Kerala Court September 1983 Judgments
Achutha Menon Vs. Jaganatha Menon and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-30-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ker51
Fathima Beevi, J. 1. The 1st defendant in O. S. No. 35 of 1975 before the Sub Court, Palghat, is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the preliminary decree and judgment dated 3-1-1978 in the suit for partition whereby the court declared the plaintiff's right for l/6th share in the Sub-tarwad properties granting the incidental reliefs.2. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 are members of Marumakkathayam Sub-tarwad governed by the Madras Maru-makkattayam Act, 1932 and the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1976. The plaintiff claimed l/6th share in the suit properties stating that the tavazhi is undivided, and these are tavazhi properties. The plaintiff had on 16-7-1971 executed Ext. 85 registered release deed in favour of defendant 1 the then Karnavan of the Sub-tarwad, transferring his rights in items 1 to 3for a consideration of Rs. l,000/- There had been a subsequent partition deed executed between the other members of the, tarwad as evidenced by Ext. 86 date...
Tag this Judgment!K. Mohammad Ahmed Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ker146
ORDERV. Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.'Breathes there the man with soul so dead who never to himself hath said, This is my own, my native land !'--Sir Walter Seott.'Citizenship is man's basic right; for it is nothing less than the right to have rights. Remove this priceless possession and there remains a stateless person, disgraced and degraded in the eyes of his countrymen.'(Chief Justice Earl Warden in Perez v. Brownell).1. Here is a petitioner who craves for Indian citizenship and cries for the determination of his rights by the Central Government. The Government dealt him a hard blow on harsh technicality. And so, to the brief facts :2. When India became free, Mohammad Ahmed, the petitioner was an Indian citizen. He was born in 1938 in Kerala. He had thus his roots in India where his parents, brothers and sisters were also born. He married a woman also bora in India. He came from a poor family and he was illiterate, poverty preventing him from prosecuting his studies beyond the second stand...
Tag this Judgment!Grand Cashew Corporation and ors. Vs. Gibbs Nathaniel (Canada) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ker33
ORDERK.K. Narendran, J.1. The short point that arises in these Civil Revisions is whether the partners of a firm can be impleaded in an applicalion under Section 5 (1) of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 45 of 1961, for short the Foreign Awards Act, for filing the foreign award obtained against the firm in an arbitration and whether the application can be amended accordingly. The petitioners in these civil revisions are registered firms doing export business and against whom foreign awards were obtained in arbitration by the respondent-company. The respondent filed applications under Section 5 (1) of the Foreign Awards Act before Sub Court, Quilon for filing the awards in Court. The respondent called upon the petitioners to disclose the names of their partners. On getting the names and addresses of the partners the respondent filed interlocutory applications in all the cases to implead the partners and to amend the applications filed under Section 5 (1) accordingly...
Tag this Judgment!P. Saina and ors. Vs. Konderi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ker170
K. Sukumaran, J. 1. The fast process of urbanisation appears to have adverse impact on well-cherished values and human relations. A waning effect on the biblical exhortation to love one's neighbour seems to be one such ill-effect. In Kennaway v. Thompson (1980-3 All ER 329) is an instance of legal action where according to Lawton L. J. the parties forgot the message: 'live and let live', This second appeal is the culmination of a feud between neighbours on a matter which can normally be treated as trivial. The principle underlying the litigation, however, is one of great importance. The cleavage of judicial opinion on the crucial issue is intense and sharp.2. The parties hail from the City of Calicut. They own and possess adjacent plots, the plaintiff, the northern one and the defendant the southern. Unikulan was admittedly the owner of the land 'Nalukandi Paramba' -- comprising the plaint schedule property. Ext. A1 is the demise dt. 4-8-1893 relating to that land granted by the Kizhak...
Tag this Judgment!Mooken Devassy Ouseph and Sons Vs. Rajappan Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-20-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ker91
ORDERK.K. Narendran, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision filed by the plaintiff in a suit on accounts is What is the condition which should be satisfied so that the period of pendency of a suit filed in a Court which had no jurisdiction to try the same can he excluded in computing the period of limitation for the suit? If the plaintiff did not act with due care and attention and filed the suit in a wrong Court can he take shelter under Section 14, Limitation Act, 1963 ?2. The plaintiff, a partnership doing business, had a petrol bunk at Parur within the jurisdiction of the Munsif's Court, Parur. The defendant residing within the jurisdiction of the Munsif's Court, Perum-bavoor, purchased petrol and oil from the bunk. As per the accounts kept by the plaintiff's at their head office at Mattan-cherry some amounts were due from the defendant. For that a suit was instituted before the Munsifs Court, Cochin. After trial, the Munsif's Court, Cochin fou...
Tag this Judgment!Kunhikayyumma and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-12-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ker184
K. Sukumaran, J.1. The question involved in the second appeal relates to a procedural matter. There is no controversy on the merits of the suit from which the second appeal has arisen. The suit was one filed by the Union of India for recovery of a sum paid as loan under a scheme for affording financial assistance to evacuees from Malaya. The defence was that the payment was a gratuitous one. That plea was rejected by the trial court. It has not been pursued in appeal. The liability under the decree, if it is otherwise sustainablc, could not, therefore, be in doubt or dispute.2. The facts relevant for the question to be considered in the second appeal are the following:-- In the course of the suit which was instituted in 1969 the original defendant died on 8-12-1971. Perhaps understandably in a case where a gov-ernmental agency is a party to a litigation, an application for impleading the legal representatives was not made in due lime permitted under law, namely, on or before 7-3-1972. ...
Tag this Judgment!Matha Plantations Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-1983
Reported in: [1984]150ITR480(Ker)
Paripoornan, J. 1. The petitioner is a firm. It is an assessee to agricultural income-tax borne 'on the files of the 2nd respondent. A firm was constituted as per deed dated August 1, 1970, marked as Ex. P-1. For the year 1971-72, on application, registration to the firm was granted under Section 27 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act. The assessment was made on such basis on March 30, 1976. The Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, the 1st respondent, in suo motu revision, required the petitioner to show cause why the registration granted should not be cancelled or revoked. The notices issued in this connection are Exts. P-2 and Ex. P-4 dated February 27, 1980, and September 25, 1980, respectively. The petitioner's reply thereto are Exts. P-3 and P-5 dated March 28, 1980, and November 20, 1980, respectively. By Ex. P-6 order dated December 2, 1980, the 1st respondent found that the grant of registration to the firm is irregular and set aside the order of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ouseph Mathew and Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-1983
Reported in: [1984]150ITR120(Ker)
Paripoornan, J. 1. The petitioner is a dissolved firm. It was doing business as an abkari contractor in Hosdrug. For the assessment year 1977-78, the 2nd respondent; ITO, A-ward, Cannanore, assessed the petitioner-firm to income-tax under Section 144 of the Act. This is evidenced by Ex. P-1 dated March 25, 1980. The petitioner filed a revision, Ex. P-2, from the aforesaid order. By Ex. P-3 order dated March 6, 1981, the 1st respondent allowed the revision in part and reduced the total income , by Rs. 50,000. This O.P. is filed praying to quash Exs. P-1 and P-3 orders, passed by the respondents. 2. On behalf of the petitioner-assessee, learned counsel, Mr. T. L. Viswanatha Iyer, contended that the ITO erred in passing Ex. P-1 assessment order without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. It is the petitioner's case that as a result of a search of the business premises on November 11, 1976, the account books and other documents were taken away by the Department and so the peti...
Tag this Judgment!C.M. Chandramathy Vs. Kasaragod Bus Transport Co. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-05-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Ker273
ORDERK.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner is a stagecarriage operator. In this O. P. she seeksto quash Ext. P-10 judgment passed bythe 5th respondent, the State TransportAppellate Tribunal, Eruakulam dated19-5-1983. The 4th respondent-RegionalTransport Authority, Cannanore-considered the grant of two regular permitsto operate on the route -- CannanoreNew Bus Stand - Talappedy S. B. Via:Teliparamba, Payyanur, Karivallur,Kanhangad, Bekal Bridge, Kalnad Paravandukkom, Chattanchal, Kasaragod and Kumbala -- for a period of three yearsfrom the date of issue. By Ext. P-1 orderdated 4-4-1983, the 4th respondent granted one permit to the petitioner herein and another permit to the 2ndrespondent herein. The 1st respondent herein and anotherapplicant (applicant No. 4 before theR. T. A.) filed appeals as M. V. A. A.Nos. 102 of 1983 and 145 of 1983. Thepetitioner figured as common 4th respondent in both the appeals. The 5threspondent-Appellate Tribunal by a common judgment, Ext. P-10, affirmedExt....
Tag this Judgment!K. Govindan Vs. Dy. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Cannanore and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-01-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ker26
ORDERK.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. The petitioner is a member of the Pattuvam Service Co-operative Society Ltd. -- 3rd respondent herein. The original petition is filed to call for the records and issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction to the 2nd respondent directing him to prepare a voters list in accordance with Rule 26 of the Co-operative Societies Rules and conduct the election to the committee of management of the 3rd respondent Society and also for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to issue appropriate directions to the 2nd respondent to adjourn the election to the committee of management of the 3rd respondent-society after the voters list as contemplated under Rule 26 of the Co-operative Societies Rules are finalised and for the issue of other appropriate writs and reliefs. Though originally the petitioner impleaded three persons as respondents, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Cannanore, the Returning Officer. Pattuvam Servic...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›