Kerala Court August 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.
Secretary, Meters Staff Association Vs. United Electrical Industries L ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-23-1984
Reported in: (1984)IILLJ446Ker
U.L. Bhat, J.1. Petitioners the Secretary of Meters Staff Association (for short 'the Association') a trade' union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1956 and formed in 1960 and recognised by the Management of the United Electrical Industries Ltd., Quilon (for short 'the Company') in 1960 itself. The Company under Ext. P5 letter informed the Association that the recognition enjoyed by the Association has been withdrawn. This original petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash Ext.P5 and seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to continue to recognise the Association as a trade union representing the employees of the Company. On behalf of the respondent, the Deputy General Manager of the Company has sworn to a counter-affidavit. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit.2. The total strength of the employees of the Company is over 500. Of them, strength of the clerical staff is said to be 110. Total strength of 5 the clerical staff and...
P. Narayana Menon Vs. P. Bhageerathi Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ker14
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. Plaintiff in O. S. 30 of 1977 on the file of theSubordinate Judge's Court, Manjeri is theappellant. Respondent is his wife. The suitis for partition. 2. The masthead of the case is the question is C schedule property a gift by the plaintiff to the defendant.3. The trial court found that C schedule property is a gift to the defendant by the plaintiff and not liable to be partitioned in this suit. Hence it dismissed the suit in respect of plaint C schedule.4. There is no dispute between the parties as regards their respective shares. The plaintiff admits that in any case the defendant is entitled to 1/11th share in plaint C schedule property. C schedule property is two deposits of Rs. 20,000/-each in State Bank of Travancore in its Manjeri Branch. The defendant claims that it belongs to her exclusively and so not liable to be shared. She admits that out of this Rs. 40,000/- a sum of Rs. 34,6507-constituted the sale consideration received by the plaintiff and defen...
Dileepkumar and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ114
M. Fathima Beevi, J.1. The three appellants challenge in separate appeals their conviction and sentence by the judgment dt. 23-12-1981 in SC No. 88/1981 of the Sessions Court, Trivandrum. The appellants were convicted Under Sections 302 and 449 r/w. Section 34 I.P.C and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the former Offence and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the latter both sentences being directed to run concurrently.2. Stephen (A1) aged 24, Suresh Kumar (A2) aged 22 and Dileep Kumar (A3) aged 22 were tried for the murder of one Revindran alias Revi. Stephen was charged for the substantive offence Under Section 302 I.P.C while all the 3 accused were charged with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C for the offences Under Sections 302 and 449 of the Penal Code.3. The incident happened at midnight inside the house of Kamalakshi (P.W. 2) in a village by name Olathanni, 4 Kilometres away from Neyyattinkara Police Station. P.W. 2 a rich widow was living in the house, while her only daught...
Philip Vs. Raphael and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ126
ORDERV. Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.1. I would have thought that the decision of the Supreme Court in Patel Laljibhai v. State of Gujarat : 1971CriLJ1437 settled the judicial conflict on the scope and applicability of Section 195, Cri.P.C. But, contends counsel, the framers of the, new Code of 1973 have deliberately omitted the words 'by any party to any proceeding in any court' in Section 195 and, therefore, the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court interpreting the old section cannot apply.2. The complainant, the petitioner here, alleges that on the 17th of July, 1978 accused 1 and 2 forged a document in his name purporting it to be an agreement to sell his land. Accused 3 and 4 are alleged to be witnesses to this deed and accused 5 is said to be the mediator. The complaint was filed in Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Court, Aiwaye, on 18-8-1978 and the court took cognisance of the case also on the same date and issued process to the accused. When the case stood posted for prosecution evi...
Godavari Bhai Vs. Cannanore Municipality, Cannanore
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-16-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ker2
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. This second appeal at the instance of the plaintiff is admitted on the following questions of law formulated in the memorandum of second appeal : --'(i) Whether, under the Kerala Municipalities Act, the Municipality derives any power or authority to construct, for being let out for trade. Bunks on road-margins;(ii) Whether the Municipality is empowered to put up Structures on public highway, which are not necessary for the maintenance or user of the road as a public highway;(iii) Whether the legal rights of the plaintiff are not infringed by the action of the Municipality in putting up Bunks in front of her property, adjoining, and parallel to, her compound wall.'2. The plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit property adjoining a public road namely the Civil Station Road in Cannanore town. She has her residential house in the suit property besides some lorry sheds on the side of the road. The plaintiff intends to construct buildings in her compound...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Kumaraswamy Reddiar Sons
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-13-1984
Reported in: [1985]154ITR724(Ker)
Kochu Thommen, J.1. Radhakrishnan and Muthukrishnan are the sons of the late Kumaraswamy Reddiar, who died on July 10, 1968, leaving a will dated September 22, 1967, under which his properties, including a business, were bequeathed to the HUF of which he was the karta. The relevant portion of the will reads :'.....Myself and my sons, K. Radhakrishnan and K. Muthukrishnan, have constituted a joint Hindu undivided family. For the benefit of the family I hereby throw into the common hotchpot all my properties including the business into the joint Hindu undivided family mentioned earlier and I am managing the same.....'2. The business of the deceased which was held by him in his individual capacity was thus bequeathed to the HUF.3. Radhakrishnan, who is one of the surviving members of that family, entered into a settlement, in his capacity as the legal representative of the deceased, with the Income-tax Department, as evidenced by annexure B dated February 2, 1972. That document shows that...
V.P. Mohammed Kutty Vs. Thottoli Kunhikoya Haji and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ker33
ORDERU.L. Bhat, J.1. These original petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the permit issued by the common second respondent, District Collector, Malappuram in favour of the common first respondent for starting a new rice mill in Sy. No. 25/4 of Kuruva village under Section 5 of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') and the Govt. letter or order No. 10522 dated 22-9-1983 which led to the grant of the permit and consequential reliefs. The common respondents 3 and 4 are the District Supply Officer of the District and the Kuruva Panchayat, State of Kerala has been impleaded as additional fifth respondent in O. P. 710 of 1984.2. Facts of the case can be summarised as follows :On 30-12-1982, first respondent filed an application before the District Collector under Section 5 of the Act for grant of a permit to start a new rice mill in the premises mentioned above. After due enquiry, the District Collector rejected the a...
C.S. Chandrasekharan Nair and anr. Vs. K. George and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ker131
Sukumaran, J. 1. The defendant in a suit for redemption of Ext. A1 transaction is the appellant in the second appeal. There were various contentions to resist the suit. One was that the transaction in truth and substance amounted to tenancy. The other was that the question whether Ext. A1 document dt. 5-10-1964 evidences a tenancy was within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Land Tribunal. And the third one related to the value of improvements. 2. The title of the plaintiff was upheld and the transaction was found to be a redeemable mortgage. The suit was therefore decreed. Value of improvements to the extent of Rs. 170 had been granted. Three contentions were raised before the Appellate Authority and they related to the nature of the document, about the propriety of not referring the question of tenancy to the Land Tribunal, and the finding on the value of improvements. 3. The last question is one of fact and no violation of any principle of law is established. 4. The first two are seri...
State of Kerala Vs. Valliyamma Ponnamma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-09-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ker1
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. L.A.A. No. 87 of 1979 is an appeal by the Government against the judgment in L.A.R. No. 11 of 1976 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Trivandrum.2. An extent of 48.90 acres of land in Sy. Nos. 385/5-1-2 and 384/4-1-2 of Kottukal Village was acquired for the Kovalam Tourist Development Centre. The Land Acquisition Officer valued the land at the rate of Rs. 1,125 per Ar. The claimants were not satisfied with the award. They caused a reference under Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act. Before court they claimed a compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per cent. The court below after considering the evidence in the case fixed the land value at Rs. 1,875/- per Ar. The State has challenged the decree of the court below. The claimants are also not satisfied with the enhancement granted by the trial court. They have filed cross-objections.3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claimants that the cross-objection relates only to an extent of 42.7...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.A. Unnerikutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-1984
Reported in: [1985]154ITR844(Ker)
Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The year of assessment is 1969-70, corresponding to accounting year ending March 31, 1969.2. The assessee is an individual dealing in copra, oil, etc. While computing the assessable income of the assessee, the ITO estimated the cost ofconstruction of the residential building, he had constructed during the year, at Rs. 69,950. However, he held that the total investment in that regard came only to a sum of Rs. 61,950. This investment was held to have been met out of the assessee's income from sources not disclosed and hence assessed under other sources. In doing so, the assessing authority had rejected the explanation of the assessee that he had utilised for the construction work a sum of Rs. 30,000 as having been given to him by his father. Similarly, the cash credits of Rs. 16,000 in the name of certain creditors was also held to be only a camouflage and as such the said amount was also found to be the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. Accordingly, th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »