Kerala Court December 1981 Judgments
State of Kerala and ors. Vs. Thalayar Tea Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker105
P. Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J. 1. My learned brothers Viswanatha Iyer and Kochu Thommen, JJ. differed on a point of law namely whether the suit is barred by limitation. Accordingly the case was adjourned for further hearing and decision as provided under Section 92(2) proviso of the Code of Civil Procedure. The matter thus came up before me. 2. The respondent-plaintiff, the Talayar Tea Company succeeded to the interests of the Talliar Coffee Estates Limited on account of a scheme of amalgamation entered into between the two companies. The Talliar Coffee Estates Limited had instituted a suit O. S. 70 of 1966 in the Sub Court, Kottayam on 1-7-1976. That suit arose on account of the claim made by the State of Kerala for seigniorage in respect of silver oak trees in the Estate of the plaintiff in that suit. The case of the company was that no fee, duty or tax was payable in respect of timber of silver oak trees, that they are not reserved trees mentioned in the Timber Transit Rules and they...
Tag this Judgment!D. John Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ471
G. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of habeas corpus. By a detention order passed by the Government On 13-8-1981 Under Section 3(1)) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA') the detenu Dharmakannu John was directed to be detained and the order was executed by the C. I. of Police, Vishinjam by apprehend'ng the petitioner on 19-8-1981 and detaining him in the Central prison, Trivandrum. The order Ext. P-l stated that he is being detained with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and engaging in transporting smuggled goods and dealing in smuggled goods. The grounds of detention were served on him on 20-8-1981. Briefly stated the grounds disclosed the following material against the detenu; Early in 1979 the Collectorate of Customs and Central Excise had intelligence that the detenu and his brother D. Joseph were indulging in smuggling goo...
Tag this Judgment!Narayani Amma Vilasini Amma Vs. Eyo Poulose of Vattathara
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker198
ORDERM.P. Menon, J.1. O. S. No. 383/68 was a suit for recovery of possession with mesne profits. There was a family partition in 1103 M. E. Plaint A Schedule was the A Schedule to the partition deed llotted to the A group. Plaint B Schedule was the C Schedule to the deed, allotted to the C group. Both the plaint items were subject to a mortgage and were in the possession of one Parames-waran Nair. Under the partition deed, the C Schedule sharers were liable to discharge the entire mortgage liability. The rights of the C Schedule sharers were subsequently acquired by Para-meswaran Nair. The suit was filed on the basis that the mortgage had come to an end when Parameswaran Nair acquired the C Schedule rights along with the obligation to discharge the mortgage.2. Issue No. (3) in the suit was whether the mortgage had come to an end as alleged, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover. Issue No. (7) raised the question of adverse possession and limitation. The court held in favour...
Tag this Judgment!V. Bhaskaran and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-1981
Reported in: (1982)ILLJ485Ker
George Vadakkel, J.1. As per Ext. P1 order dated 8-3-1973 the 2nd respondent, the Indian Rare Earths Ltd., dismissed from its service the petitioner for certain misconducts mentioned in that order. The petitioner impugned this order before this Court in O.P. No. 4763 of 1974. As per the judgment therein, a copy whereof is marked here as Ext. P2, this Court took the view that the 2nd respondent being a private limited company no writ can be issued. Consequently, this Court dismissed that writ petition on 16-12-1977. However, a dispute arose over the dismissal of the petitioner and the Assistant Labour Commissioner intervened to bring about a settlement, but to no avail. Therefore, the Assistant Labour Commissioner sent up his Ext. P3 report as contemplated by Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Union Government, the 1st respondent herein. The said report is dated 12-12-1978. With reference to that report as per Ext. P4 communication of 13-7-1979 the 1st respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Sadanadan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1117
ORDERP. Janaki Amma, J.1. The respondent Sadanandan is the second accused in Crime No. 809 of 1981 of the Ernakulam Central Police Station, a case1 registered in connection with the murder of one Majeendran. The prosecution case as disclosed from the records is that the respondent entertained enmity towards the deceased on account of business rivalry. He entered into an arrangement with the first accused Raj an, an employee under him for the murder of Majeendran and allowed him the use of a revolver, for which he had a licence. Raj an went to the house of Majeendran early in the morning of 9-10-1981, managed to get Majeendran at the front of the house and shot at him. Majeendran died shortly afterwards while he was awaiting treatment in the Medical Trust Hospital at Ernakulam-After the occurrence Raj an as also the respondent left Ernakulam and were absconding. The respondent later on created documents so as to make it appear that he lost the revolver before the occurrence in the case....
Tag this Judgment!Vasu Vs. Kallianikutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker111
ORDERM.P. Menon, J.1. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant in O. P. 57/62 and got an order in his favour but his petition for execution was dismissed as time-barred. In 1976 another petition for eviction was filed. The Rent Control Court allowed it. But the appellate authority thought that after the decree in the 1982 petition, there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties: and on that basis, it dismissed the eviction petition. The District Court took a different view, in proceedings under Section 20. Hence this revision by the tenant.2. The main point raised by counsel is this. The parties were landlord and tenant under a contract, prior to 1962. This contractual tenancy was terminated at the time O. P. 57/62 was filed. After such termination and during the pendency of the proceedings there was only what is called a statutory tenancy. This too came to an end when the O. P. was allowed. Thereafter, there was no tenancy of any kind, no landlord-tenantrelationship. ...
Tag this Judgment!Janatha Expeller Company and 9 ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assess ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-1981
Reported in: [1982]49STC216(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The petitioners are registered dealers under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (the 'K.G.S.T. Act'), as/well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (the 'Central Act'). They purchase copra within the State and produce oil and cake which they sell. In respect of such sales they pay sales tax under the K.G.S.T. Act as well as under the Central Act. The petitioners are aggrieved by exhibits P2 to PI I notices calling upon them to pay the additional tax imposed under the Kerala. Additional Sales Tax Ordinance (9 of 1978) in respect of the sales effected by them in the course of inter-State trade. Exhibit P2 which is identical to the other notices reads :On scrutiny of the returns in form No. II filed under Central sales tax for the month of April, 1978, onwards it is seen that you have not paid the additional tax due as per the Kerala Additional Sales Tax Ordinance No. 9 of 1978. Additional sales tax is also leviable on goods coming under Section 8(2A) of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Raghava Panicker and anr. Vs. the Administrator, Union Territory, Laks ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker114
Bhaskaran, J. 1. The petitioners have been in the service of the 1st respondent, Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, for over 15 years. The 1st petitioner's daughter and the second petitioner's son were applicants for admission to the Pre-Medical/M. B. B. S. course for the year 1980-81 in the Medical Colleges in India against the four seats allocated by the Government of India for the students of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. It would appear that it was out of the apprehension on the part of the petitioners that their children stood no chance to get themselves nominated if the selections were to be made in accordance with the norms contained in Ext. P-2 'Rules for selection' that the writ petition was brought. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the petitioners having come to know that additional respondents 3 to 6 had actually been selected by the 1st respondent for nomination, they too were impleaded as per the order on C. M. P. No. 13684 of 1980. At the t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›