Kerala Court March 1974 Judgments
issack Vs. Pappu Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-1974
Reported in: AIR1974Ker183
Chandrasekhara Menon, J. 1. The plaintiff in a suit for redemption of a mortgage is the appellant in this appeal. The mortgage is of the year 1103 M.E. Ex. D-l Ms the mortgage deed. By this deed the mortgagees, Iype and Sara were authorised to redeem an earlier mortgage. They redeemed the earlier mortgage and came into possession of the property by Ex. D-4 document dated 31-9-1112. What had been mortgaged as per Ex. D-l was a leasehold right from a Devasworn.2. The Devasworn obtained a decree for eviction with arrears of rent against the lessee-mortgagor on 28-6-1111. The mortgagees were also parties to the decree. It was after this decree that the mortgagees got release of the earlier mortgage and got possession of the property.3. The defendant got assignment of the rights of the mortgagees, evidenced by the deed of assignment Ex. D-5 dated 31-9-1112; the mortgagor's right devolved on the plaintiff.4. The jenmi-devaswom instead of executing the decree for eviction granted a fresh demi...
Tag this Judgment!R. Sivaram Vs. T.A. John and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker101
G. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. In this second appeal the only question to be decided is whether the pronote sued on was executed by defendants 1 and 2 to stifle a prosecution or is otherwise vitiated on the ground that it is not supported by consideration. The facts as emerged from the pleadings of the parties and disclosed in the evidence are the following: One Antony was an employee of P. S. N. Motor Ltd. He was found to have stolen spare parts from the store of the above company. On questioning him it was learnt that he used to sell those articles in the shop called Taj Distributing Company belonging to defendants 1 and 2. On this information on questioning the 1st defendant he stated that they had purchased articles from the above Antony. When the company wanted to take legal proceedings the 3rd defendant interfered and defendants 1 and 2 agreed to execute the pro-note for the money value of the articles purchased by them and as a mode of payment four cheques of Rs. 500/- each were exec...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Cyriac Vs. Vice-chancellor, Kerala University, Trivandrum and ors ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker158
ORDERM.U. Isaac, J.1. The petitioner was a ore-degree student of the Newman College. Thodupuzha. He sat for the University examination held in April-May 1972 at that college. On 6-6-1972. when he was writing Mathematics Paper I the invigilators detected the petitioner committing malpractice. They reported the matter to the Chief Superintendent, who immediately came to the scene, and took the petitioner's answer book into custody; but the petitioner ran away with the paper from which he was copying. The Chief Superintendent appointed the third respondent, who is the Professor of Chemistry in that college, to enquire into the above misconduct. The third respondent framed charges against the petitioner and issued a notice Ext. R-l dated 9-8-1972. calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation, and show cause why he should not be punished. The petitioner submitted an explanation Ext. R-2 dated 14-8-1972 denying the charges, and requesting that he may be allowed to engage a lawyer to...
Tag this Judgment!Puzhakkal Edam Alias Puthen Edon and ors. Vs. Kunchappan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-1974
Reported in: AIR1974Ker210
ORDERM.U. Isaac, J.1. This case was originally filed as a civil revision petition to revise an order of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Trichur in A. A. No. 100 of 1971 passed on 28-4-1972. Subsequently by an order of this Court dated 10-1-1973 it has been converted as an Original Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.2. It is necessary to briefly state the facts of the case. The petitioners herein obtained the property concerned in this case pursuant to a final decree passed in a partition suit in O. S. No. 402 of 1938 in the Alathur Munsiff's Court. There was a Receiver appointed for all the suit properties in that case. The receiver was managing this property by auctioning the right to take its income from year to year. For the year 1134 M.E., it appears that the respondent purchased that right. In an auction conducted for the year 1135, the right was purchased by a third party from whom it was taken by the respondent, who conducted the cultivation in that ...
Tag this Judgment!Management of the Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. Vs. the Indu ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-1974
Reported in: (1975)ILLJ64Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. Despite the elaborate ground covered by the Tribunal and the elaborate arguments advanced before us, we think the main question for determination in these writ petitions falls in a narrow compass. Two Industrial Disputes, I.D.31 of 1967 and I.D. 1 of 1969 were referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut for adjudication. The Disputes were between the Gwalior Rayons Silk ., Mavoor (referred to, for short as the company) and the Gwalior Rayon Pulp Factory Employees' Union, Mavoor. In I.D. 31 of 1967, the disputes referred, were:Payment of bonus for the year 1965-66.2. Payment of D.A, linked with cost of living index.3. Confirmation of staff:4. Fixation of pay scales of the following staff:(a) Plantation Officers(b) Supervisors(c) Assistant Supervisors(d) Watchmen(e) Drivers(f) Clerical staff.5. Other amenitiesIn I.D. 1 of 1969, the disputes referred, were:1. Production bonus for 1966-67 and 1967.68 to staff.2. Reinstatement of Shri K.V. Showkat Ali.The two re...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Vasu and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-20-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker15
ORDERP. Narayana Pillai, J.1. The point raised here is straightforward. It is this. Is an order passed on a bail application a final order as envisaged by Article 134(1) of the Constitution? By an order passed on the 14th of last month I dismissed Crl. M. P. No. 186 of 1974, a petition for bail filed on behalf of accused Nos. 1 and 4 to 10 in P. E. No. 25 of 1973 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Trichur. The present application is for leave to appeal from that order to the Supreme Court under Article 134(1)(c) which reads :'134 (1) 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- .... .... .... .... ..... (c) certifies that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court.' 2. The words 'final order' have not been defined either in the Constitution or in the General Clauses Act. But to Article 132 where also those words occur there is an Explanation and it is ...
Tag this Judgment!Kunjumangeli Vs. Krishnan Namboodripad and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-20-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker112
T. Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. She is the daughter of a deceased member of a namboocliri. family known as Kunnappilly Illom. A partition was effected in the family in 1960, which is evidenced in the case by document marked as Ex. P1. This deed of partition was executed by 24 members of the family. The legal guardians acted on behalf of the minor members. Besides these 24 members, there was at that time another member in the family, one Naravanan Namboodripad, whose whereabouts were unknown. In the partition effected, shares were set apart to three ladies including the plaintiff, who were not members of the Illom, but who were daughters of deceased members of the Illom on the ground that they were not given sthridanam at the time of their marriage. Besides, one member an executant of the deed was allotted an additional share in view of the fact that she was a widow without any support. A share was also set apart to Narayanan Namboodripad earlier mentioned. The...
Tag this Judgment!Mubarak Stores Vs. the Intelligence Officer, Agricultural Income-tax a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-20-1974
Reported in: [1974]33STC526(Ker)
M.U. Isaac, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The first respondent, the Intelligence Officer, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Cannanore, made a sudden inspection of the petitioner's shop on 8th March, 1973, and seized therefrom a rough daybook for the year 1972-73 written up to 7th March, 1973, and 9 account slips. The petitioner made repeated requests to the first respondent to return the records seized from his custody without any success. On 26th October, 1973, he filed this petition for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the first respondent to return the said records to him and for incidental reliefs.2. The Deputy Commissioner (Law) has filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the first respondent on 6th December, 1973. In paragraph 8 of that counter-affidavit he states as follows:The petitioner has prayed in this original petition for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to retur...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan and ors. Vs. Ayyappan Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-1974
Reported in: AIR1974Ker218
T. Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. One Koikkalazhi-kathu tarwad had mortgaged with possession 86 cents of land which takes in the suit property to one Matheru Sankaran and another on 27-11-1065. Ex. D-1 is the copy of the mortgage deed. Sometime afterwards Sankaran Pillai Govinda Pillai, a junior member of the tarwad filed a suit -- O. S. 622 of 1089 -- for redemption of the mortgage. On what allegations and under what capacity he filed the suit, it is not possible to find out as none of the said suit records are produced in this case. In pursuance of the decree passed in the suit, Govinda Pillai obtained possession of the suit property. It is not clear from the records produced in the case whether such possession was obtained by actual execution of the decree or out of court. On 3-8-1107, corresponding to 16-3-1932, Govinda Pillai mortgaged the property which was then in his possession as stated earlier to one Parame1swaran Pillai. Copy of this mortgage deed is marked as Ex. P-1 in the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Mathai Varkey and anr. Vs. Varughese Chacko
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-1974
Reported in: AIR1974Ker185
K. Bhaskaran, J. 1. Sri S. Subramonia Iyer, the learned counsel for the appellants, has raised a rather interesting question of law to attack the judgment of the first appellate court reversing the order that was passed by the execution court.2. The facts leading to this second appeal are not in dispute and could be briefly stated as follows:-- The decree schedule property was purchased by the decree-holder in auction in execution of the decree on 7-12-1965. After disposing of a petition filed by the judgment-debtors under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the execution court confirmed the sale on 30-6-1966 C.M.A. No. 56 of 1966 was filed in the District Court by the appellant on 27-5-1966 questioning the correctness of the order passed on the petition for setting aside the sale filed by him. That C. M. Appeal was ultimately dismissed. Thereafter, I. P. No. 3 of 1966 was filed by the creditors of the appellant, and during the pendency of those proceedings the execution ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »