Kerala Court July 1981 Judgments
Thoma Varkey Etc. Vs. Krishnan Nair Narayanan Nair and ors. Etc.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ker228
ORDERG. Balagangadharan Nair, J.1. The appellant died on July 19, 1980 leaving his only son (respondent 3) and his wife (respondent 4) as his legal representatives. C.M.P. No. 2313 was filed by counsel for the deceased appellant to record them as his legal representatives in the appeal. Subsequently on June 17, 1981 C.M.P. No. 10362 was made by the 4th respondent to transpose her as the additional appellant in place of her husband. In the supporting affidavit she has stated that she was making the application by herself as her son, the 3rd respondent, who was on bad terms with her was unwilling to join her, The first respondent in the appeal opposed the applications contending that C.M.P, No. 2313 is invalid as counsel was incompetent to make the application and that neither application could be allowed as no legal representatives were brought on record in place of the appellant within time and the appeal has abated and the mere presence of the legal representatives on the array would ...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnu and anr. Vs. Taluk Land Board, Chittur and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker330
ORDER1. In a suo motu ceiling case against the statutory family consisting of the first revision petitioner and his now deceased wife in which notice was also given to the son, the second revision petitioner who was a major on 1-1-1970, the Taluk Land Board determined excess land to be surrendered as 2.10 acres. This was done overruling the contention of the revision petitioners that the land taken into account was the joint family property of the parties which was divided under a partition deed of 1972 between them. The Taluk Land Board treated the entire land as separate property of the father. Revision petitioners raised an alternative contention that in case the entire land is to be treated as separate property of the father, it must be deemed that by virtue of the partition deed the father gifted a portion of the land to the son and therefore they must be given the benefit of Section 84 (1A) of Kerala Act 1 of 1964 (for short 'the Act') introduced by the Amending Act 27 of 1979. T...
Tag this Judgment!Balan Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1549
ORDERKumari P. Janaki Amma, J.1. This revision case was taken up suo motu by this Court as it was found that an irregularity has been committed by the appellate Court in disposing of the appeal.2. The accused in C. C. No. 353 of 1978 on the file of the Judicial Magis-strate. First Class, Hosdrug, was charge-sheeted for an offence punishable under Section 392 of the Penal Code. The case against him was that at 6.30 p. m. on 6-7-1978 while P. W. 1, Maniamma, was going along the varamba of a paddy field after her day's work, the accused took out a knife from his waist, put her in fright and snatched away a gold chain worn by her. The chain weighed 3/4 sovereign and was valued at Rs. 396/-. The accused after taking away the gold chain went to his house. The incident was watched by P. W. 2 a neighbour. P. W. 1 felt some pain on her neck and she went to the Government Hospital at Kasaragod. On getting intimation from the hospital P. W. 5, Head Constable, attached t0 the Kasaragod Police Stat...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Mundan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1795
S.K. Kader, J.1. In connection with the murder of one Sankunni Kurup, Velay-udhan, Sankaran, Arumughan and Mundan were tried by the Court of Session. Manjeri Division, for offences punishable under various sections of the I.P.C. The respondent herein, the 4th accused in the case, had to face a charge under Sections 449 and 302 I. P- C. On the conclusion of the trial all the accused were acquitted.2. The State has now come up in ap-peal challenging only the order of acquittal of the 4th accused.3. The accused persons are all Harijans and are mazdoors by profession. The occurrence was on June 6, 1978. sometime between 6 and 6-30 p. m. from near an illicit Arrack-cum-toddv shop and from inside the house of one Vettan, husband of Cheruneeli (P. W. 11). Devaki (P. W. 8) and her husband Velayudhan wete conducting an illicit arrack-cum-toddv shoo in a small shed situated very close to their house. While Parame-swaran Nair (P- W. 1) was engaged in collecting paddy seedlings from a seed bed nea...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Thomas and ors. Vs. K.A. Musthafa and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1892
ORDERS.K. Kader, J.1. The only question that arises for determination in this criminal miscellaneous case filed by the accused persons in C. C No. 620/80 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Perumbavoor, a private complaint, filed by the first respondent herein, is whether the said complaint is competent and the proceedings therein are liable to be quashed, for want of previous sanction of the appropriate authority under Section 197 of Criminal P. C. 1973. hereinafter called the Code, and under Section 397 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960 (Act 14 of 1961), hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The first respondent filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, perumbavoor. against the petitioners herein who are respectively accused 1 to 4 in the complaint, alleging that they committed offences punishable under Sections '447. 427 and 109' I.P.C. The material allegations in the complaint can be stated as under:3. The father of the first respondent (the c...
