Kerala Court February 1976 Judgments
Mother Superior, Adoration Convent Vs. D.E.O. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-1976
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ450Ker
Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. These two original petitions are considered and disposed of together as a common question arises for consideration in them, in O.P. No 3184 of 1974 the facts are the following. The petitioner is the Mother Superior of Adoration Convent, Kanjiramattom. This convent is one branch of a larger family of Sitters of the Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament governed by norms of canon law and statutes approved by the head of the church. At an early age one Mariakutty Thomas became a nun and became a member of this convent. She took the temporal vows in 1944 and the perpetual vows in 1949. After joining the order she was appointed as an L.P. School Assistant in L.F.L.P. School, Kanjiramattam. In due course she was promoted and appointed as high school assistant in the school run under the management of the Diocese of Palai. She continued in this job till her death on 24.6.1972. As per Rule 3 of Chapter XXVII B of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, teachers in aided schools ar...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer, Assessment Ii and anr. Vs. C.V. George and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-1976
Reported in: [1976]105ITR144(Ker)
Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. The question is whether the partners of a registered firm are liable to be proceeded against for recovery of tax assessed on the firm as such under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), pursuant to a certificate issued to the Tax Recovery Officer as envisaged by Section 222 of the Act. The learned judge before whom this question arose answered it in the negative, allowed the writ application and issued a direction not to enforce exhibits P-l and P-3 communications sent by the Tax Recovery Officer.2. In exhibit P-l addressed to the partners it was stated that 'a sum of Rs. 70,763 is outstanding as arrears towards income-tax, penalty, interest, etc., from the firm, M/s. Mutual Benefit Corporation, Calicut, of which you are a partner.....' The three partners who are respondents in this writappeal protested by exhibit P-2 and contended that the arrears of income-tax due from the firm, M/s. Mutual Benefit Corporation, cannot be recovered from the partners. T...
Tag this Judgment!Thresia Vs. Xavier
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ker118
Narayana Pillai, J.1. This is an application for permission to file as pauper an original petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Court-fee payable on the Original Petition is only Rs. 25/-. A. V. Balan v. District Collector, Trichur 1972 Ker LT 588 : (AIR 1973 Ker 88) is a Division Bench decision where this court refused to apply to a proceeding under Article 226 the provisions of Order XXXIII of the C, P. C. enabling institution of suits by paupers. Abdul Kareem v. District Medical Officer 1974 Ker LT 21 : (AIR 1974 Ker 167) and Devassy Manjooran v. Registrar 1975 Ker LT 348 are two Division Bench decisions of this Court where a review provided for in Order XLVII and withdrawal of suit provided for in Order XXIII of the C. P. C. were extended to proceedings under Article 226 on the basis of Section 141 of the C. P. C, Apart from the provisions of Order XLVII of the C. P. C. as held by the Supreme Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 1909 power of review inher...
Tag this Judgment!Sreekumar Vs. Prema
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ker94
Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. We are unable to share the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Section A. No. 416 of 1973 (Ker) against the judgment in which this appeal has been preferred. The second appeal arose out of an application filed under the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, by the husband, for dissolution of marriage, against his wife, under Section 7 of the Madras Maru-makkathayam Act. The application was dismissed by the Munsiff, allowed on appeal by the District Judge, whose judgment was set aside by the learned Single Judge of this Court, restoring the order of the Munsiff. Although no specific objection was taken either before the Appellate Judge or in second appeal to the maintainability of an appeal, or second appeal, the learned Judge has recorded that these would probably be maintainable in the light of the principle of the decision in Adaikappa Chettiar v. Chandra-sekhara Thevar, AIR 1948 PC 12. As no question of the maintainability of the present appeal was urged before us...
Tag this Judgment!Xavier and anr. Vs. Babu and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ker75
Bhaskaran, J.1. This revision under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act I of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969, for short the Act, has been placed before us on a reference by a learned single Judge as it 'raised a question of some general importance,'The first revision petitioner is the husband of the second revision petitioner. Respondents I to II are kudikidappukars, four of them under the first revision petitioner, and the rest under the second revision petitioner; each one of them on applications filed under Section 80-B of the Act has been allowed by the Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms) to purchase ownership of ten cents of land belonging to the revision petitioners, and that order has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority.2. The Special Tahsildar found that the revision petitioners together held an extent of 5.03 acres of land; the correctness of this finding was disputed by the revision petitioners in their appeal before the Appellate Authority; that authority, o...
Tag this Judgment!Vimala Cold Storage Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-1976
Reported in: [1976]38STC217(Ker)
ORDERT. Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. Questions, interesting but not altogether free from difficulty, have arisen in this case.2. Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), enables the Government, if they consider it necessary in the public interest, by notification in the Gazette to make an exemption or reduction in respect of any tax payable under the Act, (i) on the sale or purchase of any specified goods or class of goods, at all points or at a specified point or points in the series of sales or purchases by successive dealers, or (ii) by a specified class of persons, in regard to the whole or any part of their turnover. By S.R.O. 342/63 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10 of the Act, the Government of Kerala having considered it necessary in the public interest made an exemption in respect of the tax payable under the Act on the sale or purchase of goods specified in Schedule I thereto appended and by persons specified in ...
Tag this Judgment!Goutami Devi Sitamony Vs. Madhavan Sivarajan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ker83
Subramonian Poti, J. 1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the assignee from an appellant could seek to get impleaded in the appeal under Order 22, Rule 10, Civil P. C. after the death of the appellant and after the period within which the appeal would abate under Rule 3 (2) of Order XXII by reason of the failure to implead legal representatives of the deceased appellant. This question arises under the following circumstances. 2. In execution of the decree in Order Section 922 of 1963 of the 1st Additional Munsiff's Court, Trivandrum, the decree-schedule property was sold and that was purchased by a stranger in court auction. The auction-purchaser, in whose favour the sale was confirmed, sought to take delivery. This was objected to by the vendee of the property from the defendant in the suit. Such vendee made an application to set aside the sale and that application was ultimately allowed by the execution court. Against that order the auction purchaser filed a Civil M...
Tag this Judgment!Avutha Ammal Selvi Ammal Vs. Joseph Gomez and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Ker131
Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. In this appeal by the plaintiff from the concurrent decrees of the Courts below dismissing a suit for redemption of the plaint property the main contention raised is that Section 4-A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, was wrongly applied by the Courts below in dismissing the suit. The property scheduled to the plaint, only 13 cents in extent and the building thereon, formed one item of a mortgage dated 6-8-1048 which comprised several items totalling nearly 2 acres in extent. The suit however was for redeeming only one item of the properties included in the mortgage. This item had been sub-mortgaged on 13-11-1963 (document not produced) by the first respondent, who became entitled to the mortgage rights, in favour of the second defendant in the suit. In this sub-mortgage it was stated that the mortgagor would retain the building in the property as well as one coconut tree and the rest will be enjoyed by the second defendant sub-mortgagee.2. Two contentions hav...
Tag this Judgment!Karal Puthen Purayil Kannan and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal (Special Ta ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-05-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ker1
Govindan Nair, C. J.1. This is an appeal by the eight petitioners in O. P. No. 5025 of 1972 from the judgment dismissing the original petition. The appellants were the respondents in an application moved by the 2nd respondent herein under Section 77 read with Section 75 (2) of the Kerala Lend Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for evicting the appellants. The Lend Tribunal ordered eviction. In the original petition two points were mainly raised at the time of the arguments. The first was that the notice issued under the proviso to Section 77 (1) of the Act did not even clearly state what was the alternate site to which the kudikidappukars were requested to shift. Secondly it was urged that in the alternate site, later identified, the 2nd respondent did not have full and absolute rights, she having had admittedly only kuzhikanam Chamayam and possession. The learned Judge found that though there has been a mistake in describing the property nobody had been really misl...
Tag this Judgment!Kulasekharapuram Panchayat Vs. the State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ker62
Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. In this Original Petition Kulasekharapuram Pan-cheyat in Quilon District challenges the order of the Government, Ext P-5 dated 9th January, 1973, allowing a revision petition filed by the Thazhava Panchayat against the order of the Director of Pen-chayats sanctioning the opening of a new public market by the petitioner-Pancha-yat. Thazhava Panchayat is running a public market at a distance of about 300 metres away from the site proposed to be used by the Kulasekharapuram Panchayat for running a new public markets A tarred road connects the two places. The public market run by the Thazhava Panchayat is in existence since 1950 if not earlier. The objection of the Thazhava Panchayat to the opening of a new market so close to its market is stated to be based on Rule 26 of the Kerala Panchayat (Public and Private Market), Rules, 1964. That rule is in the following terms:--'A Panchayat shall not except with the prior sanction of the Director of Pan-chayats open a new pu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »