Kerala Court September 1981 Judgments
Collis Line Private Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-07-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker127
Kochu Thommen J.1. This appeal arises from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cochin in O. S. No. 79 of 1972. The appellant is the defendant in a suit for the value of goods short delivered and damaged. The respondents who are plaintiffs 1 and 2 are respectively the insurer and the consignor of cargo shipped on board the vessel S. S. Anton belonging to the defendant. The cargo consisted of 12934 -bags of chemicals. It was shipped at Okha under bill of lading No. 1 D/- 5th July 1971 (Ext. A1 which is the same as Ext. B40). It was consigned to 'Self' and it was agreed to be delivered to the consignee at Cochin. Freight was pre-paid before shipment on the basis of weight of the cargo as declared by the shipper. The cargo was not however weighed by or in the presence of the carrier prior to or at the time of shipment. The entire cargo on board the ship during the voyage from Okha to Cochin consisted of what is covered by Ext. Al bill of lading. The ship arrived at ...
Tag this Judgment!Abhay Lalan Vs. Yogendra Madhavlal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-03-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1667
ORDERK.K. Narendran, J.1. The short point that arises for consideration is whether a question of jurisdiction raised by the accused before the commencement of the trial can be postponed for decision after the examination of the complain: ant and witnesses. The accused in C. C. No. 74 of 1980 on the file of the Addl Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class (II), Ernakulam is the petitioner. The respondent appointed the petitioner as their agent at Cochin to attend to their ships which called at the Port of Cochin. On the allegations that the petitioner misappropriated collections made on behalf of the resondent the above complaint was filed. The offices air leged against the petitioner are those under Sections 403,, 409, 420 and 477-A I.P.C. When the case came up for trial, the petitioner contended that the court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. As directed by the court the petitioner filed M. P. No. 456 of 1981 raising the, question of jurisdiction and requesting the court ...
Tag this Judgment!Karicherry Charadan Nair and anr. Vs. Edayillam Kunhambu Nair and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-02-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker232
U.L. Bhat, J.1. The plaintiffs filed a suit in the Munsiff's Court, Kasaragod tor a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing into the suit properties. The defendant denied the plaintiff's possession on the date of the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit with costs holding that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit properties. This decree has been confirmed by the Subordinate Judge, Kasaragod in first appeal. Hence this second appeal.2. The suit properties are described as 16 cents of garden land in R. Section No. 684/ 2C, 60 cents of paddy field in Rection Section No. 685/1 A3 together with kumki rights appurtenant thereto. According to the plaintiffs these properties belonged to two sisters by name Kammadathu Amma and Kunhammar Amma, from whom the plaintiffs obtained a lease under Ext. X-l Chalgenichit (lease for one year) and while they were in possession of the properties, they purchased one half right of Kammadathu Amma's share in ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Mohammad Ismail
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-02-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1553
ORDERKumari P. Janaki Amma, J.1. This revision case is taken up suo motu in view of certain irregularities noticed at the time of the inspection of the judicial Magistrate's Court. First Class, Neyyattinkara.2. C. C. No. 279 of 1973 was initiated by the Sub Inspector of Police Neyyat-tinkara, against one Mytheen Pillai Mohammed Ismail for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Several attempts were made to get at the accused. While so, the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a report stating that the case was pending for many months without any progress on account of the non-availability of the accused, that the efforts to get. at the accused having failed, in order to avoid unnecessary pendency in the court permission might be given under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for withdrawing the prosecution for the time being, without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to proceed against the accused as and when he would be made available ...
Tag this Judgment!M.N. Paul Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-01-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker38
Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. One of ussitting single when hearing the Civil Revision Petition felt that a clarification is called for of an earlier decision of us reported as Kechu Lakshmi v. Velayudhan (1980 Ker LN 642). That is why this revision petition is referred to a Division Bench. The facts necessary to understand the dispute between the parties are the followings :2. The second respondent by name Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association represented by its Manager filed an application before the Land Tribunal under Section 72-B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for purchase of the landlord's right. That application was properly notified and the revision petitioner was also given individual notice and he had filed an objection to it, but did not substantiate the same. The Land Tribunal, after enquiry found that the applicant is a cultivating tenant entitled to purchase and therefore directed the issue of the purchase certificate to the Association. Long after the period of li...
Tag this Judgment!Dakshayini and ors. Vs. Madhavan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-01-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker126
Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J.1. Reference has been made to the Division Bench because the learned single Judge who had occasion to hear this case felt that there was anomaly in the provision in Order 21, Rule 92 Sub-rule (2) of the Civil P. C. as it now stands despite the amendment of Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by Civil p. C. (Amendment) Act 104 of 1976. A person who seeks to set aside a sale may do so under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 89, Rule 90 or Rule 91. The right under Order 21, R, 89 is to be exercised by applying to have the sale set aside on deposit into court of amount sufficient to pay to the decreeholder besides the commission of 5% to the auction purchaser. The Civil P. C. did not specify the time within which applications have to be made under Order 21, Rr. 89, 90 or 91. That was provided in Article 127 of the Limitation Act. The period was 30 days from the date of sale. When the Civil P. C. was radically amended by Act 104 of 1976 the period for setting as...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›