Kerala Court June 1974 Judgments
iranikkulam Co-operative Society and ors. Vs. Kuttikkad Service Co-ope ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker4
Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of a learned Judge of this court allowing O. P. No. 1546 of 1974. Respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in the original petition are the appellants before us. The petitioner in O. P. No. 1546 of 1974 is the 1st respondent in this appeal. The parties will hereafter be referred to in accordance with their array and ranking in the original petition.2. The writ petitioner as well as res-pondents Nos. 3 to 5 are all co-operative societies. A fairly large extent of forest lands in the Vazhachal range had been earmarked for being leased out for a special type of cultivation which goes by the name 'Taungya Cultivation'. Under this system of cultivation the grantee is required to clear the land of forest growth so as to make it suitable for being planted with teak and eucalyptus plants and is allowed simultaneously to cultivate the said land for a period of two years. Duringthe first year the grantee if permitted to culti-vate t...
Tag this Judgment!Kavunnv Chakkiar Vs. Govinda Gurukkal and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker182
G. Balagangadharan Nair, J. 1. The appeal by the additional plaintiff, now represented by his legal representatives, arises out of a suit for recovery of 63 cents of land with a building thereon, on the strength of title. The suit was allowed by the trial Court but was dismissed on the appeal taken by the first respondent-first defendant.2. The property in dispute admittedly belongs to the plaintiffs' tarwad. In 1113, there was a Karar (Ext. P-1) in the tarwad under which the then Karnavan Kunjunni Chakkiar, relinquished his management in favour of Parameswara Chakkiar. the original plaintiff (hereinafter called merely as the plaintiff). There were some disputes and litigations in the tarwad and these were referred to arbitration, which led to an award Ext. P-4, providing for a maintenance arrangement. The plaintiff's case in brief is as follows: In 1113 he leased the building to one Marath Achutha Menon. The first defendant (called for brief the defendant) began residing in the buildi...
Tag this Judgment!Kochikka Chellamma and anr. Vs. T.V. Kunju Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ106
ORDERKumari P. Janaki Amma, J.1. The first petitioner married the respondent and the second petitioner is the son born out of the wedlock. The petitioners were awarded maintenance in M.C. 5 of 1960 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chengannur, the second petitioner being allowed at the rate of Rs. 5 per mensem. The marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent was dissolved with effect from 25-3-1965. Thereafter the respondent filed O. P. 6 of 1966 before the District Court, Mavelikara for the custody of the second petitioner. The matter was compromised and the first petitioner agreed that the respondent be the guardian of the second petitioner and that the custody of the second petitioner be with the respondent on the assumption that such an arrangement would be to the benefit of the minor. The present revision petition arises out of a motion by the petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chengannur under Section 489, Cr. P. C, for enhanced maintenance to the seco...
Tag this Judgment!Divakaran Vs. Dy. Director of Fisheries and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-27-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker9
ORDERChandrasekhara Menon, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, styling himself as a convener of a fishermen's Association has aksed for a writ of mandamus to command the 1st and 2nd respondents to remove all the unlicensed fishing stakes now being operated by respondents 3 to 36 in and around the area of the Puthenpadu Oonnies of the petitioner and his sangham in the Puramboke river in Sy. No. 845 in the Mulavukadu village, Kanayannur taluk; also for writ of prohibition for restraining respondents 3 to 36, private individuals from conducting unauthorised fishing operations by means of unlicensed stake nets. His contention is that in the particular locality, the members of the Vala Community of the place have got the right of fishing which could not in any way be obstructed or interfered with by others. Their stakes are licensed in accordance with the provisions of the Travoncore-Cochin Fisheries Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The complaint is that in spite of repeated rep...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the Secretary, Central Govern ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-26-1974
Reported in: (1975)ILLJ86Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. We think, the Court below was right and that no interference is called for in this appeal, preferred by the Union of India and the Commanding Officer, Naval Base, Cochin, against the judgment of the Sub-Court, Cochin, decreeing the plaintiff's suit to declare the termination of his service illegal and for reinstatement with arrears of pay, or alternatively for compensation for wrongful termination of service. The Court below declared the termination of service illegal and granted a decree for Rs. 25,000 as compensation with interest at 6% per annum.2. The plaintiff-respondent was a welder, Grade II. in the Civilian Defence Forces, at the Naval Base, Cochin. His service was terminated by Ext. A1 order of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, dated 25-10-1968, without assigning any reason whatsoever. The plaintiff at the time of termination of service, was aged only 41, and would be normally entitled to continue in service till sixty years of age. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Arecanut Stores Vs. Ramkishore and Sons and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-20-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker144
Subramonian Poti, J. 1. Thequestion for decision here is quite an interesting one. Whether the suit by a partner of an unregistered firm for recovery of mony claimed on the dishonour of a cheque endorsed in favour of the firm would be maintainable is the question in controversy. It was contended that the suit is barred by Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act. The court below, while holding in favour of the plaintiff on the merits of the case, dismissed the suit accepting this contention. The plaintiff has, hence, come up to this court in appeal.2. The plaintiff-company claims to be a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The plaintiff is said to be the managing partner. Admittedly the first defendant issued three cheques, one for Rs. 7,500/-, another for Rs. 5,000/-and yet another for Rs. 2,500/,- all of the date 21-4-1965 in favor of the second defendant firm and the second defendant firm receiving consideration endorsed these cheques to the plaintiff. These were se...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaran and ors. Vs. Rajamma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-20-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker155
T. Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. This second appeal is filed by defendants 1 and 2 in a suit for declaration of title to, and possession of the plaint property and for consequential injunction. The plaintiff claimed title and possession on the basis of a Court sale and delivery through Court. Ex. p-1 is the sale certificate and Ex. P-2 the copy of delivery list in the matter. Patta for the property was also issued in her name. Ex. P-2, and she Paid tax for the property for which she obtained Ex. P-4 receipt. Before delivery of property the first defendant had filed the original of Ex. P-5 petition objecting to the delivery on the ground that the plaint schedule property belongs to him and it is not liable to be sold for the decree debt concerned. Ex. p-5 petition was rejected. The order of rejection has not been produced in the case. Sri Vyason Poti, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be allowed to produce the said order as it would indicate that Ex. P-5 was rejected...
Tag this Judgment!State and anr. Vs. Chakiat Brothers and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-13-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker13
G. Balagangadhahan Nair, J. 1. This revision by the plaintiff -- the State of Kerala arises under the following circumstances.2. The State brought the suit against the defendant, the Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. (hereinafter called the Company for short), for an injunction to restrain it from cutting and removing trees from lands covered by the Kannan Devan Concession Area. By an agreement, Ext. D3 dated 5-11-1970 the Company had given the petitioner the right to cut and remove trees from 5000 acres in the Concession Area for a period of 5 years. Pursuant to the agreement the petitioner has felled trees from a portion of the 5000 acres. The petitioner made two applications in the suit, one to be added as a party and the other for sale of the trees felled, through a Commissioner. The application for impleadment is stated to be still pending. The Court sold the timber through a Commissioner and the sale proceeds amounting to Rupees 6,04,000/- were deposited in Court. Thereafter th...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmaposhana Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-1974
Reported in: [1975]100ITR351(Ker)
Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. These income-tax referred cases raise the same question for decision. The assessee is the same company. Income-tax Referred Cases Nos. 52, 53, 54 and 51 refer respectively to the years of assessment 1965-66, 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65. The claim put forward by the assessee before the Tribunal that the income from the kuri (chit funds) and interest income earned by lending money ,are not taxable under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, ' the Act '), in view of Section 11 of the Act exempting income derived from property held on trust for a charitable purpose, has been negatived by the Tribunal and these references are at the instance of the assessee and the question referred for our opinion is :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income of the assessee for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1965-66 was exempt under the provisions of Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee was following the calendar year as its accoun...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dharmadeepti
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-1974
Reported in: [1975]100ITR375(Ker)
Govindan Nair, C.J.1. This reference is at the instance of the department and the question referred to us for the year 1969-70 by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, reads as follows :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1969-70 '2. The relevant objects of the company are detailed in Clauses 3(a), 3(b)(iv), 3(c), 4(iii) and 4(iv) and they read as follows :' 3. (a) The main objects to be pursued by the company on its incorporation are : (i) to give charity. (ii) to promote education. (iii) to establish or aid in the establishment of associations, institutions, funds, trusts with the object of promoting charity and/or education provided that the company shall not support with its funds or endeavour to impose on, or procure to be observed by, its members or others any regulation or restriction which, if an object of the company, would make it a ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »