Kerala Court December 1971 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M.T. Cherian Vs. the Pankal Vittal Naik and Co. (P) Ltd., Mattancherry ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker117
ORDERM.U. Isaac, J.1. This is an application by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 1963 to condone the delay of not filing the appeal within the prescribed period and to admit the same as there is sufficient ground for not pre-fering it within the time.2. The appellant is the first defendant in a suit which was filed for recovery of money due under a simple mortgage. The first defendant contended among other things, that the mortgage was executed for amounts that would be found due to the plaintiff on account of forward contracts in cocoanut oil carried on between the parties, that the said transactions were illegal, that the plaintiff was not. therefore, entitled to recover any amount under the mortgage, that these transactions continued between the parties after the execution of the mortgage and that the first defendant was in any event entitled to get credit for the amounts due to him on account of subsequent transactions. In his evidence he stated that he had paid...
P.K. Rajappan and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-1971
Reported in: (1972)IILLJ105Ker
M.U. Isaac, J.1. The controversy arising in these four writ petitions is the same, and it relates to the inter se seniority of 31 persons appointed in the cadre of Junior Engineers in the Public Health Engineering Department as per advice of the Kerala Public Service Commission. O.P. No. 2234 of 1971 was treated as the main case ; and arguments were addressed in that case. I shall, therefore, be referring to the facts of this O.P. and the exhibits therein for the purpose of this common judgment.2. In 1965, the second respondent, the Kerala Public Service Commission made a selection of candidates for appointment in the cadre of Junior Engineers in theP.H.E. Department; and it drew up a list of 100 candidates in the order of merit. On 17-8-1965, it notified a list of 35 candidates in accordance with Rules 14 to 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) for appointment to the then existing vacancies. Rule 14 provides for reservatio...
V.S. Mani Iyer and ors. Vs. Azhakan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker135
P. Subramonian Poti, J. 1. Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was amended by the Civil P. C. (Amendment) Act 1956 With effect from 1-1-1957 by incorporating the words 'and a purchaser at a sale in execution of the decree' in the Explanation to that section and thereafter the Explanation read thus: 'For the purpose of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed, a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed and a purchaser at a sale in execution of the decree are parties to the suit'.2. The question whether a decree-holder purchaser, who for realisation of the decree amount brings the property of the judgment-debtor for sale and purchases it himself, has. besides the right to seek delivery by an application in execution, the right of suit also is a question on which the view taken by the High Courts in India has not been uniform. But so far as this court is concerned the latest pronouncement of a Division Bench of this Court in Lakshmanan Pillai v. Subhashini, 19...
Raman Ayyappan Malappurath and anr. Vs. Vadakke Madom Brahmaswam and o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker201
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. Defendants 2 and 3 are the appellants in this second appeal. The suit was for arrears of jenmikaram and renewal fee for the period from 1956 December to 1964 January. It is unnecessary to detail the facts giving rise to the suit or to this second appeal, as Counsel for the appellant very fairly stated before me that the merits of the appeal were concluded against him by an earlier decision on similar facts is Second Appeal No. 731 of 1967, which he made no attempt to attack or distinguish. Following the same, this second appeal must fail on the merits.2. The only contention that was urged by Counsel for the appellant was that this second appeal is liable to be stayed under Section 4 of the Kerala Cultivators and Tenants (Temporary Protection) Act 1970 (Act 20 of 1970). That it is so liable to be stayed, if the suit relates to recovery of arrears of rent, seems clear enough; and the contention was, that jenmikaram is 'rent' as defined by the Kerala Act I of 1...
S. Krishnan Nair Vs. the Divisional Superintendent (P.B.), Southern Ra ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-1971
Reported in: (1972)IILLJ288Ker
P. Subramonian Poti, J.1. The petitioner challenges Ext. P-11 order passed by the Divisional Superintendent, Southern Railway, Olavakode who is the first respondent in the original petition, removing the petitioner from the service of the Southern Railway Administration with effect from 18-11-1969. This order, Ext. P-11, was confirmed by the Chief Personnel Officer, Madras in the appeal filed before him, by Ext. P-12 order and it was further confirmed by Ext. P-14 order passed by the General Manager considering the revision petition filed before him. These orders are also challenged in the original petition.2. In January, 1967, the petitioner was working as a clerk in the Olavakode division of the Southern Railway. When the petitioner was on leave and had been to Madras, he is said to have met, at the Madras Central Station, the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Sri P. D. Taneja. This was on 6-1-1967. The next day Sri Taneja is said to have called the petitioner to his room and seized th...
Abdul Rahim Haji Jacob Sait Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-1971
Reported in: [1973]87ITR183(Ker)
Govindan Nair, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the assessee under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The questions referred are these :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and to revise the assessment originally made ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of Section 54(ii) are attracted to the sale effected by the assessee on July 1, 1962 ? (iii) Whether the computation of capital gains assessable to tax is in accordance with law ' 2. The year of assessment is 1963-64, the corresponding accounting period being that which ended on March 31, 1963. The assessee, an individual, sold his residential house on July 25, 1960. He purchased a new house for Rs. 19,550. The capital gain in relation to those transactions computed in accordance with the provis...
Mrs. Rachel Phillip Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker238
ORDERP. Subramonian Poti, J.1. These are petitions in which identical reliefs are sought lor. O. P. No 6059 of 1970 is bv a person who was a teacher in the school of which the 4th respondent is the manager and the O. P. No. 6113 of 1970 is bv the said manager. The petitioner in O. P. No 6059 of 1970 was working as a High School Assistant in the 4th respondent's school till 31-3-1967. She resigned her post on 1-4-1967 in order to ioin her husband who was working in Bombay and having so resigned she Proceeded to Bombay. But she had to return soon thereafter when she lost her husband. Thereupon she claimed appointment in the school and then she had to face a com-peting claim from the 3rd respondent, who. under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A claimed that he was entitled to preference. That rule runs as follows:--'51-A. Qualified teachers who are relieved as per rule 49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies in schools under the ...
Ambat Echukutty Menon Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-1971
Reported in: [1973]87ITR129(Ker)
Govindan Nair, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipts from the sale of trees of spontaneous growth were assessable to tax and if so, whether assessable under 'Other sources' 'The year of assessment is 1961-62, the corresponding accounting period being that which ended on March 31, 1961. The Tribunal decided the question against the assessee by holding that the receipts from the sale of the trees is income assessable under the head 'Other sources'.2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family which owns large agricultural lands. In 1905 it took in court auction some lands covering an area of 200 acres. In the lands so taken, there were two irrigational channels drawing water from a river. According to the sanad, there were about 772 trees of various kinds like karimpana, cocoanut trees, jack trees, tamarind trees, maruthu, etc. These were not in one block...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›