Kerala Court April 1985 Judgments
Raghavan Radhakrishnan Vs. Sathyabhama Jayakumari and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Ker193
Bhaskaran, C.J.1. The question of law, raised in the suit and the first and second appeals, which gave rise to the reference of the matter to the Full Bench, is whether for the purpose of Section 18(2)(a) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of1956), (hereinafter referred to as the Maintenance Act) animus is required to be established to prove desertion.2. The brief facts leading to this second appeal could be stated as follows : -- The first plaintiff Sathyabhama Jayakumari, on behalf of herself and her minor child, 2nd plaintiff, instituted a suit claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 50/- per month respectively for herself and the 2nd plaintiff, from the defendant, Raghavan Radhakrishnan, who had married her on 12-11-1973. The 2nd plaintiff was born in that wedlock on 11-8-1974. The first plaintiff was residing with the defendant till 23-3-1974 on which date she left for her parents' home for confinement. The trial Court found that the defendant had a...
Tag this Judgment!Meeran Unni Hameedu Vs. the Kottayam District Co-operative Bank
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Ker189
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. This appeal has come up before a Full Bench on reference by a Division Bench for decision on the question whether a suit for specific performance of an agreement to grant a lease of a shop building by the defendant (the Kottayam District Cooperative Bank) to the plaintiff is barred under Section 69(1)(f) and Section 100 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (Act 21 of 1969, hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The defendant is a society registered under the Act. The plaintiff is not a member of the Society. He had been carrying on trade in a room on the ground floor of a building belonging to the defendant-Society on a monthly rent of Rs. 12.50. The defendant-Society with a view to reconstruct the building requested the plaintiff to surrender possession of the shop-room in his occupation. It was agreed between the parties that after the reconstruction the plaintiff will be put in possession of a shop-room on the ground floor of the reconstructed build...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C.A. Ouseph and Sons
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-1985
Reported in: [1985]154ITR598(Ker)
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The following question at the instance of the Revenue has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act '):'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income of the firm, M/s. C.A. Ouseph & V.J. Paul, has to be included in the assessment of the assessee-firm (M/s. C. A. Ouseph & Sons) for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 ?'2. The partners of the assessee-firm are also partners of another firm by name, M/s. C.A. Ouseph & V.J. Paul, carrying on business in grocery and general merchandise at Trichur. The assessee-firm is carrying on business in jewellery at Trichur.3. Differing from the views expressed by the Commissioner in respect of the assessments for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74 in proceedings under Section 263 of the Act and by the AAC with respect to the assessment for the year 1974-75, the Income-tax Appell...
Tag this Judgment!Chandran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1288
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. This petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is for setting aside an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Parur in Crl. M.P. No. 44 of 1985 in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1984. The order is dated 19-3-1985 and the purport of the order is to permit the prosecution to examine the investigating officer again to prove the alleged confessional statement which led to the recovery of some material object.2. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is a provision which is often complained of being misused for the purpose of creating evidence otherwise not available. It is an exception to the general rule that the confession of an accused person to a police officer is not admissible. What is admissible under Section 27 is only .so much of the information which led to the recovery of the object proved to be having connection with the crime. The object recovered acts as corroboration of the information and assurance of its correctness. The information...
Tag this Judgment!Thomas and anr. Vs. Emmannuel and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ428
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. In this Crl. M.C. the question that arises for consideration is whether the inherent power of the Court could be allowed to be invoked for the purpose of making good what was lost by inaction in not preferring an appeal in time.2. The firstpetitioner was complainant in a private complaint which involved misappropriation of a fishing boat alleged to have been entrusted to the first accused in that case who is the first respondent herein. During the pendency of the complaint an order under Section 451 of the Code was passed entrusting the boat or its parts to the present first petitioner along with a surety on execution of bond. The surety is the 2nd petitioner. Ultimately the complaint failed and it appears that there was some observation or finding that the matter involved is only of a civil dispute. Many proceedings followed. It came to the question of enforcing the bond. The Magistrate proceeded against both the petitioners and ordered enforcement of the bon...
Tag this Judgment!Jacob Vs. Additional Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-1985
Reported in: (1986)49CTR(Ker)146; [1986]158ITR596(Ker)
SIVARAMAN NAIR J. - This petition comes up on a reference by Subramonian Poti C.J., and Paripoornan J. The two questions referred are :'(1) Whether the provision in the second proviso to section 34 that an order passed declining to interfere shall not be deemed to be an order prejudicial to the assessee should not be read as applicable to the main part of section 34 alone or whether it should be read as explaining the term prejudicial to the assessee in section 60(2) of the Act ?(2) Where a statute provides a right of revision to an assessee by enabling him to seek such revision by an application and he gets no relief in the revision, is it a case in which the order is prejudicial to the assessee ?'Under section 60(2) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', an assessee is entitled to require the Commissioner to refer to the High Court any question arising out of an order under section 34 enhancing an assessment or which is 'otherwise prejudicial...
Tag this Judgment!Nellikka Achuthan Vs. the Deshabhimani Printing and Publishing House L ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-08-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker41
K. Sukumaran, J.1. The plaintiff in a suit for recovery of damages from the defendants for having printed and published a defamatory news item is the appellant. Defendant 1 was the Company printing the newspaper 'Desabhimani' and defendant 2, Sri E. K. Nayanar is the publisher of the paper. The publication complained of was on 1-12-1974 and the caption : 'Theft of elephant tusks.' This was followed by a further news item on 5-12-1974, with the caption : 'The elephant tusks taken into custody have been produced in Court.' The defence was one of justification by truth. The trial Court did not accept that defence. The suit was accordingly decreed. The defence was, however, found acceptable by the appellate Court. It therefore allowed the appeaX set aside the decree of the trial Court, and dismissed the suit. The second appeal challenges the decision of the tower appellate Court.2. The relevant facts may briefly be referred to. The plaintiff had formerly served in the Indian National Army....
Tag this Judgment!S.K.A.R.S.M. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. National Textile Corporation Ltd. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-03-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Ker262
Kochu Thommen, J.1. The defendant in a suit for recovery of money is the appellant. The first plaintiff is the National Textile Corporation Limited, and the second plaintiff, Vijaya Mohini Mills, is one of the Units of the first plaintiff by virtue of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974).2. Exhibit A1 dated 17-1-1975 and Ext. A2 dated 6-1-1975 evidence a contract of sale between the second plaintiff and the defendant under which 15 bales of 40's and 25 bales of 60's of cotton yarn had been sold by plaintiff 2 to the defendant. As per the terms of the contract of sale, the goods were despatched by plaintiff 2 to the Calcutta branch of the defendant on 22-1-1975 and the relative documents were forwarded by it to the authorised bank. The defendant did not take delivery of the goods at Calcutta despite various reminders. Ext. A4 dated 25-3-1975 and Ext. A5 dated 17-4-1975 are the two telegrams sent by plaintiff 2 to the defendant urging him to take delivery of the goo...
Tag this Judgment!Chairman, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. S. Narayanankutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-03-1985
Reported in: (1986)ILLJ84Ker
K. Bhaskaran, C.J.1. Appellants 1 and 2 in the appeal respectively are respondents 3 and 4 in O.P. No. 3014 of 1981, disposed of by the judgment dated 9th January, 1984. The respondent herein (the petitioner in the O.P.) was the Branch Manager of Calicut of the Ruby General Insurance Company which, in consequence of the nationalisation of the private insurance companies, got itself merged with the National Insurance Company Ltd., it being one of the four nationalised general insurance companies allowed to carry on the general insurance business under thesupervision and control of the National Insurance Corporation in accordance with the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (57 of 1972), hereinafter referred to as the Act. Thus, the 'National' the 'Oriental', the 'United India' and the 'New India' became the four instrumentalities of the Central Government to do themonopoly business of general insurance. A true copy of the scheme framed under S.16 of the Act is Ext. P-...
Tag this Judgment!Thampi Chettiar Arjunan Chettiar Vs. State and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-03-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1158
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. The propriety of the order for disposal of property passed by the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kottarakkara under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after conclusion of trial in CC 53/83 and the confirmation of the same in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Quilon are matters to be considered in these two revision petitions.2. M.Os. 1 to 3 are gold ornaments. P.W.6 claimed them. M.Os.4 to 24 are household utensils. They were claimed by the accused. The complainant in that case was P.W.2. She claimed all the items. The accused was acquitted. But the Magistrate directed all the items to be given to P. W.2. Against the disposal of M.Os.1 to 3, P.W.6 filed Crl. R.P. 541 of 1984 and the order of disposal of M.Os.4 to 24 was challenged by the accused in Crl. R.P. 536 of 1984.3. PW.2, the complainant is the wife of the accused. PW. 1 is father of PW.2. Accused married P.W.2 on 18-3-1981. The case of P, Ws. 1 and 2 is that at the time of marriage 24 sovereigns ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »