Kerala Court March 1981 Judgments
Cheru Ouseph Vs. Kunjipathumma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ker266
ORDERM.P. Menon, J.1. The landlord was not present in Court when her eviction petition under Act 2/65 was taken up for trial, and the petition was dismissed for default. She applied for restoration and the Rent Control Court allowed the application, on being satisfied that there was sufficient cause to do so. The tenant appealed, but without success. His revision under Section 20 fared the same fate. And that is how he has come to this Court, under Section 115. C. P. C,2. The question whether a Rent Control Court has power to restore a petition dismissed for default was considered by this Court in Asher v. Raru (1979 Ker LT 260). The rival contentions were based on the provisions of Section 23 of the Act. Clause (h) of Section 23 (1) confers on the Rent Control Court the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court in the master of setting aside ex parte. orders; and Clause (k) ropes in the power of review also. Janaki Amma J. held that the power to restore was different from the power t...
Tag this Judgment!Asan Tharayil Baby Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1165
S.K. Kadeb, J.1. Fifty-year old Baby alias Varghese, the appellant herein, has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C. for the murder of Abraham, his brother-in-law (sister's husband) by stubbing him with M.O.I, dagger. The occurrence took place on the pathway running east to west leading to the river situated near the house of the appellant and was at about 8 p. m. on April 5. 1979.2. Leela, sister of the appellant was married to Abraham, the deceased. Abraham was ill-treating Leela and making her life miserable. On account of this, the appellant was inimically disposed towards Abraham. Thomas (P.W. 4), brother of Abraham, who was residing at Otakkayam in the neighbouring District had come for a short visit to the house of his brother and was there on the date of occurrence. Some time prior to the occurrence. Skaria (P.W.I) who is residing near the house of Abraham paid a visit to the house of Abraham to meet Pw. 4 knowing that he had come there....
Tag this Judgment!Narayanan Namboodiri Vs. Parukutty and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker53
K. Bhaskaran, J.1. Though the amount involved is rather small, an important question of law relating to the application of the principles of salvage lien is raised in this second appeal. The plaint schedule property belonged to one Mariniuthu, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1 to 5 (defendants 1 to 5). The said Marimuthu had mortgaged it to the appellant (plaintiff) for Rs. 3500/- as per document No. 1963 of 1964 of Vadakkancherry Registry Office. The appellant had filed O. S. No. 91 of 1969 of the Vadakkancherry Munsiff's Court as a mortgagee and obtained a decree for sale of the property. Prior to the mortgage executed in favour of the appellant the said Marimuthu had executed a mortgage of the same property in favour of the Cochin Land Mortgage Bank (the Bank). The said Marimuthu not having paid two instalments due to the Bank, it initiated proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act for the realisation of the amount due to it by sale of the property. The appellant paid a ...
Tag this Judgment!Varghese Mathews Vs. Fakir Rawther Abdul Razack Rawther
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-06-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker29
ORDERP. Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J. 1. These revisions are against orders of the Addl. District Judge, Mavelikkara in 6 revision petitions under Section 20 of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) disposed of by a common order covering these and some other cases. The revision petitioner in all these cases is the same. He is the landlord of a building. Respondents in these cases are tenants occupying various rooms of the building on rent. The revision petitioner, as landlord, sought surrender of those rooms. The respondents did not surrender. The petitioner moved petitions before the Rent Control Court seeking eviction of the tenants. In all these petitions he alleged as grounds for eviction, (1) arrears of rent (2) bona fide need of the petitioner for occupation of the building and (3) requirement of the building for the purpose of reconstruction. The Court is no longer concerned with the first of these pleas. The plea with regard to bona fide n...
