Kerala Court July 1971 Judgments
Mohammed Kani Rowther Vs. Hassan Rowther Bulghese Beevi and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker56
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. 1. Theplaintiff who is the revision petitioner complains against the order of the court below directing him to pay additional court-fee for the plaint. It is seen that the plaint was rejected on 10-2-1970 under Order 7. Rule 11. Civil P. C., for nonpayment of additional court-fee as ordered. The revision petition was also filed on 10-2-1970 and it was admitted on 11-2-1970 after the rejection of the plaint. An order rejecting a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 is a decree as defined under Section 2(2), Civil P. C. The proper remedy of the plaintiff is to file an appeal against the order rejecting the plaint and canvass the correctness of the order calling upon the party to pay additional court-fee in that appeal.2. But counsel for the revision petitioner relying on the decisions in Chappila v. Chemmaran. 1960 Ker LT 1361 = (AIR 1961 Ker 200) Radhakrishnaru v. Madhavan Pillai, 1961 Ker LT 3 and Mathew Kuruvilla v. Rajagopala Iyer, 1966 Ker LT 916, contended that if ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Raghavan and anr. Vs. D.E.O. Attingal and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker108; (1972)ILLJ352Ker
Raghavan, Ag.C.J.1. These writ appeals are by two parents of two students who were dismissed by the Head-master of the High School where they were studying. On 17th Feb. 1969, a violent commotion took place before the school, during the course of which the Headmaster and some of teachers of the school were attempted to be manhandled. The students, in their attempt to manhandle the teachers, abused them in vulgar language and also brutally beat one of the students. The Headmaster intimated the parents of seven students, who were considered to be the ring-leaders of the trouble; and on a subsequent day, he dismissed them too. Appeals were taken before the District Educational Officer, before whom it was contended that the Headmaster did not follow the principles of natural justice in not framing formal charges against them and in not holding an enquiry too -- in other words, in dismissing them without hearing them. The District Educational Officer himself held an enquiry and found that t...
Tag this Judgment!Govindan Nair Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-26-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ122
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J.1. The revision petitioner stands convicted on a charge under Section 494. Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R. I. for 8 months and also to a fine of Rupees 100/-. The conviction and sentence passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, has been confirmed by the Sessions Judge in appeal.2. The revision petitioner had married the complainant. Rajamma on 19-5-1957 and while that marriage was subsisting he contracted another marriage with the 2nd accused. Radha on 29-5-1968. It is on these facts that the complaint was preferred. Both the accused denied the charge. The main point argued at the final stage of the trial was that the alleged second marriage with the 2nd accused was not proved by satisfactory evidence and as such the charge is unsustainable. Repelling this contention, the conviction has been entered by the Courts below.3. Section 494, Indian Penal Code reads:Whoever having a husband or wife living marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason o...
Tag this Judgment!Makku Rawther's Children: Assan Ravther and Ors. Vs. Manahapara Charay ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker27
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. One Makku Rowther died at the grand old age of 91 leaving behind properties and disputes, the one the inevitable sequel to the other, for, property often alienate brothers and sisters into plaintiffs and defendants. The death of Makku Rowther was the signal for a scramble for his properties, the plaintiff, one of his daughters, claiming a share and the sons, defendants 1 to 3, together with the only other daughter, the 4th defendant, resisting it setting up gifts to each one of them of some property or the other. If the story of the gifts were true, the plaintiff's suit has to fail and so the primary question that falls for decision before me--and was considered by the courts below--is the truth and validity of the gifts put forward in the written statements.2. The defendants have a straight case of oral gift, but a second line of defence also has been taken up by them in that they have urged that the oral gift failing, they have a deed, Ext. B1, which operates ...
Tag this Judgment!Souri Varghese Vs. P.C. Assankutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker57
P. Subramaonian Poti, J.1. When an Oil miller purchases copra for the purpose of crushing it into oil and selling it, could it be said that he is purchasing such copra for the purpose of his trade? This is the question which calls for an answer in this case. If the answer is 'yes', then the purchase price is excluded from the definition of 'debt' in the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act 11 of 1970. The appellant before me is the debtor who claims the benefit of the Act.2. It is true that 'trade' is a term which, in this context, is narrower in its scope than the term 'business'. Trade involves the concept of buying and selling. But it is not necessary that goods or merchandise purchased are sold in the same form or are sold without being converted into some other product. A person may be trading in copra and oil by purchasing copra and selling oil after converting the copra into oil by crushing in his mill. It cannot be said that he is not a trader or that he is not purchasing cop...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Subramoniam Vs. M.P. Sreenivasan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker58
P. Subramonian Poti, J. 1. I am afraid the suit is misconceived. Though the maintainability of the suit was challenged by the first defendant successfully in the trial court, the court below has held that the suit as framed would lie and the plaintiff is entitled to seek the reliefs which he has claimed in the suit.2. Plaintiff has styled himself as the manager of one Prabha Talkies, a theatre exhibiting cinematograph films at Tellicherry. According to him the proprietor of the concern is his sister-in-law and on her behalf he is managing the business. First defendant is the proprietor of one Lotus Talkies engaged in the business of exhibition of cinematograph films for which purpose he applied for license to the Tellicherry Municipality and obtained the same. The Municipal Commissioner of the Tellicherry Municipality is the second defendant. Plaintiff had objected to the issue of license to the first defendant on several grounds including one that the distance between the two theatres...
Tag this Judgment!Glen Leven Estates Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-1971
Reported in: [1973]88ITR39(Ker)
Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. The petitioner in this writ petition is a company engaged in the business of tea plantation. For the assessment year 1964-65 the petitioner-company was assessed to income-tax. Exhibit P-1 dated November 30, 1964, is the assessment order passed against it for the year 1964-65. The Income-tax Officer had accepted the return filed by the company with some modifications and found that there was a net loss of Rs. 1,585. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the Income-tax Officer that in computing its business income from the manufacture of tea for the assessment year 1964-65 the company had claimed deduction in respect of a sum of Rs. 20,336 as representing provident fund contributions paid by it in respect of its employees whereas the legal liability to pay the said contributions had not in fact arisen during the relevant year of account but in earlier years. Based on this information the Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under Section 147(b) of the Income...
Tag this Judgment!K. Mohammadkutty Vs. the Gwalior Rayons Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker272
Krishnamoorthy Iyeb, J. 1. Theappeal and the revision petition arise out of arbitration proceedings without intervention of Court based on the Arbitration Act in pursuance to the contract dated 6-4-196] between the appellant and the respondent for the construction of certain buildings and other engineering works at Mavoor in Calicut for the wood pulp division of the respondent. Clause 67 of the Contract provided that any dispute between the parties arising out of the same had to be referred to two arbitrators one to be nominated bv the appellant and the other bv the respondent and the said clause authorised the arbitrators to appoint an umpire to act in case of any difference of opinion among them.2. In view of the difference of opinion in the working of the contract the parties invoked clause 67 of the Contract. The appellant nominated Sri S. Ganapathia Pillai a retired Judge of the High Court of Madras, while the respondent nominated Sri K. Sankaran. a retired Chief Justice of the Ke...
Tag this Judgment!Varughese Varughese Vs. Mathew Joseph and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker61
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. 1. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner and the question relates to the sufficiency of the court-fee paid for the suit. The revision petitioner and the first respondent entered into a partnership evidenced by a partnership deed of 12-11-1960. The second respondent joined as a partner in the partnership in the year 1965 when a fresh partnership deed was executed between the parties on 15-10-1965. The plaintiff's case is that subsequent to 15-4-1967 the partnership ceased to function. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that by coercion and undue influence practised by respondents 1 and 2 he was made to execute two udampadies dated 24-8-1967and 26-12-1967 in their favour. The suit is instituted by the plaintiff for dissolution of partnership and for rendition of accounts and also to set aside the udampadies dated 24-8-1967 and 26-12-1967. The plaintiff valued the suit under Section 36 of the Kerala Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. 1959 and paid court-fee on Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!K.T. Shaduli Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-1971
Reported in: [1972]29STC44(Ker)
T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. 1. The petitioner who is common in all these cases has been assessed to sales tax for the years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. The sales tax authorities rejected his accounts and assessed him under Section 17(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The rejection of the accounts of the assessee was because they did not include the goods alleged to have been purchased by the assessee from Janab Haji P. K. Usmankutty, Merchant at Tellicherry. The sales tax authorities came to this conclusion on a perusal of the bill books maintained in the regular course of business in the trade of Janab Haji P. K. Usmankutty, Tellicherry, and from the statement alleged to have been furnished by the assessee to the officer in charge of the check post. It is alleged that there are corresponding entries in the register kept in the Sales Tax Check Post at Koottupuzha through which the goods have to pass to the assessee's place of business. The assessee denied having made pur...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »