Kerala Court October 1971 Judgments
Mathevan Damodaran and ors. Vs. Saraswathi Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker204
P. Subramonian Poti, J.1. During the pendency of the appeal before the court below the 2nd appellant, who was the 2nd defendant in the suit, died. The surviving appellants were defendants 1 and 4. The legal representatives of the deceased 2nd appellant did not seek to implead themselves as additional appellants in time, with the result the appeal abated as against the 2nd appellant. Subsequently they moved an application to set aside the abatement as against the 2nd appellant and also sought condonation of the delay in making the application for setting aside the abatement. The court below found that the legal representatives have not shown sufficient cause for setting aside the abatement and therefore dismissed the petition. Since the appeal had been jointly filed by three of the defendants and it abated as against one of them the appellate court took the view that the appeal was no longer maintainable and consequently dismissed the appeal. The order refusing to set aside the abatemen...
Tag this Judgment!The Rt. Rev. Dr. M.M. John Vs. Govt. of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker265
Raghavan, C.J.1. In V. Rev. Mother Provincial v. Stain of Kerala,1969 Ker LT 749 -- (AIR 1970 Ker 196) (FBJ. a Full Bench of this Court struck down, inter alia, Sub-sections (1). (2). (3) and (9) of Section 53 and Sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 56 of the Kerala University Act 1969, since the said provisions were bad for offending Articles 19(1)(f) and 30(1) of the Constitution. And the Supreme Court, upheld this in State of Kerala v. V Rev. Mother Provincial,1970 Ker LT 630 = (AIR 1970 SC 2079). There was a contention before the Supreme Court by the majority institutions that there was discrimination against them and in favour of the minority institutions under Article 14 of the Constitution. But, since the counsel of the Kerala State submitted that he had instructions to state that any provision held inapplicable to minority institutions would not be enforced against majority institutions also, the Supreme Court did not consider that question. The State filed a review petition (R...
Tag this Judgment!Marath Veettil Raghavan Nair Vs. Nediyadath Bhagyalakshmi Amma and ors ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-21-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker125
P. Subramonian Poti, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the second defendant in the suit arises from a suit for declaration that a compromise decree entered into between defendants 1 to 3 on the one hand and defendants 4 to 6 on the other, in O. S. 481 of 1956 of the Munsiff's Court of Alathur is not valid and binding on the plaintiff. The consequential relief prayed for in the suit is one of setting aside the order passed in execution of that compromise decree on E. A. 605 of 1960, directing delivery of possession of the plaint property from the plaintiff after removing the obstruction by the plaintiff to the delivery. It is the plaintiff's case that pending the disposal of the suit O. S, 481 of 1956 defendants 5 and 6 who were in possession of the property at that time as tenants of the 4th defendant, the jenmi, put the plaintiff (I am referring in this judgment to the parties with reference to their position in this suit unless otherwise indicated) in possession in part performance...
Tag this Judgment!Raghavan Vs. Unnikrishnan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-19-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker218
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J.1. The petitioner is one of the defeated candidates at the recent election to Parliament from Badagara constituency. He contested the election, as an independent candidate. There were three other candidates and they are respondents 1 to 3. Respondents 1 and 2 were sponsored by the Indian National Congress led by Mr. Jagiivan Ram (shortly stated Congress (J) 1 and the 3rd respondent by the Indian Socialist Party. The election was held on 6-3-1971. The votes polled by the candidates were as follows:--(i) Sri K. P. Unnikrish-nan (Rl) ... 1,98.939(ii) ' A. V. Raghavan(petitioner) ... 1,41.135(iii) Smt. Leela Damo-dara Menon (R2) ... 2,236(iv) Sri A. Sreedharan(R3) ... 33,393The results were announced on 12-3-1971, the 1st respondent Sri. K. P. Unnikrishnan having secured a majority, was on that day declared elected.2. The election is Challenged by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the 2nd respondent was weeded out from the scene of contest by the Congress High C...
Tag this Judgment!Adimali St. Pauls Yakkobaya Suriyani Church Represented by Uttuppu Vs. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker217
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J.1. The C. M. Appeal was disposed of by this Court by judgment dated 21st June. 1971 (since reported in AIR 1972 Ker 180). The present petitioner who was the appellant in the C. M. Appeal, now prays for leave for filing a further appeal before the Division Bench, I do not see any reason for granting leave for appeal to the Division Bench. Appeal to the Division Bench from a decision of the Single Judge is governed by the provisions of Section 5 of the High Court Act 5 of 1959. Appeals are provided from the decision of the Single Judge under three contingencies, and they are:--(1) Against a judgment or order of a Single Judge in the exercise of original jurisdiction;(2) against a judgment of a Single Judge in First Appeal; and(3) against a judgment of a Single Judge in a Second Appeal, if the Judge who disposes of the Second Appeal, grants leave or certifies that the case is a fit one for a further appeal.According to the petitioner the present case would fall under ...
Tag this Judgment!K.L. Johar and Co. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-07-1971
Reported in: [1973]30STC394(Ker)
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. The petitioner-company is a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. They are carrying on business at Ernakulam in the sale of foreign liquor. Considerable amounts had been paid by the company by way of excise duty in respect of the quantities of liquor brought by them into this State and, quite naturally, the company has been passing on this liability in respect of the excise duty to their purchasers by the process of inclusion of such amounts under the head 'excise duty' in the sale invoices. The question raised in this writ petition is whether the amounts of excise duty so charged to the customers are not liable to be included in the taxable turnover of the petitioner for purposes of assessments under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Under the order of provisional assessment made against the petitioner-company for the month of October, 1970, evidenced by exhibit P-4, the assessing authority--Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, Ernaku...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Pillai Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-04-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ987
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J.1. This revision is against the of the Code to the Police without , Quilon 'accepting' the refer report filed in the case by the police. A private complaint alleging offences under Sections 420, 423. 342 and 506(ii) IPC was presented before the Magistrate against 6 persons. The Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The police, after investigation, filed a reported charge. Against this notice was issued to the complainant by the Magistrate. On receipt of which he filed a protest petition requesting the court to ignore the final report of the police and take the case to the file. The learned Magistrate without even examining the complainant has passed the impugned order which concludes thus:Thus for the foregoing reasons, I repel this objection to the refer report filed by the police and the same is accepted. 2. I am afraid the learned Magistrate has misguided himself, the relevant provisions of the C...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›