Kerala Court June 1986 Judgments
Padmanabhan Pillai and anr. Vs. Sulaiman Kunju Ahamed Koya and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-26-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker125
ORDERM.M. Pareed Pillay, J. 1. Revision petitioners filed E.P. 20/84 to execute the decree for permanent injunction in O.S. 39/61 of the Sub Court, Quilon. The learned Sub Judge dismissed the petition holding that the petitioners are not assignees from the decree-holders and therefore they are not entitled to execute the decree. 2. The order of the Court below cannot be sustained as the petitioners are the purchasers of the property from the original decree-holder. When a decree is not assigned but the assignment covers the property decreed, assignee can get the decree executed. Petitioners do not have a case that they have obtained the decree assigned in their favour from the original decree-holder. What they claim is that they purchased the property from the original decree-holder. The status of the petitioners as purchasers of the property from the original decree-holder is not at all disputed by the respondents. 3. Order 21, Rule 16 provides that where the interest of any decree-ho...
Tag this Judgment!G. Krishnankutty Nair Vs. P.M. George and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1529
K. Sreedharan, J.1. The Food Inspector, the complainant in C.C. No. 14 of 1981 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Changanacherry, is the appellant. He challenges the order of acquittal passed by the Court below. Accused, two in number, who are the partners of the provision store situated in building No. V/591 of Chandanacherry, were prosecuted for offence under Sections 2(1)(a) and 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i), Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. The Food Inspector demanded 750 grams of black grain dhal from the first accused by issuing Ext. PI Form VI notice. The receipt of that notice is evidenced by the signature on the reverse of Ext. PI which is marked as Ext. PI (a). The first accused sold the said quantity under Ext.P2 cash bill on receipt of Rs. 3.45. The said article of food was sampled in three clean dry bottles and sealed it as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Ext.P. 3 is the mahazar prepared by the Food Inspector evidencing the a...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Motor Accidents Claims Tr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC386
M.P. Menon, J.1. Those two writ petitions raise the question whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is bound to issue a notice to the Insurance Company concerned before issuing a certificate under Section 110-E of the Motor Vehicles Act. The section as such does not provide for any notice but one can certainly visualise situations where such notices may be necessary such as those where interest is awarded, or the nature of the relief granted in the award is such that it requires some computation with reference to facts or factors in dispute. It may also probably be proper to suggest that the Insurance Companies should get some time to look into the award and decide whether the matter should be taken in appeal or not. It is said that all Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal were issuing such notices while the Ernakulam Tribunal alone was not doing so. These two writ petitions were filed at time when the Ernakulam Tribunal was following this different practice. Admittedly the said Tribun...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Kochumoideen and ors. Vs. the Kerala Financial Corporation and an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-20-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker197
ORDERVarghese Kalliath, J.1. Respondents in a proceeding initiated before the District Judge by the Kerala Financial Corporation under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 are the revision petitioners before me.2. In the proceedings before the learnedDistrict Judge the revision petitioners filed an application requesting the court to grant leave of the court to issue notice to third parties under Order VIIIA of the Civil P.C. The revision petitioners said that third parties are liable to contribute to liquidate the loan. The court below considered the question whether it has got jurisdiction to grant leave to the revision petitioners to issue notice to third parties under Order VIIIA of the Civil P.C.3. After considering very ably the relevant aspects of the matter the court below held that the proceedings contemplated under Order VIIIA of the Civil P.C. are inapplicable to a proceeding initiated under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. The ap...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. G ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-20-1986
Reported in: [1986]63STC308(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The revenue is the revision-petitioner. The respondent in this revision is the assessee. The assessee is a dealer in rubber having its head office in Kottayam and branches all over India. The only question that falls for consideration in this case is whether for the assessment year 1977-78, a turnover of Rs. 3,53,373 representing the value of 53,856 kilograms of rubber purchased by the assessee's Jullundur and Delhi branches from the open prison at Nettukaltheri near Kattakkada (Kerala) is assessable as the 'last purchase' within the State of Kerala. The plea of the assessee was that the purchase was in the course of the inter-State trade and that the said turnover is not assessable under the State Act. The assessing authority held that the rubber was purchased by the assessee from the open prison at Nettukaltheri in this State and that the transaction was complete within this State and so exigible to tax under the State Act. It. was affirmed in appeal by the Dep...