Tag this Judgment!J. Das Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-06-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ker164
Khalid, J.1. This writ petition comes up before us on reference by Bhaskaran, J. The petitioner claims to be a Paraya-Hindu. He is a B. Sc. graduate with Zoology main and Botany and Chemistry as subsidiary subjects. He applied for admission to the M. B. B. S. course for the year 1980-81 claiming a seat reserved for scheduled caste. He was first included in Ext. P-1 provisional rank list dated 21-8-1930. Subsequently, his name was deleted from Ext. P-2 select list dated 25-9-1980. No reasons were given for his exclusion from Ext. P-2 list. He learnt on enquiry that his exclusion was as a result of enquiries conducted by the College authorities who found that he did not belong to scheduled caste.2. The petitioner's case that he belongs to a scheduled caste. Hindu-Paraya, is set out in the petition as follows : His paternal grandfather was one Athichan of Pathanapuram Taluk, who is now more than 80 years old. He lives with the petitioner's parents in Pathanapuram. The said Athichan was or...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Chandramathy Amma Vs. K.N. Balakrishnan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-06-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker47
Khalid, J.1. A question of court-fee falls for consideration before us. The respondent in (sic) O. P. (H.M.A.) 84 of 1977 filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is the appellant. Court-fee of Rs. 10/-was paid under Schedule II-3 (iii) (A) (1) (b) of the Kerala Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, for short, the Act. (On the appellant's contention the proper court-fee will be Rs. 5/-). The Taxing Officer has objected to the court-fee paid. His stand is that the appeal falls under Article 1(vi) read with, Section 52 of the Act since the order under appeal has the force of a decree.2. The appellant's counsel Mr. Moosa took us through some of the entries in Schedule II of the Act and contrasted it with the entry relating to the Hindu Marriage Act. Article 1(ii), (iii) and (iv) prescribe court-fee for petitions, claims or memorandum of appeal while Schedule II (1) (vi) prescribe court-fee for petitions alone. This provision is silent about the court-fee on memorandum of appea...
Tag this Judgment!Padmanabhan Raveendran Vs. Parameswaran Appukuttan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-06-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker255
Khalid, J. 1. A court-fee question in a second appeal comes up before us on reference by a learned single Judge. The plaintiff it the second appellant. The suit was foe recovery of money due on a promissory note executed by the defendant. Defendant admitted execution bill contended that it was not supported by consideration. The trial Court negatived the contention and decreed the suit. In appeal by the defendant, the appellate Court accepted the defence plea and dismissed the suit. Hence this second appeal. 2. In the second appeal court-fee was paid only on the promissory note amount with interest till date of the suit. Count-fee was not paid for the interest accrued after the institution of the suit. The appellant's case is that Explanation (3) to Section 52 of the Court-fees Act does not apply in this case because he is not questioning the award of interest and is not seeking to avoid it. The office objected stating that the plaintiff had claimed future interest in the suit and henc...
Tag this Judgment!Kunchumerra Rawther Ali Rawther and anr. Vs. Mathai Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker10
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J.1. So far as the 1st petitioner (1st judgment-debtor) is concerned, the impugned order undoubtedly is wrong. In the year 1976 the 1st petitioner was found to be a person having means to discharge the decree-debt or some substantial portion thereof, oN that basis the Court below in a subsequent application has ordered issue of warrant for the arrest and detention of the petitioners in civil prison.2. Sri K. N. Narayanan Nair, the counsel for the petitioners, submitted that a duty was cast on the Court to enquire into and record a finding on the question whether the judgment-debtors had the means to pay off the decree amounts or some substantial portion thereof at the time when the decree was put into execution and by which process his freedom of movements was threatened to be taken away. In other words, his argument is that it was the duty of the Court to ascertain the means of the judgment-debtor as it stood at the time when the present application for renewal of t...
Tag this Judgment!Ammini Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-03-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1170
ORDERU.L. Bhat, J.1. The revision petitioner was convicted in C. C. No. 59 of 1977 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur, for offence under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to undergo S.I. for three months. In Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1978 the learned Sessions Judge, Trichur. confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to S.I. for two months and a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of which she was directed to undergo S. I. for two weeks. She was convicted because she was found handling wash in a not buried in the ground of her compound and it was found to be wash prepared for illicit distillation of arrack.2. The only contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that this is a fit case for not awarding any sentence at all but to apply the provisions of the Probation Act. This request is opposed by the Prosecutor.3. It is unfortunate that the Chief Judicial Magistrate did not ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Ravindran Nair and ors. Vs. Superintendent of Polic, Special Police ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-02-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1424
ORDERU.L. Bhat, J.1. These revision petitions filed by accused 1, 2 and 7 in C C. No. 6 of 1975 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge (C. B. L/S. P. E.), Ernakulam are directed against an order passed by the Special Judge in Criminal M.P. No. 816 of 1976, tendering pardon to accused Nos. 5 and 6 therein under Section 8 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 (for short the 'Act') read with Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the 'Code').2. The Superintendent of Police, S. P.E./C.B.I., Kerala laid charges against seven accused before the Special Judge, Ernakulam alleging offences under Sections 120B, 409, 468, 471, 477A, I.P.C. read with Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, The charges related to certain quantity of fertilisers intended to be supplied from the F. A. C. T, to its dealers in the State and which was alleged to have been diverted and sold unauthorisedly to dealers outside the State. Accused 1, 2 an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›