Kerala Court January 1971 Judgments
Padmanabha Pillai Madhavan Nair Vs. Chinna Kunji and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-29-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker17
Raghavan, J.1. The fifth defendant is the appellant in this appeal against second appeal and the plaintiffs the contesting respondents.2. The suit property is a portion of a non-residential building, which belonged to the toward of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 and 3. Under Ex. P1 of 15th October 1949 there was a partition; and the partition deed contained a covenant that, if any sharer were to sell his share, it must be offered to the other sharers for a fair price and only after they refused in writing to purchase could it be sold to a stranger. The fourth defendant, a stranger to the toward, instituted a suit on promissory notes executed by defendants 1 and 2, obtained a decree charged on the suit property and in execution thereof purchased the property too. The sale was confirmed; and thereafter, the fourth defendant assigned his right to the fifth defendant (the appellant).3. The plaintiffs filed the suit which has given rise to the appeal for pre-emption in terms of Ex. P1....
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. the Midland Rubber and Produce Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-29-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Ker228
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J. 1. The State has come up in revision against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Quilon, rejecting the privilege claimed by the State under Section 124 of the Evidence Act in respect of two documents which the plaintiff in O. S. 55 of 1966 on the file of the same Court wanted the State to be produced in the case. The suit was against the State by the plaintiff who was the contractor for the construction of Vadasserikkara-Chittoor Road. The work started in 1960 and was expected to be completed by the middle of June, 1961. A considerable portion of the proposed road runs through reserve forest and a good number of timber trees had to be cut and removed to facilitate its construction. According to the plaintiff, the Forest Department did not co-operate in the cutting and removing of the trees and so, he could not complete the work within the period stipulated, and the work could be completed only in September, 1964. By the time, the rate of wages had gone UP and un...
Tag this Judgment!Enforcement Officer Vs. Sub Inspector of Public and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-29-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1019
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J.1. This criminal revision arises under the following circumstances:One Abdul Jaleel (2nd respondent) was arrested by the Mundakayam police on 31-7-1970 at Chotti on the KottayamKumili road Under Sections 54 and 550, Criminal P.C. He was found to possess at the time Rs. 4,04,950/-. The police suspected that the money was either stolen, or was concerned in a cognizable offence. But on questioning him it was revealed that the money was obtained by him in violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, VII of 1947. Information was thereupon conveyed by the Sub Inspector, Mundakayam (1st respondent) to the Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Trivandrum that the 2nd respondent had received the payment of the said amount from persons by order or on behalf of persons residing outside India in contravention of the provisions of Section 5 (1) (c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and the said amount was me...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary to Government Vs. the Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Ker69
Raman Nayar, C.J.1. On the 25th May, 1967, the United Commercial Bank, Mavoor (for short, the Bank) executed what has been called a letter of guarantee in favour of the President of India on non-judicial stamp paper of the value of Rs. 40.25 -- a copy thereof has been marked as Ex. P-l in the writ petition. By that instrument, the Bank guaranteed, to the tune of Rs. 12,37,250/- the payment to the Central Government by one of the Bank's customers, the Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd., Mavoor (for short, the Company), the rupee equivalent of foreign exchange made available to it by the Central Government for the import of certain goods. The Central Government was insisting that the instrument should be certified as duly stamped by the competent authority, and, therefore, the Bank presented it before the Additional Personal Assistant to the District Collector of Kozhikode, a Collector within the definition in Section 2 (c) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (Having been duly appointed a...
Tag this Judgment!Board of Revenue Vs. Managing Director, Santhi Plantations (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Ker82
Raman Nayar, C.J.1. There can be no mortgage of non-existent property, and a transaction that purports to be a mortgage of non-existent property is, in law, only an agreement to mortgage the property when it comes to existence. Misri Lal v. Mozhar Hossain, (1886) ILR 13 Cal 262 is one of the many decisions that have established this proposition in Indian Law -- indeed the proposition is not disputed. That being so, the instrument here in question which purports to be a hypothecation of the stock-in-trade of the executant thereof (a planting company), this stock-in-trade consisting of coffee then existing and thereafter to be grown in its estates, is a mortgage of the then existing standing coffee crop and an agreement to mortgage standing crops to come into existence thereafter when they come into existence -- only a mature standing crop and not a growing crop can constitute stock-in-trade. By the notification. No. G. O. MS. 813/RD dated 2-9-1961 published in the Gazette dated 12-9-196...
Tag this Judgment!Chacko Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1251
ORDERV.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. This case highlights a problem of frequent occurrence in a society below the line of poverty. A literary man might depict the picture as if society were the villain of the piece, but the law, being obligated to the maintenance of order, is made of sterner stuff and deals with men whose circumstances may drive them to deviations called crimes in a punitive way, so that there may be deterrence for him and for others from a repetition of such antisocial acts and correctional treatment if that were possible, in the case of a diseased mind which an offender usually possesses.2. The accused, who is the revision petitioner, has been convicted for an offence Under Section 379, IPC for allegedly committing the theft of two five-rupee notes unobtrusively from the pocket of P.W. 1, a fellow passenger who was travelling in bus K. L, Rule 2778 along the Mattancherri-Kaloor road on 19-11-1968 somewhere about 10 a.m. In short, the revision petitioner was charged with 'pea...
Tag this Judgment!Rev. Fr. Victor Fernandez Vs. Albert Fernandez
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-15-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Ker55
Mathew, J. 1. This is an appeal by the 2nd defendant from a decree passed by a learned Single Judge in second appeal in a suit for redemption of a melotti and kuzhi-kanam evidenced by Ex. P-l.2. Since the 2nd defendant among other things contended in the appeal that he is a deemed tenant coming within the ambit of Section 4-A of Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969 and as his constitutional validity was challenged by the plaintiff, the case was referred to a Bench of three Judges. When the case was argued before that Bench, the plaintiff contended that the tenure of the land involved in the case is pandara-pattom in the Travancore area of the State and so Section 4-A in its application to that land cannot have the protection of Article 31-A of the Constitution in view of the decision of a Bench of three judges in Govindaru Nambooripad v. State, 1962 Ker LT 913 = (ATR 1963 Ker 86) (FB). As considerable doubt was entertained on the question whether pandarapattom land in the Travanc...
Tag this Judgment!Kadavannoor Illath Subramanian Nambudiri Vs. Kallu Veettil Present Kar ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-11-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Ker333
ORDERT.C. Raghavan, J. 1. The Munsif seems to think that the case is covered by the Division Bench ruling of this Court in Abdul Kadir v. Noor Mohammad Sait, 1959 Ker LT 247 = (AIR 1959 Ker 400) and proviso (4) to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. I am afraid that both these conclusions are wrong.2. The decision of this Court states in paragraph 4 that the coolicharth before the Division Bench was not registered, so that the case would not come within the exception to proviso (4). Proviso (4) contemplates three situations: (1) where a transaction has been reduced into writing though the law does not require it to be in writing, when evidence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement modifying or rescinding the transaction is admissible; (2) where a matter has been reduced into writing since the law requires it to be in writing, when no evidence can be given of any subsequent oral agreement rescinding or modifying the transaction; and (3) where the document has been registered whet...
Tag this Judgment!Chellappan and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1021
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. In these cases, we are constrained to order a retrial because of an error committed by the Additional Sessions Judge.2. There were fourteen accused persons before the lower court, of whom nine have been acquitted. The other five accused persons, accused persons 1 to 5, have been convicted, the second accused of murder Under Section 302, accused persons 1, 3 and 5 Under Section 323 and the fourth accused Under Section 325 of the Penal Code. The second accused has been sentenced to the extreme penalty of the law; accused persons 1, 3 and 5 have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each; and the fourth accused has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 4 years.3. The trial before the Sessions Judge opened on 3rd August 1970, his schedule for the trial being to examine P. Ws. 1 to 4 on. 3rd August, P. Ws. 5 to 7 and 9 to 11 on the 4th, P. Ws. 8 and 12 to 18 on the 5th and P. Ws. 19 and 20 on the 6th and to hear the defence and the arguments on the 7...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›