Kerala Court June 1975 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.
P. Mulji and Sons, Africa Vs. Kerala Produce Exporting Co. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Ker3
Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. This is an appeal by the 2nd counter-petitioner in Arbitration Act Petition No. 1 of 1955 on the file of the Quilon District Court. Under Ext. D3 agreement entered into between the 1st and 2nd counter-petitioners the 2nd counter-petitioner supplied cashewnuts to the 1st counter petitioner. The same was delivered at Quilon on 17-2-1964. Under the agreement any dispute regarding the quality of the goods has to be referred to an arbitration and the Arbitration Rules which govern the parties provide for appointment of Arbitrators, the time within which that should be done and the procedure which should be followed by Arbitrators. Complaining that the quality of the goods supplied was inferior the 1st counter-petitioner requested the 2nd counter-petitioner to appoint an Arbitrator. There was some attempt at settling the matter otherwise and when that failed the 1st counter-petitioner pressed for a reference to Arbitration. He informed the Secretary, Indian Cashew Expo...
Sarabai Dorabai and anr. Vs. Raman Pillai Kumaran Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Ker43
Gopalan Nambiyar J.1. The revi-sion arises out of an order of the court below in an application filed under Section 11 of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act (Act 11 of 1970) for amendment of the application; and yet another application filed for impleading a party to the said application. Both these applications (I. A. Nos. 764/74 and 765/74) were dealt with in a common order and allowed by the Munsiff of Neyyattinkara.2. In this revision petition the point canvassed by the Counsel for the petitioners is that in an application filed under Section 11 of Act 11 of 1970, there will be no warrant to apply the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and to entertain or allow either an application for amendment of the petition or for impleading additional parties. It was pointed out that where various provisions of the Civil Procedure Code have been made applicable to proceedings under the Act, the same has been done by specificprovisions such as what is found in Section 7 (7) of the ...
Koshy Koshy Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Ker103
ORDERT. Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. A preliminary order dated 5-3-1975 passed in M. C. 13/75 initiating proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, attaching the properties concerned and appointing the village officer, Venmony as the Court agent in respect of the properties is sought to be quashed in this original petition.2. The petitioner is said to be in possession of the properties concerned. He has taken proceedings under Section 72-B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (shortly stated the Act) for purchasing the right, title and interest of the land owner on whose behalf, in the meanwhile, a suit hasbeen filed in the Munsiff's Court for declaration of his title and possession. In the suit on the petitioner's contention, an issue was raised whether the petitioner is a cultivating tenant or not. The said issue has been referred to the Land Tribunal under Section 125 (3) of the Act.3. While the matter is thus seized by the Land Tribunal, petitioner received the prelim...
Western India Cotton Limited Vs. N. Raghavan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-1975
Reported in: (1977)ILLJ284Ker
ORDERGopalan Nambiyar, J.1. The revision petitioner, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 75 of 1974, Sub-Court, Tellicherry is the Western India Cottons Limited, Pappinissery, which instituted a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,661.50 for damages caused to the plaintiff's car by the defendants some of the workmen of the plaintiff-company. Pending suit, an attachment before judgment was prayed for in respect of a sum of Rs. 4,836.08 lying to the credit of the defendants in the company towards bonus payable to them. An interim attachment was ordered. But after the defendants-respondents entered appearance and opposed the application, the same was vacated and the application for attachment before judgment was dismissed on the ground that bonus would be 'wages of labourers' within the meaning of Section 60 Clause (h) of the Civil Procedure Code and, therefore, exempt from attachment The tenability of this ruling has been canvassed in this revision petition which has been referred for decision to ...
Mohammad Haji Vs. Umananda Kamath
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Ker26
ORDERN.D.P. Maboodiripad, J. 1. These two revisions arise out of a proceeding under Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Act 2 of 1965, and referred to herein as the Act. The premises in dispute were let out to the tenant by the petitioner-landlord under Ext. A-1 dated 4-4-1969 for a monthly rent of Rs. 65/-. The landlord is occupying the first floor of the same building, and the premises rented out is the ground floor. Eviction was sought on the ground that the landlord bona fide needed the building for conducting a trade. It was after issuing Ext. A-2 notice dated 9-6-1971 that the eviction proceedings were launched. The tenant denied the bona fide need alleged by the landlord and also contended that the business run by him in the disputed premises is the main source of his income. The tenant also had a case that Ext. A-2 is not in accordance with law. The Rent Control Court repelled the contentions of the tenant and allowed eviction. The tenant took the m...
Alleppy Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-1975
Reported in: [1979]116ITR169(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question of law for our opinion:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147(b) is valid ?'2. For the assessment year 1965-66, the assessee, a company, was assessed by the ITO by his order dated 30th November, 1965. That order shows, among other things, that rebate on export profits was granted to the assessee-company at 4.6 per cent. There was an inconsequential order of rectification dated 11th August, 1966. An appeal against this order was dismissed on 25th June, 1968. Meanwhile, by an order dated 29th February, 1968, there was a further rectification of the order of assessment, the officer holding that the assessee should be treated not as a public limited company but only as one in which the public are substantially interested, and that, therefore, the assessee would be ent...
Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. P.S.P. Panicker Simon Carves India Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-09-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Ker5
ORDERN.D.P. Namboodiripad, J. 1. In view of the pleadings in the case and the concurrent findings entered by the courts below certain facts are beyond dispute. For disbursement of wages to certain workmen, the second defendant, a company, issued Ext. P1 cheque dated 26-6-1964 for an amount of Rs. 593.93 in the name of their employee, the first defendant and drawn on the State Bank of Travancore. The first defendant, who had an account in another bank by name the Federal Bank Limited, assigned the cheque for valid consideration in favour of that bank and collected the proceeds. In the meanwhile, the second defendant, 'the drawer', getting information that the first defendant did not pay off the workmen, advised the drawee Bank to withhold payment when Ext. P1 is presented. The result was that Ext. P1 was not honoured by the drawee bank when it was forwarded for collection by the holder bank. The holder bank thereupon sued for realisation of the amount covered by Ext. P1 with interest th...
Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Ker68
Govindan Nair, C.J.1. The question raised in this appeal is covered by a direct authority of this Court against the appellant which has been referred to by Gopalan Nambiyar, J., in the judgment under appeal; the decision in M/s. Marikar Motors Ltd. v. Chief Enforcement Officer, Emergency Bisks Insurance Scheme, Madras, AIR 1973 Ker 2. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the decision in M/s. Stoneware Pipes (Madras) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1971 Mad 442 has taken a different view. The question turns on the interpretation of Section 1 (3) of the Emergency Risks (Goods) Insurance Act, 1962, for short, the Goods Act, and Section 1 (3) in identical terms of the Emergency Risks (Factories) Insurance Act, 1962, for short, the Factories Act We shall extract the sub-section from the Goods Act :'It shall remain in force during the period of operation of the Proclamation of Emergency issued on the 26th October, 1962 and for such further period as the Central Government may, by notific...
State of Kerala and ors. Vs. M.C. Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Ker189
Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in O. P. No. 748 of 1970, reported in 1973 Ker LT 366 = (AIR 1973 Ker 216). The writ petition sought to Quash Ext. P-19 order of the State Government and certain other proceedings taken by it. These proceedings were taken against the writ petitioner (Respondent in the appeal) holding him liable for shortage of a stock of rice which he as a godown keeper in the foodgrains depot, at Ponnani, under the Civil Supplies Department, had brought about on account of his neglect, carelessness or misconduct. The contract between the writ petitioner and the Government evidenced by Ext, P-1 contained Clause (4) as follows:'4. That the said bounden doth hereby covenant and agree with the party hereto of the second part that, in the event of any loss or damage being caused to the Government by any act, omission, neglect, carelessness, misconduct or dishonesty on the part of the said bounden, he the said bounde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›