Tag this Judgment!Baliapatam Tile Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner and Secretary to Governmen ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-1986
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ63Ker
Radhakrishna, J. 1. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. It employs more than 250 workers in its factory at Pappinisseri. The petitioner has, therefore, to provide a canteen as provided for under Rule 91(2) of the Factories Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') made under Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948. 2. Due to the increase in the price of rice, wheat and other articles required for preparation of foodstuffs in the canteen, the petitioner put forward a proposal in 1981 for revision of the prices of foodstuffs supplied in the canteen before the Canteen Committee, constituted under Rule 96 of the Rules. Since there was no consensus of opinion among the members of the Canteen Committee, the petitioner moved the second respondent for the approval of the proposal to enhance the prices under rule 94. The second respondent after considering the various aspects of the matter granted the approval sought for as is seen from exhibit P-2. 3. Aggrieved b...
Tag this Judgment!Rosily Mathew and ors. Vs. Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker42
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. Plaintiffs in O.S. 167 of 1974 are the defendants in O.S. 191 of 1974 while the plaintiff in O.S. 191 of 1974 is the defendant in O.S. 167 of 1974. As the issues arising for consideration in the suits were common, they were disposed of by the trial court by a common judgment. The appeals there from were also disposed of by a common judgment.2. The Second Appeals are at the instance of the plaintiffs in O.S. 167 of 1974.3. The dispute relates to the compound wall situated on the southern boundary of the appellants' property which admittedly is the northern boundary of the respondent's property. The compound wall is situated on the land comprised in survey No. 976/2.4. The case of the respondent as disclosed from his pleadings is that the property shown in the schedule attached to the plaint in O.S. 191 of 1974 belongs to him and that the appellants and their men are attempting to trespass upon the property and therefore they may be restrained by an injecti...
Tag this Judgment!Dena Bank Vs. K.K. Alex
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker70
Paripoornan, J. 1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 261 of 1983, Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode -- Bank is the appellant. The plaintiff in the suit is the respondent. The suit was laid for recovery of a sum of Rs. 20,840/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of plaint till realisation. Briefly stated, the facts are these : On 12-8-1981, the plaintiff purchased Traveller's Cheques worth Rs. 19,000/- from the defendant-Bank. He did so in pursuance to the advertisement that Travellers cheques afforded complete protection against theft or loss. The plaintiff proceeded to Bangalore and stayed in a Hotel there, from 24-8-1981 to 1-9-1981. On 31-8-1981, he went out of the hotel room after locking the same. The Traveller's cheques were kept in his suit case properly locked. On his return at 2 p.m., he found that the Traveller's Cheques were missing. He reported to the J.C. Road branch of the Bank and also to the Police Station. The J.C. Road branch Manager of ...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Kunjuraman and ors. Vs. Mrs. Saramma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-1986
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas259(Ker); (1990)68SCC259
Thomas, J. 1. A young man by name Vijayan was knocked down by a bus (KLE 578) during the morning hours of November 5, 1971. Within a few minutes, Vijayan succumbed to his injuries. The appellants, the parents and the grandmother of Vijayan instituted a suit for compensation against the respondents alleging that the accident was the consequence of the negligent driving of the bus by its driver, the tenth defendant.2. One Shri P. M. Mathai was the registered owner of the bus at the time of the accident. His widow and children are defendants Nos. 1 to 9 against whom the appellants made the claim for compensation. The eleventh defendant is the person in whose favour the ownership of the bus is said to have been transferred as early as July 9, 1970.3. The trial court rejected the contention of the defendants that the accident was not the result of the negligence on the part of the bus driver. The learned sub-judge found that the appellants are entitled to be compensated on account of the de...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Gopinathan Nair Vs. the Senior Inspector-cum-spl. Sales Officer o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker167
ORDERK. Sukumaran, J.1. The petitioner, a member of the Manimala Panchayat Service Cooperative Bank, contends that Section 28A of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 newly introduced under the Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985 is ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution. Section 28A mandates that in the Committee of every Society one seat each shall be reserved for a woman and a person belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.2. The proposal to conduct election to the Committee of the Society on 31-5-1986 is also challenged. The notice dated 5-5-1986, indicated that the election will be for 13 members, one of whom will be a woman and one, a member belonging to the scheduled castes/scheduled tribes. The pre-existing number of the Committee was 11. The number has been increased Under the enabling provision of Section 28A and fixed as 13.3. The challenge against Section 28A, is without substance. No materials have been furnished to show how the provisio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »