Kerala Court June 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.
Narayani Amma Karthiyayani Amma and anr. Vs. the State of Kerala and o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-15-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker93
ORDERM.U. Isaac, J.1. The first petitioner is the mother of the second petitioner. The third respondent, the Multi-purpose Co-operative Society Ltd. No. 1240, Kulasekharapuram, obtained an award against the first petitioner for a sum of Rs. 826, and against the 2nd petitioner for a sum of Rs. 698. The second respondent, the Sales Officer, District Co-operative Bank, Quilon issued a notice of demand Ext. P-1 to the first petitioner and a notice of demand Ext. P-2 to the second petitioner calling upon them to pay the respective amounts due from each of them. This was followed by attachment of certain moveables belonging to the first petitioner, and certain immovable properties belonging to the petitioners. Exts. P-3 and P-4. both dated 28-6-1969, are the attachment schedules. Both these attachments were made for recovery of the aggregate amounts due under the aforesaid two awards. The above action was taken by the second respondent under Section 76 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Ac...
P.V. George Tharakan Vs. KochappIn Narayanan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-15-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker159
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. 1. Automobile accidents on account of negligent driving are escalating in the Kerala State so steeply, with attendant loss of life and limb, that the law, being charged with realism and humanism, has to operate effectively and disenchant those who tempt courts with dubious contentions out of touch with the facts of life. The present suit wasone for damages, the cause of action set out being that the plaintiff's child. 5 years old, was hit by a car (K. L. E. 246) driven by the 2nd defendant and belonging to the 1st defendant, on the Edacochi-Arror road at a spot where there are shops, residential houses and heavy vehicular traffic. Admittedly, on 20th January 1962, at about 1 p. m. the plaintiff's child was knocked down by this car and sustained multiple injuries, after having been thrown forward by several feet. Later he succumbed to the injuries, notwithstanding the medical aid given from a neighbouring hospital. The trial judge moralised, with a motorists slant,...
Subramaniyan Vs. Lakshmi Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker194
K. Sadasivan, J.1. The sole question arising in this second appeal is whether mesne profits for more than 3 years could be recovered by the decree holder. The case of the decree holder is that the final decree passed in the suit enables him to claim mesne profits till the property is put in his possession by the judgment-debtors and as such he is entitled to recover mesne profits for more than three years. The trial Court accepted this plea and allowed him to recover mesne profits for more than 3 years; but in appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge has held otherwise. I think the view taken by the learned appellate Judge is the correct one and his order has only to be upheld. The decree must be construed with reference to 0rder 20. Rule 12. Civil P. C., under which no mesne profits beyond three years from the date of decree could be collected. Dealing with the scope of Order 20. Rule 12 a Division Bench of the Travancore High Court held as early as in 1945 that the decree regarding mesn...
Habibullah Vs. Hameeda Beevi and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-11-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1803
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J.1. The counter-petitioner in a proceeding Under Section 488, Criminal P.C. is the revision petitioner. Parties are Muslims. The marriage was divorced on 16-2-1969 by Ext. Dl Talak chit The petition for maintenance was filed on 20-3-1969. Learned District Magistrate has found that the marriage was divorced on 16-2-61 but he has- stated that a Muslim wife is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband during the period of 'iddat' and for that a petition can well be maintained. He has therefore, awarded mainten ance from 20-3-1969 till 15-5-1969 i. e., the period of 'iddat'. The learned magistrate is in error in having held that the petition is maintainable. Under Section 488 Criminal P.C. a petition can be maintained only by the wife or children- A divorced wife, therefore, is not competent to file a petition for maintenance under the Criminal P.C. Maintenance for the period of 'iddat' can, however, be enforced in a Civil Court. this Court has held so in Abdulrahi...
Abdul Karim Vs. Receiver, T.M. Muhammad Shaffee and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker95
ORDERV.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Counsel prays for time for producing a certified copy of the order appealed against. Section 2(14) of the Civil Procedure Code defines 'order' as the formal expression of any decision of a civil court which is not a decree. The reasoning in support of such an order (sometimes loosely described as decretal order) is a 'judgment' which Section 2(9) defines to mean 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order.' Thus, there is a judgment and a decree when a suit is disposed of and there is a judgment and an order when any decision is rendered by a civil court except when finally determining the rights of parties in a suit. Order 41, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, requires the production of the judgment and the decree along with the memorandum of appeal, but while a copy of the decree is mandatory, a copy of the judgment may be dispensed with in the discretion of the court. In short, the court has no powerto exempt the production of a cop...
Workmen of Blundell Eomite Paints Ltd. Vs. Blundell Eomite Paints Ltd. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-1971
Reported in: (1971)IILLJ265Ker
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. Two industrial disputes which had arisen between the management of the Cochin Division of Messrs Blundell Eomite Paints Ltd., Bombay and their workmen represented by the General Secretary, the Cochin Commercial Employees' Association, were referred by the Government of Kerala by G.O.Rt. 928/67/HLD dated 6-3-1967, to the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut and the adjudication conducted pursuant thereto ultimately culminated in an award made by the Tribunal on the 6th January, 1970. The challenge in these writ petitions is directed against the validity and correctness of the Tribunal's award in respect of I.D. No. 39 of 1967 wherein the issue referred to the Tribunal related to the validity of the action taken by the management in retrenching from its service seven workmen on the ground that they were rendered surplus consequent on a reorganization of the company's business with a view to effect economy in its operation and the conversion of the divisional office in ...
Gopalkrishna Gupthan Vs. Ammalu Ammal and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-09-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker196
Narayana Pillai, J.1. This appeal by the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff arises from a suit for injunction filed before the Munsiff, Ottapalam. The suit was dismissed by the Munsiff and that decision was confirmed in appeal by the Subordinate Judge.2. The suit property is that block-cid in Section Nos. 210/3 and 211 in Kadambazhipram Village. It belonged to Kongat Valiya Nair. In 1881 he demised it on kanam to one Krishnan Moothan and by successive assignments evidenced by Ext. A-2 of 1919 and Ext. A-3 of 1930 the rights of Krishnan Moothan devolved on the plaintiff's father. By Ext. A-4 of 1933 the kanam was renewed. In Ext. A-13 partition made in the plaintiff's family the property was set apart to the share of the plaintiff. In 1961 the second defendant, whose mother is the first defendant, trespassed upon the property and cut and removed timber saying that the property belonged to the first defendant. It was on these allegations that the plaintiff prayed for injuncti...
Narayanan Damodaran and ors. Vs. Narayana Panicker Parameswara Panicke ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-09-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Ker314
Raghavan, Ag. C.J.1. These cases have come before a Full Bench since the constitutional validity of Section 4A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1963 (Act 1 of 1964) as amended has been impugned in these cases. In fact, Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of the section alone have been impugned in these cases and therefore, the discussion hereinafter will relate only to those two clauses. Since the constitutional validity of the section is impugned, the Advocate General of the State has also appeared.2. In two of these cases some preliminary objection regarding the application of Section 4A has been raised. Under Section 108. Transitory Provisions though some discussion has taken placeat the bar, eventually the objection has been dropped; and I am not therefore considering the said objection. And I straightway proceed to consider the merits of the attack on the section. I may also observe at the very outset that the learned Advocate General has conceded before us that his attempt wo...
Neelakanta Pillai Gopinathan Nair and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1631
T.C. Raghavan, Ag. C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution for a certificate that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. We may straightway observe that this is not a fit case for appeal under Article 134(1)(c).2. Rut, when the petition came up for hearing on a previous occasion, we felt that the case might come within the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act. Central Act 28 of 1970. And the petition was adjourned at the request of the counsel of the petitioners; and it has come up now for further consideration.3. Article 134(1)(c) reads:An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High-Court-(a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death.And Section. 2(a) of Act 28 of 1970 reads:Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by Clause...
income-tax Officer Vs. Joseph and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-1971
Reported in: [1972]83ITR362(Ker)
Sadasivan, J.1. The Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Kottayam, is the appellant in all these appeals. Complaints were brought against the respondents-office bearers of the Ettumanoor Motors (P.) Ltd., under Sections 276(d) and 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as amended by the Finance Act, 1969, for non-payment to the credit of the department all the tax collected on the dividend distributed among the shareholders of the company. C. C. Nos. 107 and 108/69 are the complaints filed. In C. C. No. 107/69, the complaint was against accused, M/s. C. L. Joseph and V. Devassia, complaining that their company had declared dividend amounting to Rs. 27,000 and odd on December 20, 1961, and distributed the same on February 1, 1962, after deducting Rs. 8,217 from the dividend towards tax under Section 18(3D) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Under Section 18(6) of the said Act and under Section 200 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the principal officer of the company was bound to pay the tax so deducted within ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »