Kerala Court June 1981 Judgments
Janaki Amma and ors. Vs. Raveendra Menon and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ker205
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. A. S. No. 121 of 197G is against O. S. No. 90 of 1970 and A. S. No. 88 of 1977 is against O. S. No. 123 of 1971 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. Both the suits were jointly tried and there is a common judgment by the lower court O. S. No. 90 of 1970 is treated as the main suit and evidence was led in that suit. Defendants 3 and 4 in O. S. No. 90 of 1970 are the appellants in A. S. No. 121 of 1976. The suit is to set aside a document of partition marked as Ext A1 dated 23-4-1962 executed by the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 on the ground of fraud, and for a fresh partition of the suit property. The 1st defendant is the mother of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. The plaintiff and tha 2nd defendant are the sons of the 1st defendant in her first husband Narayana Menon. Defendants 3 and 4 are the children of the 1st defendant in her second husband Krishna Pillai. The suit property belonged to one Govinda Panicker, a step-brother of the first defendant. ...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Karunakaran Nair Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1161
ORDERU.L. Bhat, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kanjirappally in C. C. No. 275 of 1976 under Sections 409, 477A and 467, I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Hs. 500 each in two counts and to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 under another count. Conviction and sentence were confirmed in Crl. Appeal No. 134 ol 1977 of the Sessions Court, Kottayam. The accused was acauitted by this Court of all the charges in Crl. Appeal No. 138 of 1979 on 1-12-1980. The judgment said that the conviction and sentence entered against him was set aside and he was acquitted of all charges. Meanwhile the petitioner appears to have paid the total amount of fine of Rs. 2J000. In the normal course he appears to have filed an application before the first court praying for refund of the amount which he has paid as fine. In the affidavit filed in support of present petition, it is stated that even though he had moved the applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!C.i. Varghese Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-1981
Reported in: (1981)IILLJ454Ker
P. Subramonian Poti, Acting C.J.1. The question arising in both these writ appeals is the same. It is an interesting question the decision on which may be of some consequence not only to the parties to these case but to others similarly placed in the Civil Service of the State. The question concerns the right of juniors to promotion to existing vacancies before the promotion of their seniors when the juniors satisfactorily complete their period of probation a few days earlier and that only on account of the fact that the juniors were able to join service earlier than the seniors. The seniority of persons appointed on the advice of the Public Service Commission is determined not by the respective dates of joining duty but by the date of first advice. It may happen that under the same order of advice many may be advised and in such a case the seniority will depend upon the ranking in the order of advice. Some of those advised may be nearer the place of duty so much so they could join dut...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Forbes, Ewart and Figgis (P.) Ltd. and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-1981
Reported in: [1982]138ITR1(Ker)
Subramonian Poti, Actg. C.J.1. Excepting in the last of the cases, the assessee in all the cases is the same. The reference in I.T.R. No. 76 of 1978 concerns the year 1971-72 and that in I.T.R. No. 103 of 1980 also concerns the same year and the same assessee. Two different questions have been referred in these two references. In respect of the same assessee there is a reference of the same two questions for the assessment year 1970-71 in I.T.R No. 44 of 1979, In I.T.R. Nos. 79 to 82 of 1978, similar questions are referred. We say 'similar' because the provision of the I.T. Act referred to in the latter cases is that substituted for the earlier provision, though materially not very different. In I.T.R. No. 87 of 1978, in which the assessment concerns a different assessee, the same questions as in I.T.R. Nos. 79 to 82 of 1978 have been raised in relation to the year 1974-75.2. The two questions referred to this court in I.T.R. No. 44 of 1979 are :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the ci...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Bank and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker1
George Vadakkel, J.1. The ambit of the proviso to Article 276(2) of the Constitution is by now well defined by the decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court. While Article 276(2) curtails the legislative power of the State to enact tax laws in respect of professions, trades, callings or employments for the benefit of the State or a local authority (which power it has despite Article 246 as clarified by Article 276(1)) by providing that the total tax payable thereunder by any one person to the State or to any one local authority shall not exceed Rs. 250/- per annum, the proviso thereto enables the State Legislature to make legislation for the continuance of any such tax at a higher rate that was in force in any State or any local authority in the financial year immediately preceding the commencement of the Constitution until Parliament by law provides otherwise. As ruled by this Court in Travancore Minerals Ltd. v. Commissioner, Quilon Municipality (1965 Ker LJ 376) and State Ban...
Tag this Judgment!Homeo Dr. T.K. Prabhawati Vs. C.P. Kunhathabi Umma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ker170
ORDERM.P. Menon, J.1. The controversy is about the scope of Order 23, Rule 1 (3), C.P.C., and the facts are these:--2. Claiming themselves to be the owners of a building let out to the revision petitioner and her children, respondents (1) and (2) herein filed R.C.O.P. 114/72 for eviction, on grounds of arrears of rent. The tenants contended that the site of the building was taken out on 'karaima' right and that the building was put up by them. Landlord-tenant relationship within the meaning of Act 2/65 was thus denied, and a tenancy within the meaning of the Land Reforms Act (1/64) was set up. The Rent Control Court thought that there was a bona fide dispute regarding title and referred the parties to a civil suit. Respondents (1) and (2) then filed O. S. 2/74 for recovery of possession of the building with arrears of rent. The suit was also based on the contract of letting. The trial Court held that the contract was not established. The plaintiffs filed an appeal (A. S. 120/78) before...
Tag this Judgment!A.S.N. Nair Vs. Sulochana
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1898
U.L. Bhat, J.1. The revision petitioner was directed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Trichur in It C. No. 18 of 1978 lied under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short the Code) to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 80/-per month to his wife, the respondent herein. This order is challenged now. The revision petition came up for consideration before one of us (Bhat, J.) and the matter was referred to a Division Bench as there appeared to be an apparent conflict between the decisions of two learned single Judges of this Court on one of the points involved in this case.2. The revision petitioner (C. P. W. 1) married the respondent herein (P. W. 1) On 13-6-1971 in accordance with the customs of their community. Two children were born in the wed-lock. M. C. 11 of 1976 filed by the wife before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur claiming maintenance from C. P. W. l under Section 125 of the Code, was allowed. In Cri. R. P. No. 55 of 1976 before the Sessions Judge, Trichur an ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›