalf of a firm; but from the suit it would appear that it was instituted by one T. P. Ebhrahimkutty as proprietor of the concern. It is mandatory that there should be identity of the person who issues the notice with the person who brings the suit. On identical facts the Supreme Court in S...
Tag this Judgment!Yogesh Trading Co., Kotachery Vs. the Intelligence Officer of Sales Ta ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Ker218; [1970]26STC45(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. These writpetitions have been placed before a Full Bench, as they raise certain important questions regarding the vires of Section 29 of the Kerala General Sales-tax Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and Rule 35 framed thereunder. The question has, in a way, been pronounced upon earlier, by a Division Bench of this Court in Sree Narayana Transports v. State of Kerala (1965) 16 STC 659 (Ker). But as correctness of that nil-ing was itself assailed, it was felt desirable that the matter be placed before a larger bench with greater freedom of action.2. O. P. No. 4977 of 1967 may be taken as representative of the facts relating to the other writ petitions. The petitioner herein is a firm of dealers in that part of Mahe, which was originally French territory, and now, part of the Union Territory of Pondi-cherry administered by the Government of India. It claims to have been engaged in sending goods to places outside the Pondi-cherry and Kerala States. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Peter Elizabeth Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-05-1970
Reported in: [1970]77ITR683(Ker)
Govindan Nair, J. 1. The question raised by the widow of a deceased assessee under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is whether a notice, exhibit P-l, issued by the second respondent, the Deputy Tahsildar of Revenue Recovery, Shertallai, under Section 7 of the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, 1951, to her is incompetent or not. After the death of the original assessee, George Peter, who it is admitted was a defaulter as envisaged by Section 30 of the Act, no notice was issued to the petitioner, the widow of George Peter, under Section 30 of the Act, and, therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is not a defaulter. Consequently, it is urged that no certificate could have been issued under Section 41(3) of the Act to the Revenue Recovery Officer for recovery from the petitioner of the tax due from the said George Peter. 2. George Peter was assessed on December 12, 1963, for the assessment year 1963-64. A notice under Section 30 of ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Krishna Kurup Madhava Kurup
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Ker211
ORDER1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is, in a sense, a simple proceeding seeking condonation of the delay in filing an appeal by the State against an award by the Sub Court of enhanced compensation in land acquisition proceeding. But questions of some importance have been raised by counsel for the respondent who contends that no special treatment should be accorded to the State as a litigant and if treated on a par with a private party, the merits of the case cannot justify the court absolving the appellant from the sin of delay.2. The judgment and decree In L. A. R. No. 95 of 1965 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Mavelikara, were passed on 7-4-1967. The State was aggrieved by this decree and applied for copies for filing an appeal. The Court to which the appeal lay was the High Court as has now been decided by a Full Bench of this Court in a case reported in ILR (1969) 1 Ker 227 = (AIR 1970 Ker 30) (FB) but on a misapprehension about the correct forum, the appeal was...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Hormis, Managing Director, Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. P.A. John and an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-1970
Reported in: (1970)IILLJ351Ker
Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. The question raised in this writ petition concerns the validity and correctness of an order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut in an application made before it under the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The 1st respondent before me was employed as Senior Accountant in the Chalakudy Branch of the Federal Bank Limited, Alwaye. The Managing Director of the said Bank has preferred this writ petition. By an order dated 12.3.1966 passed by the management the 1st respondent was placed under suspension pending enquiry into certain charges of misconduct levelled against him. After conducting a domestic enquiry into those charges he was dismissed from service by a proceeding of the management dated 5.8.1966. At that time an industrial dispute was pending before the 2nd respondent--The Industrial Tribunal, Calicut--in which the dismissed employee was also interested. This aspect appears to have been overlooked by the management an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›