Kerala Court December 1978 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.
M. Madhavan Pillai Vs. K.A. Balan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Ker120; [1978(37)FLR59]
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. A Physics Lecturer of the S. N. M. College, Meliankara -- a private college managed by a Corporate Educational Agency, the H. M. O. P. Sabha, Vadakekara, Parur --has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge dismissing his writ petition. The Principal of the College made an appointment of the Head of the Department of Physics. The appellant was one of those who strongly resented the appointment and regarded it as an act of favouritism. The form and manner of the appellant's protest led to disciplinary proceedings being initiated against him and to his suspension pending enquiry. A junior of the Manager's Standing Counsel was, in the first instance, appointed Enquiry Officer. The appellant protested, and filed O. P. No. 3747 of 1975 in this Court. The Management agreed for appointment of a fresh Enquiry Officer. The 2nd Respondent, an Advocate of this Court was chosen as the fresh Enquiry Officer. The appellant repeated his protest allegin...
Smt. Sumithra Vs. Smt. Kamala Bair and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Ker164
ORDERGeorge Vadakkel, J.1. The plaintiff to the suit out of which this revision arises is the revision petitioner. The suit is one for partition of the plaint schedule properties and for separate allotment of 1/4th share which the plaintiff claims she is entitled to. Defendants 2 and 3 have filed written statements supporting the plaintiff's case. First defendant contests the suit. The suit is still pending and it is common case before me that evidence has been closed in the case and arguments are over. At that stage it seems the lower court passed the order under revision, by which it took the view that issues 5 to 7 should be answered before the suit is disposed of. Taking that view the learned Munsiff further said that a finding on these Issues could be recorded only after obtaining a Commissioner's report. By the order under revision the lower court directed the plaintiff to deposit Rs. 300/- as Commission batta, and said that on deposit of the above said amount a commission would ...
State of Kerala Vs. Akhila Kerala Vala Samudaya Samithi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-05-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Ker113
George Vadakkel, J.1. It is common case that the respondent, a company formed and registered under the Travancore Companies Act, 1114, is a company coming within the purview of the Companies Act, 1956. The question for consideration is whether it is entitled to apply to the Government for acquisition of land for the purpose of shifting a kudikidappu that is on its land on the ground that it requires its land for constructing a building for its residence under Section 75(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, (hereinafter mentioned as the Act). An application dated 18-8-1970 filed in that behalf by it was as per Ext. P1 communication rejected by the Government stating that only a natural person can invoke Section 75(3) of the Act.2. Section 75 of the Act enables a 'person' who, as owner or as tenant, holds land less than an acre in extent and on which there is a kudikidappu, to apply to the Government for the acquisition of land to which that Kudikidappu may be shifted, if he requires...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pradeepkumar M. Shah
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-05-1978
Reported in: [1981]130ITR118(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. This income-tax reference has been sent up by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, under Section 256(1) of the. I.T. Act, at the instance of the revenue. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1969-70. The assessee is the owner of a property consisting of several rooms and godowns. During the period prior to the assessment year, the godowns and rooms were let out to differentpersons. But during the accounting year they were vacant except tworooms which had been let out to two firms in which the assessee is interested. In the original assessment, the assessee returned an income from this property of Rs. 3,620 after deducting the vacancy allowance. This was accepted and the original assessment was completed on that basis. Subsequently, the officer reopened the assessment under Section 147(b). In the reassessment proceedings he included an annual letting value of the part of the property which was vacant throughout the year. The income on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›