Tag this Judgment!N. Dinesan Vs. K.V. Baby
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1551
ORDERK.K. Narendran, J.1. The short point that arises for consideration in this Criminal' Revision is: On a day when a private complaint was posted for evidence-neither the complainant nor any witness was present. The complainant's petition for adjournment and to excuse absence was allowed. The accused's application to dispense with personal attendance for that day and permit his to appear by his pleader was rejected. Can it be said that the Magistrate exercised his discretion judicially and' in accordance with settled principles of law?2. The respondent, a Nursery School Teacher filed a private complaint against the petitioner and Anr. under Section 494, Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. Cochin. On a warrant issued by the Magistrate the petitioner was arrested by the police. On 3-10- 1979 the petitioner appeared before the Magistrate and took bail. The petitioner got a job in Muscat and left Cochin on 2-12-1979. The case came up for trial on 12-2-198...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Marthoma Rubber Company Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-29-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ker223
P. Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J.1. A question of some general importance arises for decision in these petitions, These are revisions by the Kerala State Electricity Board against orders passed in various petitions filed under Section 10 and Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 before the District Courts. The courts below have evidently followed the decision of this Court in Electricity Board V. Thomas, 1961 Ker LT 238 : (AIR 1961 Ker 237), and have determined compensation in the manner it was determined in that decision. The Division Bench in that case considered the question of the proper rule for determining compensation and laid down the principle that compensation payable is to be the present value of an annuity which yields afair return at the rate of 5 per cent per annum. That the appropriate rule to be applied for determining compensation is that of determining the present value of an annuity yielding fair return is not a matter in controversy. But such fair return was take...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Arya Vaidya Pharmacy (Coimbatore) Ltd. Vs. Secretary, Ar ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-29-1981
Reported in: (1982)ILLJ364Ker
K. Bhaskaran, J.1. On the basis of the finding of a domestic enquiry, the management of the Arya Vaidya Pharmacy (Coimbatore) Ltd., dismissed two of its workmen, a compounder and an attender, employed in its Calicut Branch, on a charge of theft. The cause of the workmen dismissed was espoused by the Ist respondent, the Secretary, Arya Vaidya Pharmacy Employees Union. The dispute referred to the 2nd respondent, Labour Court, Kozhikode, having resulted in Ext. P1 award whereunder the order of dismissal passed by the management was set aside and the workmen were ordered to be reinstated, the management has filed this writ petition for quashing Ext. P1 award.2. The issues raised before the Labour Court, as are seen at page 22 of the paper book, read as follows:(i) Is the finding of the domestic enquiry officer perverse and does not follow from the evidence adduced before him?(ii) Is the management entitled to rely upon a plea of loss of confidence in the workers in this case?(iii) What ord...
Tag this Judgment!Jose Kuttiyani and ors. Vs. the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, K ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker12
Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. Idikki District Co-operative Bank Ltd. is a Society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Secieties Act, 1969. It has 14 branches and all the members of the Bank are primary societies. However the Bank receives deposits from individuals and also grants loans to individuals. The management of the Bank is vested in Board of Directors consisting of 11 elected members and 3 official members nominated by the Government. Of the 11 elected members three ceased to be Directors for one reason or another and so the remaining elected and non-elected members were managing the affairs of the Bank. The Board entered office on 1-7-1978, their term being three years, normally they would have had to go out on 30-6-1981.2. This Bank is insured under the Deposit Insurance Corporation Act 1961 (Central Act). Chapter X-A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act contains additional provisions of law regarding such insured co-operative banks. The Banking Regulation Act 1949 (Central A...
Tag this Judgment!Konath Mohammed Master Vs. Munsiff, Tirur and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-23-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ker220
George Vadakkel, J.1. At the Panchayat election held on 18-9-1979 the petitioner-appellant was returned as a member of the Athavanadu Panchayat. The 2nd respondent who also contested the election questioned the validity of the appellant's election, before the 1st respondent, the Munsiff, Tirur, by filing Election Petition No. 2 of 1979. Therein the 2nd respondent raised allegations of corrupt and illegal practices. However, the election petition was not accompanied by a list signed and verified (in the manner provided for) setting forth the full particulars of corrupt and illegal practices alleged in the petition as required by Rule 5 (5) of the Kerala Pancha-yats (Decision of Election Disputes) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter, the Rules). The petitioner-appellant, therefore relying on Rule 5 (8) of the Rules, contended that the election petition is to be dismissed in limine on the ground of non-compliance of Rule 5 (5) of the Rules. The second respondent thereupon on 29-11-1979 filed an appl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »