Kerala Court April 1981 Judgments
Aleyamma Vs. Indicula
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-15-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker44
ORDERP.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The plaintiff is the revision-petitioner. The suit is for declaration of the plaintiff's title and possession and also for an injunction restraining the defendant from taking possession of the suit property in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 380 of 1123 of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla.2. The revision arises out of I. A. No. 1751 of 1980 filed by the plaintiff for a temporary, injunction restraining the defendant from taking possession of the suit property in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 380 of 1123 pending disposal of the suit. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was settled and given to her in consideration of her Sthreedhanam received by her father-in-law, Geevarghese and she is in possession of theproperty since last thirty years. The defendant obtained a decree in O. S. No. 380 of 1123 for possession of 14 cents of land inSy. No. 178/12A of Kadapra Village. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff's father-in-law die...
Tag this Judgment!Mallika Vs. Ayyappy Karunakaran and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ker236
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J.1. The short facts of the case as could be gathered from the statement of facts contained in the memorandum of the civil revision petition are as follows:--The property in question was purchased in court auction on 30-3-1968 by the 1st respondent (the assignee-decree-holder-auction purchaser in E.A, No. 146 of 1969, in E.P. No, 158 of 1964, in O.S. No. 551 of 1958 on the file of the Munsiff of Ernakalam). After the confirmation of the sale on 9-7-1968 and the issue of the sale sannad the auction purchaser filed E.A. No. 1509 of 1968 for delivery of the sannad property before the Munsiff of Ernakulam. On receipt of notice of the application respondents 3 to 6 herein, who are judgment-debtors 2, 3, 4 and 6, filed E.A. No. 149 of 1969 challenging the validity of the sale, That petition was allowed, and the sale set aside by the Court on 6-2-1970 holding that the sale was ab initio void for want of notice of sale proclamation. The auction purchaser took up the matter i...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Kocheeppan George
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-08-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ker137
Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J. 1. This appeal is before us by reason of the reference to a larger Bench by a Full Bench of this Court. The correctness of the earlier decision of the Full Bench of this Court in State of Travancore-Cochin v. Mathai, 1957 Ker LJ 893 was doubted and that was the occasion for such reference.2. The matter had originally come up before a Division Bench which by an order dated 29-10-1979 referred the case to the Full Bench. The reference order reads thus:'Section 27 (21 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act provides that when a claimant has omitted without sufficient reason to make the claim for comoensa-tion before the Land Acquisition Officer, the amount awarded by the court shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the Collector. In the case before us pursuant to notice under Section 9 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act the claimant is seen to have filed a statement before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming that he had title to the property, that documents hav...
Tag this Judgment!Bharath Motors Vs. Kerala State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakula ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker241
George Vadakkel, J. 1. Sub-section (7) of Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter mentioned as the Act) enables a State Transport Authority to grant permits valid for the whole or any part of India in respect of such number of tourist vehicles as the Central Government may in respect of that State specify in that behalf. The grant of permits thereunder, as provided for therein, would be governed by the Rules that may be made under the Act. The provisions of Sections 49, 50, 51, 57, 58, 59, 59A, 60, 61 and 64 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to permits granted under Section 63 (7) of the Act. Under the proviso to Sub-section (7) preference is to be given to applications for permits from the India Tourism Development Corporation; a State Tourism Development Corporation; a State Tourist Department; and such operators of tourist cars, or such travel agents, as may be approved in this behalf by the Ministry of the Central Government dealing in tourism.2. The questi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. Thalayar Rubber Industries ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-1981
Reported in: [1981]131ITR162(Ker)
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. These original petitions are by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Kerala, under Sub-section (4) of Section 60 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (Act 22 of 1950)--hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'--for the issue of a direction to the Appellate Tribunal of Agricultural Income-tax, Kozhikode, to treat the applications submitted by him under Sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Act, to the Appellate Tribunal, as made within time and for a further direction to the Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the said applications under Section 60(1) on merits and in accordance with law. In all these cases, the Commr. of Agrl. I.T. submitted applications to the Appellate Tribunal, under Sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Act, requiring the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer certain questions of law said to be arising out of the order of the Tribunal, to the High Court. Sub-section (1)of Section 60 of the Act requires an application for re...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Bank and ors. Vs. Appellate Authority and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-1981
Reported in: (1981)IILLJ189Ker
Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. One common question arises for consideration in both these cases and that is whether the Canara Bank and Bank of India both nationalised banks are 'establishments under the Central Government' exempted under Section 3(1)(c) of the Kerala Shops and Establishments Act, 1960. The question arose in both the cases because the second respondent in the writ appeal and the first respondent is the original petition moved the Appellate Authority under Section 18 of the Act against the action taken by the concerned Bank terminating their engagements. The Appellate Authority has in the appeal filed by the second res' pendent found that the Canara Bank will not come within the scope of 'establishments under the Central Government' to claim exemption of the provisions of the Act. That view has been affirmed by the learned single Judge in the original petition filed by the Canara Bank against the decision of the Appellate Authority. The Bank of India filed the original petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Parvathy Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-03-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ker239
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J.1. A short but interesting point has been raised in this revision arising out of an order passed by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Erna-kulam, in L.R.A.S. No. 1329 of 1977 dated 17-1-1979 whereunder in reversal of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Vypeen, in O.A. No. 1804 of 1971, the Appellate Authority dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner under Section 80-B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act XXXV of 1969, for short the Act,2. It is not necessary to trace the history of the litigation between the petitioner and the respondents. Suffice it to say that the only question that falls for decision in this revision is whether to satisfy the requirement of 'any land' referred to in Section 2 (25) of the Act it would be enough to have an aggregate of 10 cents of land or whether it is necessary to have a compact area of 10 cents. The Land Tribunal in a rather elaborate order took the view that the fact that th...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Kunjukoru Chinnappan Vs. Neelakantan Chettiar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-03-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1312
ORDERP. Janaki Amma, J.1. The petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for vacating the order of dismissal of Crl. R. P. No. 4 of 1979 by the Additional Sessions Judge Parur. The revision petition was filed against an order dated 14-11-1978 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Cochin, calling upon the counter petitioner before him to cut and remove certain arecanut trees which were causing obstruction to a pathway. The petitioner received the order on 25-11-1978. He filed a revision petition before the Court of Session. Ernakulam, on 27-2-1979. The revision petition was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge, Parur. for disposal, When it was taken up for disposal it was noted that the petition was barred by limitation, there being a delav of three days. The petitioner, thereupon, filed Crl. R.P. No. 32 of 1979, for condoning the delay. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held, apparently following the decision in Rama-krishna Chettiar v. State of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›