Kerala Court June 1985 Judgments
K. Daniel Vs. T. Hymavathy Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Ker233
U.L. Bhat, J.1. Appellant herein filed the suit for damages on account of certain defamatory questions put and statements made in the course of trial in a prior suit by or at the instance of the respondent herein. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the dismissal has been confirmed in appeal. Hence this second appeal.2. Appellant herein filed O.S. 254/1978 in the Munsiff's Court, Kayamkulam claiming decree for certain sums of money alleged to have been borrowed from him by the respondent. Appellant then was working as clerk of an advocate practising in the Haripad Munsiff's Court. Respondent was earlier working as Examiner in that Court though subsequently transferred to Sub-Court, Alleppey. Allegation in the suit was that the respondent was taking loans from him and also used to get goods and articles purchased through him with his money on undertaking to repay the amount to him when she gets her monthly salary. She did not return the money but assured him that money would be repai...
Tag this Judgment!Thazhe Nelliyullathil Chatti Avulla and ors. Vs. Ayatathil Karuvankand ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Ker275
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. Defendants 1 to 5, 7 and 8 in O. S. No. 104 of 1975, Munsiffs Court, Nadapuram, are the appellants. The legal representatives of the plaintiff and defendant 6 are the respondents in this appeal. The suit was filed for recovery of mortgage amount by sale of the mortgaged property. Defendant 1 executed Ext. A1 usufructuary mortgage to the plaintiff on 18-3-1952 for a consideration of Rs. 2000/-. On the same day by Ext. A2 the property was leased back to the mortgagor. Under Ext. Al the amount is payable after a period of 12 years. It will be payable in 1964. In the meanwhile Act 31 of 1956 came into force. In view of the provisions of the said Act, Ext. A1 mortgage has to be deemed as a simple mortgage. The plaintiff is thereforeentitled to sue for the mortgage amount. He can do so within 12 years from the date when the amount is due. The amount is due in 1964. The suit should be filed before 1976. The present suit was laid on 20-6-1975. The defendants contended t...
Tag this Judgment!Kunnarath Yesoda Vs. Manathanath Narayanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Ker220
Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.1. The short question that arises for determination in this appeal, under the Hindu Marriage Act, is whether the appellant is entitled to exclude the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the decree of the lower court, for filing the appeal? Can Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act be invoked by the appellant?2. The appellant is the wife who married the respondent in 1972. They have a daughter born on 30-5-1973. In 1979, the husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. A decree for divorce was granted by the lower court on 25-1-1980. The appellant applied for a copy on 30-1-1980. He received the copy on 29-3-1980 and filed this appeal on 8-4-1980. The appeal has been filed beyond thirty days of the date of the decree; but is within time if time taken to obtain the certified copy is deducted. Is this appeal within time or out of time?3. The learned counsel for the husba...
Tag this Judgment!Gouri Amma Kanakamma Vs. Kesavan Govindan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-13-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker30
Balakrishna Menon, J. 1. For the purpose of this appeal by defendants 6 and 9, it is not necessary to go into the facts of the case in detail. The bare facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows :2. In pursuance to an agreement Ext. A7 dated 2-11-1965 between the plaintiffs on the one hand and defendants 1 and 2 on the other, two documents Exts. A2 and A3 were executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs conveying title to immovable properties mentioned therein. Ext. A2 dated 11-2-1965 is a deed of exchange, and Ext. A3 dated 16-4-1966 is a sale deed conveying immovable properties to the 1st plaintiff. The 1st defendant died during the pendency of the suit and defendants 6 to 9 were impleaded as his legal representatives. The appeal is by two among the legal representatives of the 1st defendant.3. Part of the property conveyed to the plaintiffs under Exts. A2 and A3 was lost on account of the decree in O. S. No. 471 of 1966 obtained by a third party. Ex...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Collector of Central Excise Vs. Kallatra Abdul Khader Haji a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-13-1985
Reported in: 1985(6)ECC10; 1986(6)LC267(Kerala); 1987(32)ELT479(Ker)
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Special Customs Preventive Division, Kozhikode, the complainant in C.C. 386 of 1978 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, is the appellant. That complaint was filed against 9 accused for an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. By judgment dated 27th February, 1981 the Magistrate acquitted all the accused and in the judgment the Magistrate also made provision for release of the material objects under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'. Accused 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 are respondents 1 to 6 in the appeal and the State is the 7th respondent. After filing of the appeal, the first respondent, who was the first accused before the trial Court, expired. So also during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court, 5th accused expired. Accused 4 and 9 are absconding and the trial as against them has b...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) Vs. Dat Pathe
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-1985
Reported in: [1985]59STC374(Ker)
K. Bhaskaran, C.J.1. When T.R.C. No. 47 of 1983 came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, doubting the correctness of another Division Bench decision of this Court in T.R.C. No. 121 of 1977, the matter was referred to a Full Bench. Inasmuch as the same question of law arose for decision in this T.R.C. also, that was ordered to be posted before the Full Bench along with that T.R.C. No. 47 of 1983 (State of Kerala v. Mary Antony) has since been disposed of by a Full Bench of this Court by judgment dated 2nd April, 1985, however, without deciding the question of law which occasioned the reference to the Full Bench .2. The facts, in short, in this revision are as follows : The assessee was, during the material time, a dealer in timber, tin, cashew and metal products, having been the proprietor of Datha Tin Works, Coktail Cashew Co., Dat Pathe and C.M. Metal Works. On 30th November, 1973 the assessee sold three Out of four businesses for a consideration of Rs. 8,59,371.41, ...
Tag this Judgment!Velukutty Vs. Prasannakumari
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-11-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1558
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. The revision petitioner is the husband and the counter petitioner is his divorced wife. At a time when the marital relationship was subsisting the counter petitioner filed M. C. No. 81 of 1978 for maintenance against the petitioner for herself and her minor child under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Calicut. The Magistrate refused maintenance to the counter petitioner accepting the contention of the petitioner that she is residing separately without justifiable reasons. Maintenance was allowed to the child alone. That order was not challenged by any other proceedings and it has become final,2. Thereafter alleging desertion by the petitioner the counter petitioner filed O.P. No. 239 of 1980 before the District Judge, Kozhikode for judicial separation under Section 10(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. That petition was allowed and judicial separation was ordered. Then the petitioner filed O.P. No. 69 of 1982...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Mammen Mathew
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Ker)367; [1997]158ITR466(Ker)
Bhaskaran, C.J.1. The assessee, who was a director of Malayala Manorama Company Limited, gifted 1,940 shares of the face value of Rs. 10 each in that company to one Sri Jacob Mathew on February 1, 1972. The assessee filed the gift-tax return showing the value of the gifted shares as Rs. 19,400. It was his case before the Gift-tax Officer that there were no willing buyers in the market for purchasing those shares since the Central Government had introduced a Bill for diffusion of ownership in newspaper industry which sought to limit the holdings of a director and his relations to 5% of the total share capital. The Gift-tax Officer, however, held that there was no valid basis for estimating the value of the shares at their face value. Noticing the value of the assets of the company, the Gift-tax Officer determined the value of the gifted shares as Rs. 73,089 at the rate of Rs. 40.25 per share, that being the value arrived at on the basis of the last balance-sheet. Determining the taxable...
Tag this Judgment!D. Thankaraj Vs. Smt. M.C. Pushpa Rose
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-07-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker23
ORDERJ.L. Bhat, J. 1. Respondent is the wife of the petitioner. Parties are Nadar Christians governed by the provisions of the Divorce Act (for short 'the Act')- Respondent filed O. P. 25/84 seeking a decree for judicial separation under Sec. 23 of the Act. O. P. was filed on 8-2-1984 and the summons was served on the husband on 28-5-1984. Pending O. P., wife filed an application seeking an order of alimony pendente lite. The application was opposed by the husband who but was allowed by the Court directing the husband to pay alimony at the rate of Rs. 140/- per month from the date of service of summons on the husband. It is this order which is now challenged in revision.2. Parties raised conflicting pleas regarding each other's means. On the evidence placed before him, the learned District Judge held that the wife has no means to maintain herself, that the husband derives a net income of Rs. 600/- per annum from immovable property and pay and allowances to the extent of Rs. 668/- per m...
Tag this Judgment!Sidhan and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ470
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition was filed by the 10 accused against their conviction and sentence in S. C. Nos. 47 and 71 of 1979 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Trichur, which was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Trichur, in Crl. A. No. 22 of 1980.2. Both the cases arise out of the same incident. All the ten revision petitioners were the accused in both the cases. One is a police charge and the other a private complaint. The private complaint resulted in Sessions Case No. 47 of 1979 by committal. Sessions Case No. 71 of 1979 arose out of the police charge. The private complaint was for offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 149, 324, 326, 341 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The police charge was also for identical offences with the only exception that the offence under Section 307, I.P.C. was not included therein.3. Since the private complaint included an offence under Section 307, I.P.C. which is exclusively triable by the Ses...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »