Kerala Court December 1982 Judgments
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. San Jose Maritime Ltd. and o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ker98; [1985]57CompCas606(Ker)
Bhaskakan, J.1. The appellants are the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 48 of 1973 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Cochin, the first appellant (1st plaintiff) being the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and the 2nd appellant (2nd plaintiff) being the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. The respondents are the defendants in the suit, the 1st respondent (1st defendant) being Sanjose Maritime Ltd. S. A., Panama, the 2nd respondent (2nd defendant) being the General Traders, Ltd., Hongkong, and the 3rd respondent (3rd defendant), being the Malabar Steamship Co. Ltd, Bombay. The suit was one for realisation of damages for shortage in the consignment shipped by M/s. National Agricultural products Board. Dar-Es-Salaam, on board the ship S.S. Salomague, owned by the 1st defendant and chartered by the second defendant. The trial court having dismissed the suit, this appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs.2. The plaintiffs' case as averred in the plaint and as spoken to by P. W. 1 Bh...
Tag this Judgment!Janardhana Mallan and ors. Vs. Gangadharan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ker178; [1985]58CompCas390(Ker)
Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J.1. In this reference we are called upon to answer the question;'A prized subscriber in a chitty receives the prize amount executing a security bond to secure payment of future subscriptions which he is bound to pay under the terms of the chitty variola. The payment of future subscriptions are not defaulted. Nevertheless can it be said that a debt due to the foreman arises by reason of the receipt of the prize amount from, the foreman on the execution of the security bond for securing future subscriptions ?'This question was referred to a Full Bench and when the matter came up before the Full Bench the correctness of Full Bench decision in Achuthain v. State Bank of Travancore. Calicut. 1974 Ker LT 806: (AIR 1975 Ker 47) was canvassed in the case and that is how the matter is now before larger bench of this Court,2. The background of the reference may be stated in brief. The question referred arises in the Second Appeal filed by the plaintiffs in a suit for set...
Tag this Judgment!Umadbhai Chaturbhai Patel and ors. Vs. Goswamini Shrimati Ratnaprabha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ker238
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit is one under Order 21, Rule 63, C.P.C. (as it stood prior to its amendment by Act 104 of 1976) for a declaration that the six items of properties mentioned in the plaint belonged to deceased Goswamy Shri Vallabhlalji Maharaj and the properties are liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decree in summary Suit No. 1108/1954 on the original side of the Bombay High Court.2. The plaintiffs are the legal representatives of the decree-holder Shri Chaturbbai Maganbhai Patel. Ext. A12 dated 21-1-1957 is the decree in summary Suit No. 1108/54 for recovery of Rs. 3,00,811.12 from the defendant Goswamy Vallabhlalji Maharaj. The judgment-debtor late Goswami Vallabhlalji Maharaj (hereinafter referred to as Vallabhlalji) died on 16-7-1957. E. P. No. 1/1961 was therefore tiled against his widow and legal representative, who is the sole defendant in the suit. The defendant raised objection to the execution of the decree aga...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Universal Traders Corporation, Cochin
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ker173
K. Bhaskaran, J.1. The Union of India represented by the General Manager. Southern Railway. Madras, the defendant in the suit, is the appellant; and the Universal Traders Corporation, Mattancherry Cochin, the plaintiff in the suit is the , respondent. The suit was one for damages alleged to arise out of loss sustained by the plaintiff on account of damage to 27 baskets of shrimps sent from Madras to Cochin to the plaintiff by 41 Kerala Express leaving Madras on the evening? of 19-3-1972, due to delay in transit. The trial court having decreed the suit, this appeal has been filed by the defendant.2. The plaint averments stated in brief, are as follows: A consignment of 22 baskets Sea Naran Shrimps weighing 770 kgs was despatched to the plaintiff on 19-3-1972 by Abdul Rahiman & Co, under Ext Al parcel bill by 41 Kerala Express. On the same day and by the same train another consignment of 5 backets of shrimps weighing 175 kgs was sents by Deccan Seafoods for delivery to the plaintiff at C...
Tag this Judgment!S. Padmavathi Amma and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-16-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ker88
Bhat, J.1. The common 4th respondent in these original petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, is the Film Line Corporation, a partnership firm with two partners namely, Sivasankaran Nair and his wife. The petitioners in O. P. Nos. 3306/77, 4845/1977 and the minor son of the petitioner in O. P. 4859 of 1977 are owners in possession of certain lands in Sy. Nos. 495 and 496 of Cheruvakkal Village of Trivandrum District and these lands He adjacent to about 40 cents of land belonging to Sivasankaran Nair. The 4th respondent on 25-12-69 submitted an application to the State Government for allotment of a suitable land for the purpose of setting up a 'Film Studio cum House of Culture'. Apparently, the State Government did not respond to this request. On 22-10-1974, he submitted another petition to the State Government stating that in the 40 cents of land he has put up certain constructions required for studio complex and nine acres of land very near this plot is available for a...
Tag this Judgment!T.A. Rajendran Vs. Vayalar Ravi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-16-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ker105
Bhaskaran, J.1. The petitioner Sri T.A. Rajendran is stated to be the Editor of Navab, Trichur. This petition is purported to be filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (the Act); on the allegation contained in the petition; the apt provision of the Act appears to be Section 2(c) read with Section 12. Respondents l and 2 respectively are the Home Minister and Irrigation Minister of the State of Kerala, Respondents 3 to 5 are the publishers and Editors of the two Newspapers, the Kerala Koumudi and Mathrubhoomi, and the 6th respondent is the State of Kerala, represented by the Chief Secretary.2. The petitioner's case is that the public speeches made by the two Ministers on the 6th December. 1982, at the Youth Conference held at Mannam Nagar, Trivandrum, under the auspices of the Samastha Kerala Nair Maha Sammelanam, the newspaper reports of which are marked Exts. P-1 and P-2, constituted contempt of Court. The English versio...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-1982
Reported in: (1983)IILLJ356Ker
M.P. Menon, J.1. By Ext. P-5 Memo, dated 19th August, 1980, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) administered a warning to the petitioner. It was also directed that the memo should be kept in the confidential records of the petitioner. As a consequence, when the Departmental Promotion Committee met a few days later to consider promotions to the cadre of Income-tax Inspector, the petitioner was held to be unsuitable. It is common ground that but for Ext. P-5 the Departmental Promotion Committee would have favourably considered the petitioner's case. The only question, therefore, is whether an order like Ext. P-5 could have validly endangered the petitioner's chances of promotion.2. A warning is not a punishment under the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules. One of the punishments that could be imposed under the Rules is the withholding of promotion. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the warning in Ext. P-5 has been used as a ground for withholding his promotion, i.e., fo...
Tag this Judgment!Kunjukrishnan Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ker73
Bhaskaran, J. 1. Plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was one for declaration that Ext. B4 agreement entered into by the plaintiff with the 3rd defendant on 20-11-1975 and Clause 8 of Ext. B-1 sale notification issued by the 3rd defendant regarding the sale of residual tree growth from the plaint coupe were unenforceable in law and that the plaintiff was not liable to pay any amount to the defendants on the basis of the said agreement or Clause 8 of the sale notice; and also for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from recovering the amount mentioned in the notices issued OB 9-6-1976 (Ext. A-t) by the 3rd defendant by invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act or from appropriating the amount deposited by the plaintiff with 3rd defendant on 30-11-1975 as part of the earnest money. As a consequential relief the plaintiff also prayed for a decree to recover a sum of Rs. 13,640/-together with interest on the principal amount of Rs. 13,000/- from 7-10-1976 till reali...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›