Kerala Court January 1978 Judgments
Arakkal Rohini and anr. Vs. Arakkal Koottappanakkal A.K. Sethumadhavan ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Ker119
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. This reference to a Full Bench was occasioned to consider the applicability of Hie Hindu Law Doctrine of pious obligation to the Thiyyas of Calicut. The court below ruled that the doctrine has no application to them, relying on a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Dharmodayam Company v. Balakrishnan (1962 Ker LT 712). The Division Bench which made the reference found force in the contention that the decision in Dharmodayam Company's Case required reconsideration in view of the observations in the Supreme Court decision in Anthonyswamy v. M.R. Chinnaswamy (AIR 1970 9C 223).2. The appeal arises out of a suit for partition. Defendants 2 and 3 who have filed this appeal may be described, as the alinees of certain items, the 2nd defendant being the mortgagee of items 1 to 5 and the 3rd defendant, the vendee (claimed also to be the lessee) of item 6. The plaintiffs 1 to 5 were the children of the 1st defendant who died pending suit, and the 6th plaintiff is their...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindran Nair Vs. Sakunthala Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-30-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1049
ORDERT. Kochu Thommen, J.1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., 1973 (the 'new Code') the petitioner challenges the order of the learned Sessions Judge affirming in revision the order passed by the trial court under Section 125 of the new Code whereby maintenance was ordered to be paid by the petitioner (whom I shall call 'the husband') to the respondent (whom I shall call 'the wife').2. In earlier proceedings under Section 488 of the Cr. P.C., 1898l ,(the 'old Code') maintenance to the children had been ordered by the court in terms of Ext. D2 divorce deed whereby the marriage between the parties was dissolved and maintenance for their children was stipulated. Ext. D2 had also stated that, in view of the agreement between the parties, the wife had no further claim against the husband. Under Section 488 of the old Code the wife had no right to be maintained once she was divorced,3. Section 125 of the new Code provides for maintenance to the wife by the husband, and stip...
Tag this Judgment!Kesavan Sivan Pillai Vs. Sreedharan Rajamohan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Ker131; 1978CriLJ743
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. This matter has been placed before a Full Bench to consider the correctness of two Division Bench Rulings of this Court in Abraham v. Thankamma (1975 Ker LT 451) and Raman Pillai v. Dakshayani (1975 Ker LT 739). Both the decisions were by a Division Bench consisting of Khalid and Janaki Amma JJ. Khalid J. who made the order of reference in the first instance noticed the conflict of judicial opinion on the question, expressed his misgiving as to the correctness of the prior rulings, and his embarrassment in the matter, and felt that the matter had to be decided by a Full Bench. It was accordingly referred by a Division Bench of two of us to a Full Bench. 2. The two Division Bench rulings referred to earlier took the view that the introduction of Section 399 in the new Criminal Procedure Code alters the practice settled for this Court in Narayanan v. Kannamma Bhargavi 1968 Ker. LT 495 : (AIR 1969 Ker 126) (FB). The Division Bench noticed that the Sessions J...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. P ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-1978
Reported in: [1978]41STC364(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. Section 5A of the General Sales Tax Act, 1963, reads:5A. Levy of purchase tax.-(1) Every dealer who, in the course of his business, purchases from a registered dealer or from any other person any goods, the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax under this Act, in circumstances in which no tax is payable under Section 5 and either-(a) consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise ; or(b) disposes of such goods in any manner other than by way of sale in the State; or(c) despatches them to any place outside the State except as a direct result of sale or purchase in the course of inter-State trade or commerce,shall, whatever be the quantum of the turnover relating to such purchase for a year, pay tax on the taxable turnover relating to such purchase for that year at the rates mentioned in Section 5.(The rest of the section is not material and is omitted.)The assessee in this case purchased pine-apple, washed it, removed the ine...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Vs. Pio Food Packers.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-1978
Reported in: (1978)6CTR(Ker)104
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. - S. 5A of the General Sales Tax Act, 1963 reads :'5A. Levy of purchase tax. (1) Every dealer who, in the course of his business, purchases from a registered dealer or from any other person any goods the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax under this Act, in circumstances in which no tax is payable under S. 5 and either -(a) consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise; or(b) dispases of such good in any manner other than by way of sale in the State; or(c) despatches them to any place outside the State except as a direct result of sale or purchase in the course of inter-state trade or commerce.shall, whatever, be the quantum of the turnover relating to such purchase for a year, pay tax on the taxable turnover relating to such purchase for a year, pay tax on the taxable turnover relating to such purchase for the year at the rates mentioned in S. 5.'(The rest of the Section is not material and is omitted.)The assessee in this c...
Tag this Judgment!State Transport Authority, Kerala and ors. Vs. Nallappa Transports, Po ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Ker140
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. We think the learned Judge was right and his judgment has only to be affirmed. The State Transport Authority, in the first instance, by Ext. P1 order, and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on revision, by Ext. P4 order, found that the denial of extension of the route from Wadakkancherry to Trichur, in continuation of the existing route Pollachi-Wadakkancheri, was justified, as the proviso to Section 48(3)(xxi) of the Motor Vehicles Act was attracted; and the same did not empower an extension of a route by more than 24 kilometres. It was on this only ground that they refused to sanction the extension. The criterion of public interest was found in favour of the operator. The learned Judge before whom the matter came up on a writ petition by the writ petitioner/ respondent, found on the strength of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sri Ram Vilas Service Ltd. v. Raman & Raman (P) Ltd. (AIR 1968 SC 748) that the power under the proviso to Section 48(3)(xxi)...
Tag this Judgment!Travancore-cochIn Chemicals Limited and ors. Vs. Kerala State Electric ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Ker144
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. These Writ Appeals raise the same question in regard to the validity of the revision of tariffs effected by the Kerala State Electricity Board. By way of example, it would be enough to refer to the facts in W. A. No. 466 of 1976. The facts in the remaining cases are, it was admitted, practically the same, and need not be repeated.W. A. No. 466 of 1976 The appellant in this Writ Appeal isthe Travancore-Cochin Chemicals Limited, Eloor. Udyogamandal. The agreement executed by it with the Electricity Board is Ext. P2 dated 26-3-1974. Clause 9 of the agreement is as follows :'9. The consumer shall pay for all electrical energy supplied to him by the Board and ascertained as hereinbefore provided an amount calculated at the rate and in accordance with the terms given in the Schedule. The rates, shown in the Schedule, are liable to revision by the Board from time to time in which case the revised rate/rates shall be binding on the consumer and the levy of charges for...
Tag this Judgment!Choyyan Narayani Vs. Ibrahim Kunhi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Ker147
1. The suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of a small strip of land described in the plaint schedule as having an extent of 2 cents but actually having an area of 2f cents was decreed by the lowercourts and the defendant has come up in appeal. The suit property adjoins a plot of land 12 cents in extent purchased by the respondents' mother Kunhalima from the defendant as per Ext. A-l sale deed dated 26-5-1962. The lower courts accepting the evidence of P. W. 1, the 3rd plaintiff and P. W. 2, an attestor to Ext. A-2 receipt, found that the defendant on 13-4-1969 agreed with Kunhalima to sell this strip of land to the latter for Rs. 350/-, that Kunhalima paid Rs. 300/- to the defendant, and that the defendant passed Ext. A-2 receipt therefor.2. P. W. 1 swears to these facts and P. W. 2, to the payment of Rs. 300/-and the passing of Ext. A-2 receipt. The lower courts believed them, and nothing has been brought to my notice which would go to. show that these witnesses are...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Travancore Vs. General Secretary, Association of the Sta ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-1978
Reported in: (1978)IILLJ305Ker
Gopalan Nambtyar, C.J. 1. This appeal is by the State Bank of Travan-core and is directed against the decision of a learned single judge in O.P. No. 4037 of 1974 filed by respondents 1 to 3. The writ petition challenged the action of the appellants in effecting a fitment of the erstwhile employees of Cochin Nayar Bank (referred to as the ' transferor-bank ') in the service of the appellant-bank (referred to as the ' transferee-bank '). The two banks were amalgamated with effect from February 8, 1954. Section 45, Clause (4) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, contemplates the preparation of a scheme for amalgamation. Ex. P-1 is a copy of such scheme prepared by the appellant. The material provisions of the scheme are practically repetitions of the provisions to be found in Section 45(5)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act. That section, in so far as it is material, may be noticed :' 45. Power of Reserve Bank to apply to Central Government for suspension of business by a banking company an...
Tag this Judgment!K. Balachandran Vs. the Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Ker126; [1978(36)FLR400]; (1978)IILLJ299Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. The appeal is against the decision of a learned Judge of this Court in O. P. No. 363 of 1973 reported m 1975 Ker LT 460. In view of the importance of the question raised the matter was directed to be placed before a Full Bench. The learned judge dismissed the writ petition to quash Ext. P1 Award of the Registrar, confirmed on appeal by Ext. P2 order of the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal. The question relates to a dispute as to the seniority and promotion as between the writ petitioner-appellant and the 4th Respondent. The Committee of the Kuttipuram Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. (referred to for short as the Society) promoted the appellant as Assistant Accountant on 1-5-1969. The 4th Respondent thereupon submitted a petition to the Committee complaining against the said promotion. The Committee by an order referred to in Ext. P1 as Ext Clause referred the matter to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Deputy Registrar after considering the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »