Kerala Court January 1984 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
A.Z. Mohammed Farooq Vs. the State Government
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Ker126
Sukumaran, J.1. Whenever scarcity in food is felt, the State steps in with remedial measures, to ensure the availability and an equitable distribution of the food-stuffs. Special Legislation -- some ephemeral and some almost having a 'quasi permanency' -- is also resorted to, to meet such emergent situations. Control Orders of various types, to cover procurement, movement, processing, price fixation and distribution, are issued on those occasions. There has been a spate of litigation in the State arising out of the implementation and the working of these Control Orders. This appeal arises from one among them.2. Palghat District which enjoys the reputation as the granary of the State, has numerous rice mills with their sprawling yards humming with activities. The procurement of paddy, and conversion of it into rice, are transacted on an extensive scale in that area. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted in one such area in that District Perintalmanna.3. Clause 3 of the...
Parathodu Panchayat and Etc. Vs. Kanjirappally Panchayat and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ971
ORDERG. Balagangadharan Nair, J.1. The petitioner in the Original petition is the Parathodu Panchayat. There is a canal by name Padapady canal that flows through the Parathodu Panchayat and the adjacent downstream Kanjirappally Panchayat. The 1st respondent is the Kanjirappally Panchayat and the 2nd respondent is its President. One Abraham who is the 6th respondent constructed a stone bund across the canal inside the Parathodu Panchayat with the Panchayat's permission and on condition that the Panchayat could demolish it whenever necessary, The object of the bund was to dam the water for irrigating the lands of the 6th respondent and possibly of others. Certain persons of the Kanjirappally Panchayat moved that Panchayat obviously complaining against the construction of the bund on the ground that it would obstruct or stop the flow of water into the Panchayat. The Kanjirappally Panchayat thereupon passed a resolution on 31-5-1983 on the matter. The 2nd respondent filed a petition before...
T.A. Rajendran Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR231(Ker)
Sukumaran, J.1. The editor of the newspaper 'Navab' filed this writ petition on January 10, 1984, seeking a writ of mandamus against the 1st respondent, the Commissioner of Income-tax to retain the 2nd respondent--K.R.K. Menon, the Income-tax Officer--'in his position as investigator and assessor against the 3rd respondent'. The 3rd respondent is described as P. N. Sankara-narayanan, Partner, M/s. P. K. Nanu Ezhuthassan & Sons, West Fort, Trichur. Shri. K. Karunakaran, the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the Government of Kerala, is the 4th respondent.2. According to the petitioner, there have been proceedings by the income-tax authorities, including a raid, against the 3rd respondent. Exhibits P-3 and P-4 are the letters exchanged between the 3rd respondent and the Income-tax Officer. Under Exhibit P-3 dated November 30, 1983, the 3rd respondent wanted a copy of the statement taken from him by the Department. On December 3, 1983, the Department gave the reply pointing out that the statement...
T. A. Rajendran Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-1984
Reported in: (1984)42CTR(Ker)258
ORDERK. Sukumaran, J. - The Editor of the newspaper Navab filed this writ petition on 10-1-1984 seeking a writ of mandamus against the 1st respondent, CIT to retain the 2nd respondent - K. R. K. Menon, ITO - 'in his position as investigator and assessor against 3rd respondent'. The 3rd respondent is described as P. N. Sankaranarayanan, Partner, M/s. P. K. Nanu Ezhuthasan & Sons, West Fort Trichur. Shri K. Karunakaran, the Honble Chief Minister of the Government of Kerala is the 4th respondent.2. According to the petitioner, there have been proceedings by the Income-tax Authorities, including a raid, against the 3rd respondent. Exts. P3 and P4 are the letters exchanged between the 3rd respondent and the ITO. Under Ext. P3 dt. 30-11-1983 the 3rd respondent wanted a copy of the statement taken from him by the department. On 3-12-1983 the department gave the reply pointing out that the statement sought for will be furnished on completion of the investigation. Ext. P2 is stated to be a copy...
Pathukutty Umma Vs. Koravalappil Pathummayi Umma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Ker176
Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.1. An interpretation in the practical application of Explanation III to Section 2 (25) of Act I of 1964 arises for determination in this second appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for redemption and recovery of possession. The brief facts found by the courts below and thus binding on this court are these,2. There is a small building in the plaint property. This was in the possession of the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants for over 50 years when Ap-punni, the original owner granted the lease to the mother of the sixth defendant in 1936. It was a building satisfying the definition of a 'hut' in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, for, the cost of construction did not exceed Rs. 750/- and the rent that would have been realised then did not exceed Rs. 3/- per month as well, While this lease of a hut, as it is now understood, was subsisting, the plaintiff, the owner, took an advance of Rs. 1500/-from the lessees and created a mortgage over the plaint schedule property i...
M.A. Andrews Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Ker101
Balakrishna Menon, J. 1. Thepetitioner, an M.B.B.S. Graduate of the Kerala University having completed a Course of House Surgeoncy in October, 1982, had applied for admission to the post-graduate course in the order of preference to the. subjects of Medicine, Gynaecology and Surgery. He seeks to quash the Government Orders Exts. P-8 and P-18 and the Prospectus Ext. P-11 issued by the Government of Kerala for the post-graduate courses commencing in 1982-83 in the Medical Colleges in the State. As per Ext. P-18 the Government adopted the principle accepted in Ext. P-8 and ordered that admission to the postgraduate courses for the year 1982-83 will also be made on the basis of an entrance examination to be conducted before the end of October, 1983 as recommended by the Expert Committee with the exception that Departmental candidates will be selected according to the practice hitherto followed on the basis of seniority in the case of Tutors in Medical Colleges and weightage for service and...
Progressive Port and Dock Workers Union Vs. K.M. Mathew and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1061
K. Bhaskaran, Ag. C.J.1. A passage from our judgment in O.P. No. 10747 of 1983-C dated 10.1.1984 quoted in paragraph 2 of the writ petition reads as follows:This being the position all that is required to direct that as long as the members of the petitioner's Union do not indulge in any unlawful activities or commit cognizable offences, the respondents 1 to 6 would not interfere with their demonstration or peaceful satyagraha.... They want only to carry on peaceful Satyagraha remaining on the road which we believe, so long as it is peaceful respondents 7 and 8 are not entitled to prevent.... The writ petition is disposed of as above.Ext. P-1, the photostat copy of the report in the Malayala Manorama dated 12.1.1984 reads as follows:MattancherryThe petition submitted by M.X. Varghese, president. Progressive Dock and1 Port Workers' Union alleging that the police has not given protection to the workers offering sathyagraha and his police are interfering in labour disputes has been dismiss...
Bharata Bankers Vs. E. Rajendra
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-04-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Ker115
ORDER1. The only question that arises for determination in this revision filed by M/s. Bharat Bankers, decree-holder in C. S. No. 105/78 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Koshikode, is whether the Dearness Allowance, Special Allowance and House Rent Allowance granted to the judgment-debtor, the respondent herein, who claims to be an employee of the Central Bank of India, Calicut is liable to be attached or not.2. The revision petitioner obtained a money decree against the respondent herein. While steps were taken in execution for attachment of the salary of the respondent, he resisted the execution on the ground that he is entitled to the benefit of Clause (1) of Section 60 of the Civil P. C. The decree-holder sought to attach the salary of the judgment-debtor at the rate of Rs. 466/-per mensem. The judgment-debtor contended that he is an employee of a nationalised bank, that his basic pay is only Rs. 580/-, special allowance in Rs. 171/-, D. A. Rs. 494.86 and H. R. A. is Rs. 75/- ...
G. Karunakaran Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-04-1984
Reported in: [1987]61CompCas334(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J. 1. As per exhibit P-1 order of the Government of Kerala dated January 25, 1983, issued by order of the Governor, the board of directors of the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ' the company'), was reconstituted under Article 18 of the articles of association. There are nine directors in the board reconstituted as per exhibit P-l and the petitioner is one among them. There is a subsequent order, exhibit P-2, dated September 7, 1983, as per which the fifth respondent is appointed as a director of the company, replacing the petitioner from the post. Article 18 of the articles of association of the company is extracted below: '18. Appointment of directors.--(i) The directors shall be appointed by the Governor and shall be paid such salary and/or allowances as the Governor may from time to time determine. (ii) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the directors shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor. (ii...
A.P. Augustine Vs. Supt. of Post Offices
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-04-1984
Reported in: (1984)ILLJ434Ker
Kochu Thommen, J.1. The petitioner is an extra-departmental Branch Post Master at Meenkunnam. By Ext. P1 dated 20th May, 1981 of the Sub Divisional Inspector of Post Offices, Muvattupuzha, the petitioner was 'put off duty'. Ext. P1 reads:Under Rule 9(1) of P. & T.E.D. Agents (Conduct & Service) Rules, 1964 Sri A.P. Augustine, B.P.M. Meenkunnam is hereby put off duty with immediate effect. Sri A.P. Augustine is not entitled for any allowance during the period of put off.Ext.P1 was later ratified by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Alwaye by Ext.R1 dated 27th May, 1981. As an extra-departmental officer, the petitioner holds a civil post as contemplated under Art.311 of the Constitution Supdt. Post Offices v. P.K. Rajamma : [1977]3SCR678 .2. Rule 9(1) is extracted by the petitioner inparagraph 4 of the Original Petition. It reads:9. An employee shall be liable to be put off from duty by or under the orders of the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate pending ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »