Kerala Court October 1979 Judgments
Kannan and ors. Vs. Narayani and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Ker76
Subramonian Poti, J.1. Section 152 of the Civil P. C. empowers a Court either on its own motion or on the application of any of the parties to correct, at any time, clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. Is a Court competent to exercise this power of correcting its own judgment, decree or order in cases where such decree, judgment or order has been the subject of appeal to the higher Court even if such Court merely confirmed the judgment, decree or order of the lower Court. Our learned brother Vadakkel, J. before whom this revision came up felt that the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in Malayalam Plantations Ltd. v. Varkey Chacko (1969 Ker LT 710) that the Court of first instance has inherent power to correct accidental slips and errors committed by it as envisaged under Section 152 of the Code despite the fact that the decree and judgment of that Court have been confirmed, vari...
Tag this Judgment!Pichan Cheerath Mamoo and ors. Vs. A.P.P. Malappuram and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ901
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J.1. The revision is against the rejection by the court below of an application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor under Section 321 Cr.P.C. 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Code, for withdrawal from prosecution of the petitioners-accused; and the miscellaneous petition is one under Section 482 of the Code for the quashing of the proceedings in a case pending against the petitioners therein in that court. As it is averred by the petitioners in the miscellaneous petition that the case giving rise to the petition is against them by the petitioners in the Criminal Revision Petition on account of the fact that they are assisting the 2nd respondent therein, the revision petition and the miscellaneous petition were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. We will take up the revision in the first instance. The facts briefly stated are as follows: Crime No. 63/78 of the Malappuram Police Station was registered on the basis of the informatio...
Tag this Judgment!Peria Karamalai Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-1979
Reported in: [1980]124ITR899(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. The Peria Karamalai Tea & Produce Co. Ltd. is a private limited company. It was assessed under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. For 1965-66 and 1966-67 the assessment was completed on February 17, 1967, and for 1967-68, on February 14, 1968. For the three relevant assessment years the assessee had created development rebate reserve in excess of what had to be statutorily created. In the three original assessments such excess had been included in the computation of capital under the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits)' Surtax Act, 1964, Later on, the ITO being of the opinion that on account of the inclusion of the excess development rebate reserve in the capital chargeable profits had escaped assessment, reopened these assessments. After hearing the objections of the assessee, the three assessments were remade on March 23, 1974, after excluding from the amount of capital such excess developm...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Anchery Lonappan and Kakoo and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-15-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Ker180
ORDERK.K. Narendran, J.1. A Trichur merchant filed a suit for damages for non-delivery of goods sent to him by rail. The Union of India represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway and the consignor were made defendants. As a matter of fact, the goods were booked with the contractor, Sitamau Out Agency, Mandasor. Hence the 1st defendant-Railway filed an interim application under Order VIIIA, Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to 'implead' the contractor, Sitamau Out Agency, The learned Sub Judge it seems, opened a bare Act of the Civil Procedure Code published by the Law Publishers, Allahabad and passed the following order :'Notice to Out Agency refused. It is seen by the latest amendment of C. P. C, Order 8 (a) is repealed. Hence petition closed.'The 1st defendant challenges the above order in this Civil Revision Petition.2. Sections 122 and 128 of the Code of Civil Procedure read :'122. Power of Certain High Courts to make rules. -- High Courts not being the C...
Tag this Judgment!John Kuruvilla and anr. Vs. Parameswaran Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Ker87
ORDERM.P. Menon, J.1. Decree-holders in O. S. 84/74 are the revision petitioners. The suit was for recovery of money, and a bus belonging to the defendant was attached before judgment. It was released on the defendant and the respondent-surety executing Ext. A1 bond in favour of the court on 30-10-1974, whereunder some immovable property of the respondent was also offered as security for the amount that might be found due to the plaintiff. Subsequently, on 11-8-1975, the plaintiffs and the defendant compromised the matter and a compromise decree was passed, permitting the defendant to pay up the amount in 14 monthly instalments, and allowing the plaintiffs to recover the amount in a lump if three instalments were consecutively defaulted. The respondent-surety was not a party to this compromise.2. The decree-holders took out execution in E. P. No. 172/77. The bus was brought to court and sold in auction. The surety then filed E. A. 353/77 for being absolved of his liability. The executi...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Pathummama Umma and anr. Vs. the Special Tahsilar-cum-land Tribun ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-04-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Ker125
Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. A short question concerning the interpretation of Section 75 (2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter called the Act) arises for determination in this case. In view of the importance of the said question the Division Bench before which this appeal orginally came up for hearing referred the case to a Full Bench, and that is how matter has come up before us.2. The writ appeal is against the decision of our learned brother Vadakkel, J. allowing O. P. No, 5957 of 1975 filed by respondents Nos. I and 2 herein and quashing the order Ext, P3 passed by the Land Tribunal No. 11, Ponnani. By the said order the Land Tribunal had allowed an application -- O. A. No, 1212 of 1971 -- filed by the appellant herein under Section 75 (2) of the Act for shift-ing the kudikidappu of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from its existing site in R. S. No. 144/2 of Kadavanadu Amsom to another property comprised in R. S. No, 215/5 and 7A of Ponnani Nagaram Amsom, Admittedly the site ...
Tag this Judgment!Chairman, CochIn Port Trust Vs. M.N. Sukumaran Nair and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-03-1979
Reported in: (1979)ILLJ242Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. These two writ appeals are against the judgment of a learned Judge allowing O.P. No. 490 of 1977 and quashing Exts. P2 and P4 orders. The learned Judge, after a long and elaborate discussion, found that these orders offended the principles of natural justice in not giving notice or affording the writ petitioner an opportunity for explanation. Respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition, viz., the Chairman of the Cochin Port Trust and the Chief Engineer of the Port Trust. have filed W.A. No. 30 of 1978; and the 3rd respondent in the writ petition--the rival candidate, if we may so call him--has filed W.A. No. 48 of 1978.2. The writ petitioner was a Junior Marine Surveyor, The next promotion was as Sounding Foreman. He was promoted to this post on 20-7-1973 and regularised in the said post on 27-8-1973. The qualification need for the said post, as seen from Ext. R1 filed by the 3rd respondent, is the possession of a Diploma in Civil Engineering, or a Group Cert...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›