Kerala Court March 1977 Judgments
Kochappan and ors. Vs. the Official Liquidator, Palmland Corpn. (P) Lt ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Ker201
G. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. Defendants 1 to 3 are the appellants here. Plaintiff-company before its liquidation was engaged in the conduct of kuries. In one such kuri, the total sale of which was Rs. 10,000/-, the first appellant was a subscriber for a half ticket. Subscription for each instalment (50 instalments on the whole) was Rs. 200/-. On 7th February, 196S, the first defendant bid the kuri and on 11th July, 1968, received the prize amount on executing a 'Kuri Eedupannayadhaa-ram' along with defendants 2 and 3 agreeing to pay the future subscriptions on the due dates and to take back the document after the 50th instalment. In the plaint the plaintiff alleged that the amounts paid by the first defendant upto and inclusive of 15-7-1969 would satisfy only twenty-six instalments and that in spite of repeated demands and lawyer's notice the subscriptions payable since 7-2-1969, the 27th instalment, have not been paid. It was also alleged in the plaint that though more than three years el...
Tag this Judgment!Koran Vs. Kamala Shetty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Ker172
Gopalan Nambiyar, Ag. C.J.1. This revision petition has come on before a Full Bench to consider two principal questions that appeared to arise for determination, viz. (1) the applicability of the principle of res judicata, and in particular, the principle, of 'might and ought' embodied in Explanation IV to Section 11 of the C. P. C. to proceedings before the Land Tribunal under the Kerala Land Reforms Act; and (2) the question whether the status of a tenant who applies for purchase of kudikidappu has tobe Judged with reference to the date of the commencement of Act 35 of 1969 i. e.1-1-1970 or with respect to the date of making the application. The latter part of the first question does not actually arise on the facts; and the second question does not fall for consideration in view of our answer to the first part of the first question. 2. The revision is by the unsuccessful petitioner who applied for purchase of kudikidappu rights under Section 80-B of the Land Reforms Act. The applicat...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Hassan Vs. Kunjulakshmi Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Ker204
Gopalan Nambiyar, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal is with the leave of a learned Judge of this Court in S.A. No. 672 of 1971. The matter arises out of a suit for redemption of about 19 cents of land. The 2nd defendant in the suit is the appellant before us. Ext. P-1 dated 23-6-1102 M.E. 5-2-1927 is the mortgage, styled 'Otti Kuzhikanam, sought to be redeemed. It was granted by one Kunjulek-shmi Amma, the mother of the minor plaintiff, to the defendants. By Ext. D-3 dated 20-9-1111 = 2-5-1936 a melotti was granted for and on behalf of the plaintiff by the plaintiff's uncle to the 2nd defendant. This was followed by a sale deed Ext. D-2 dated 2-1-1112 = 17-8-1936 by the same uncle to the 2nd defendant. The mortgage Ext. D-1 was released to the 2nd defendant by Ext. D-7 dated 26-10-1112 = 9-6-1947. The plaintiff attained majority on 24-10-1950, and the suit was laid on 29-9-1965 ignoring Ext. D-3. The trial court decreed the suit. On appeal, the lower appellate court reversed the said judgment and...
Tag this Judgment!Gabrial Thankayyam and anr. Vs. Narayanan Nadar Perumal Nadar and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1870
ORDERS.K. Kader, J.1. This is a petition filed Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by 'C' party Nos. 1 and 2 in M.C. 20 of 1976, now pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Trivandrum, praying for quashing the preliminary order passed in the said proceedings.2. A proceeding Under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Code, was initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Trivandrum, on the basis of a report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Poovar. On 17th April, 1976, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order purporting to be a preliminary order Under Sub-section (1) of Section 145 of the Code, in respect of the property described in the schedule to the order, and requiring the parties concerned in the dispute to attend her court in person or by pleader on the date specified therein and put in written statements of their respective claims regarding the actual possession of the subject of d...
Tag this Judgment!G.K. Krishnan Vs. Meenakshikutty Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Ker199
ORDERV. Khalid, J.1. A tenant in a Rent Control proceedings is the petitioner before me, R. C. No. 56 of 1970 was filed against him seeking eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need. The Rent Control court found bona fide need in favour of the respondent and ordered eviction which was confirmed by the appellate authority and the revisional court. This revision challenges the order passed by the District Judge, Ernakulam in R. C. R. P. No. 94 of 1976 directing the petitioner to surrender the building to the respondent.2. Two important questions are raised by the counsel for the petitioner before me. The first question is that the court below committed an error of jurisdiction in so far as the petition for eviction was not preceded by a valid notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act which according to him is a statutory mandatory requirement to sustain an application for eviction. The second point urged is that the bona fide need put forward by the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. P.V. John
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1977
Reported in: [1977]108ITR225(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, Actg. C.J. 1. The following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, for our determination and opinion, viz. : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the income derived from the gifted properties is not one of the circumstances to be taken note of in determining what would be the reasonable gift for the purpose of education of the donees under Section 5(1)(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958?' 2. By four documents all dated December 1, 1969, the assessee made gifts of his immovable properties to his four children, viz., (1) Ranjit, studying in the IVth Standard, (2) Eapen studying in the S.S.L.C. Class, (3) George, studying for B.Sc., and (4) Miss. Annie John, studying for B.A. The asses-see filed a gift-tax return wherein he showed the valuation of his property at Rs. 1,74,080. The entire sum was claimed to be exempted under Section 5(1)(xii...
Tag this Judgment!Hydrose Haji Vs. K.M. Bava and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-1977
Reported in: (1978)ILLJ524Ker
V.P.Gopalan Nambiyar, Acting C.J.1. The appeal is against the judgment of a learned Judge who dismissed the appellant's writ petition to quash the order Ext P3 of the appellate authority under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960, (the Additional Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ernakulam). That authority had found that the termination of service ordered by the appellant of the 1st respondent was unjustified. Having come to that conclusion, the authority found that there was no ground to order reinstatement as the relationship between the employer and the employee was rather strained, and reinstatement might only have the result of developing further disharmony with the employee. It, therefore, directed the appellant to pay the 1st respondent, a sum of Rs. 5,740 towards back wages for the period from 13-12-1969 (the date of termination) to 14-5-1973 (the date of the order at Rs. 140 per mensem. It also found that the 1st respondent was entitled to a further sum of Rs 2,0...
Tag this Judgment!A.V. Thomas and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-1977
Reported in: [1977]110ITR515(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiar, Actg. C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has sent up this statement of the case and formulated the following question of law for our opinion, viz. :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that only the net dividend of Rs. 67,282 can be excluded and not the gross dividend of Rs. 1,71,204 while computing the chargeable profits under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the assessment year 1971-72 '2. The accounting year with which we are concerned is the year ending December 31, 1970. The assessee is a limited company. Apart from income from business it had also income from dividend. The amount of dividend received by it during the accounting year was Rs. 1,71,204. No deduction was either claimed or allowed from this amount by way of banking commission, etc., as provided under Section 57 of the Income-tax Act. For the computation of the income-tax assessment, dividend income was ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Vs. Thomas and Co. V. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-1977
Reported in: (1978)6CTR(Ker)0037B
Gopalan Nambiyar, Ag. C.J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench has sent up the statement of the case and formulated the following question of law for our opinion viz. :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law holding that only the net dividend of Rs. 67,282/- can be excluded and not the gross dividend of Rs. 1,71,204/- while computing the chargeable profits under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the assessment year 1971-72 ?'2. The accounting year with which we are concerned is the year ending 31-12-1970. The assessee is a limited company. Apart from income from business it had also income from dividend. The amount of dividend received by it during the accounting year was Rs. 1,71,204.00. No deduction was either claimed or allowed from this amount by way of banking commission etc. as provided under S. 57 of the Income-tax Act. For the computation of the Income-tax assessment, dividend income was taken into acco...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Chacko
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-1977
Reported in: AIR1979Ker52
Subramonian Poti, J.1. These are appeals by the State of Kerala against the decision of the court below in L. A. O. Ps. 215 of 1971 and 492 of 1971. These cases were tried along with a number of other cases and a common judgment has been delivered by the learned Subordinate. Judge. We have to-day disposed of appeals against the other cases independently. We have taken up these cases separately became, unlike in the other cases, the State has not chosen to file objections to the commissioner's report on the basis of which market value has been found by the court below. At the bearing learned Advocate-General urged very serious objection to the commissioner's report and particularly the method of crop cutting experiment conducted by the commissioner. Possibly this objection could have been valid and might have influenced this Court to remit the case back to the court below for fresh consideration had such objection been taken before the court below. In the absence of objection to the met...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »