Kerala Court February 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.
R.S. Ramdas and ors. Vs. Krishnan Nair and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Ker142
Bhaskakan Nambiar, J.1. Defen-dants 3 to 5, the legal representatives of the first defendant are the appellants.2. When the plaintiff was a minor, his grandmother and mother acting as guardian entrusted the plaint property, about 54 cents of land, to one Chockalingam Pillai for the construction of a Cinema Theatre on 19-11-1947 (Ext. B1). The eights of Chocka-lingam Pillai became vested in the 1st defendant and now have devolved on defendants 3 to 5 after his death. The plaintiff contends that the transaction is not a lease, but only a licence. He therefore filed the suit for a direction that he be permitted to deposit Rs. 51,309/-, the value of the theatre payable to the 1st defendant and then allow him to be in exclusive possession of the property and for other reliefs.3. The first defendant resisted the claim coniending that the transaction was a lease of land for a commercial purpose, the lessee constructed a Cinema Theatre, for such commercial purpose and therefore is entitled to ...
Mambekkattu Nanu Vs. Mambekkattu Vasantha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1206
ORDERU.L. Bhat, J.1. The respondent herein filed M.C. No. 119/76 under Section 125 of the Criminal P.C. (for short, the Code) against her erstwhile husband, the present petitioner and the same was dismissed on 8.5.1978 holding that the wife was living separately from the husband without reasonable cause and there was no neglect or refusal to maintain her on the part of husband. The petitioner thereafter filed O.P. No. 369/78 before the civil court for restitution of conjugal rights and restitution was ordered on 6.10.1978. The wife refused to go back to him and the petitioner filed O.P. No. 380/79 for divorce and divorce was granted on 31.10.1980. Thereafter the divorced wife, the present respondent, filed M.C. No. 42/81 claiming maintenance from the petitioner herein under Section 125 of the Code. The learned Magistrate dismissed the petition on the ground that a fresh application under Section 125 of the Code could not be entertained in view of the dismissal of the previous applicati...
Kadeeja Umma Vs. Appellate Authority, L.R. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Ker197
Bhaskaran, Ag. C.J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment dt. 9-9-1983 in Order P. No. 1153 of 1981-H which itself was for quashing Ext. P-6 order by which the petitioner's application for restoration of the appeal before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) was dismissed. The learned Judge took the view that whether an application for restoration should be allowed or not is purely within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority, and it would not be fair on the part of this Court to interfere with such decision under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Going through the impugned order we find that the disposal by the Appellate Authority was far from satisfactory. What the Appellate Authority has stated by way of reason for dismissing the application for restoration reads as follows:--'I have heard the counsel for the appellant and also perused the connected records. Considering all the aspects of the case, I feel that no useful purpose will be served by restoring the...
Kerala State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. C. Soman Nadar and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-1984
Reported in: II(1984)ACC126
Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.1. The first defendant, the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, is the appellant. The plaintiff, a car driver was involved in a motor accident, he was seriously injured, his leg had to be amputated and he was permanently handicapped and became practically a cripple in life. He filed a suit for compensation claiming two lakhs rupees alleging negligence of the 3rd defendant, driver, employed by the Corporation. He estimated the loss at the average rate of Rs. 400/- per mensem for prespective damages and claimed Rs. 1,72,800 on that account and Rs. 28,200/- for his personal sufferings including pain, loss of enjoyment and expectation of life. He also stated that he was entitled to be reimbursed for medical expenses. The court below granted him a decree for Rs. 80,070/- and the Corporation, aggrieved, has filed this appeal. The plaintiff has also filed a cross appeal.2. The accident occurred on 8-2-1973 at 9 A.M. The plaintiff, a taxi driver was driving his car No...
Annamma Thomas Vs. T. Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-1984
Reported in: (1984)IILLJ208Ker
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. Both the writ appeal and the O.P. arise out of proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent for relief under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The 1st respondent was a Supervisor of the petitioner's estate. He was discharged from service on 20th April, 1964. An Industrial Dispute was raised by the Union of which the employee is a member and the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut, by its award dated 21st December, 1974 in I.D. No. 118 of 1964 directed reinstatement of the employee with backwages. The award of the Industrial Tribunal was published in the gazette dated 11th February, 1975. The petitioner challenged the validity of the Award in O.P.No. 1815 of 1975 before this Court. It is admitted by both sides that the O.P. was dismissed confirming the award of the Industrial Tribunal. Thereafter the employee filed Ext. PI application before the Labour Court, Quilon, under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming backwages upto the da...
B. Rajeevi R. Hegde Vs. Thyampanna Shetty and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Ker222
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, Ag. C.J.1. The landowner is the revision-petitioner. The first respondent herein had filed a petition for purchase of the revision-petitioner's right, title and interest under Section 72-B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, Act 1 of 1964, as amended by Act 35 of 1969 (the Act). The Tribunal allowed the application by its order dt. 24-6-1976 as prayed for. The appeal filed against that order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Cannanore, by its judgment dt. 5-12-1980 confirming the order of the Land Tribunal; hence this revision under Section 103 of the Act.2. Sri U.P. Kunikullaya, the counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority went wrong in allowing the purchase of the right, title and interest of the petitioner (landowner) inasmuch as, according to him, there was no tenancy with respect to the land subsisting between the revision-petitioner or his predecessor-in-interest on the one hand, ...
Azeez Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1059
ORDERT. Kochu Thommen, J.1. A school bus driven by the petitioner was involved in an accident on 12.9.1980 resulting in the death of one Devadas, aged 23, studying in the III year B.E. (Electronics and Communications) in Siddaganga Institute of Technology, Karnataka. A Claim Petition was filed by the mother and elder brother of the deceased before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and I am told that the petition has since been disposed of allowing the claim in part. I am further told that an appeal for enhancement is now pending before this Court. The 2nd respondent, Shri. P. Velayudhan is a senior advocate at Palghat. He was a Public Prosecutor for a number of years. He was the counsel who appeared in the Motor Accidents Claim.2. The mother and brother of the deceased requested the Government to appoint Shri. P. Velayudhan as a Special Public Prosecutor in the criminal case (C. C. No. 22 of 1980) registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 3...
Kunhappa Nair and anr. Vs. Suresh Kumar and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Ker99
ORDERK.K. Narendran, J.1. The respondents-kudikidappukars in an application for shifting of kudikidappu under Section 77 (1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1960, for short the Act, are the petitioners inthe civil revision. The respondents applied for purchase of kudikidappu under Section 80-B of the Act. Then the landowner, the first respondent herein, applied for shifting the kudikidappu. The alternate site was not owned by the landowner at the time when the requisition under Section 75 (2) of the Act was made or when the application for shifting was made. Thereafter, the first respondent obtained a gift of the alternate site from his father, issued a fresh notice under Section 75 (2) and filed a second application for shifting for the same purpose of put-ting up of a residential house for himself. The Land Tribunal then dismissed the first application for shifting on the ground that the landowner was not having any right over the alternate site proposed. On the same day, by a se...
Jayadevan and ors. Vs. Commandant M.S.P. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-1984
Reported in: (1984)ILLJ521Ker
M.P. Menon, J.1. The petitioners were Havildars/Constables of the M.S.P.'C' Company at Malappuram. They were also office-bearers of the local unit of the Kerala Police Association. The first petitioner was the Secretary, the second the President, and the third, a member of the Committee. The Association had made a demand that Constables of the M.S.P., K.A.P. and S.A.P. should be allowed to go over to the Armed Reserve Police, and that direct recruitment to the Aimed Reserve should be discontinued for the purpose. It is said that at a conference held on 10th April, 1980 the Home Minister had agreed to this proposal. However, direct recruitment was again made. The M.S.P. unit of the Association decided to register its protest against this development. The protest took the form of 'boycotting mess' and taking out a procession. Mess was boycotted on 8th December, 1980, in pursuance of a written notice given by the Association on 7th December 1980. The procession was taken out between 5.30 ...
The Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., Quilon and anr. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-08-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Ker139
Fathima Beevi, J.1. These appeals arise from the common judgment dated 26-7-1983 disposing of O. P. Nos. 4957 of 1983-R and 5368 of 1983-1. The Kerala. State Cashew Development Corporation, the 3rd respondent in the Original Petitions, is the appellant in W. A. Nos. 569 and 570 of 1983 while the 1st respondent State has preferred W. A. Nos. 606 and 607 of 1983.2. The Original Petitions had been filed challenging Ext R-3 (a) order of the Government dated 25-4-1983, directing sale of raw cashewnuts procured under the Kerala Raw Cashewnuts (Procurement and Distribution) Act, 1981, shortly stated the 'Act'. The petitioners are cashew manufacturers and factory owners.3. The Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation, authorised agent of the Government, had reported to the Government that about 4800 M. T. of raw cashew-nuts procured under the Monopoly Procurement Scheme during 1982 cashew season were remaining unlifted in the various godowns of the State. The Cashew Special Officer, Quil...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »