Kerala Court July 1987 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.
V.K. Kamalam Vs. Panchali Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker265
ORDERM.M. Pareed Pillay, J. 1. Revision petitioner is thepetitioner in O. P. No. 64 of 1977 of the Sub-Court, Palghat. She filed the petition under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for the grant of a Succession Certificate enabling her to collect the family pension, death cum-retirement gratuity, balance of provident fund and the amount in the S. B. account due to the estate of deceased V.K. Raman Nair. The Sub-Judge dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing the genuineness of Ext. A37 Will Petitioner filed C.M.A. 57 of 1981 before the District Court, Palghat. The District Judge confirmed the order of the Sub-Judge and dismissed the appeal. 2. Petitioner is the niece of deceased V.K. Raman Nair. Respondents 1 to 3 are the sisters of the deceased. Second respondent is the mother of the petitioner. Of the respondents the 4th respondent alone contested the proceedings. Claiming herself to be the wife of Raman Nair disputed the genuineness...
Padmanabhan Nair Vs. Narayanikutty and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC487
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The 1st respondent is the widow of one V.K. Sreedharan Nambiar who died on 23-101981 in the Calicut Medical College Hospital as a result of burns sustained while travelling in bus KLN 723 belonging to the appellant on 12-10-1981 He was a passenger in the bus on its 1.40 p.m. trip from Cannanore to Vellachal. When the bus reached near a place called Macberi Srambi, a petrol can kept in a gunny bag under the back seat of the bus caught fire from a beedi thrown by a passenger in the bus. The deceased who was sitting in the back seat of the bus, was engulfed in the fire and was severely burnt. He was taken to the Headquarters Hospital at Cannanore and then on to the Medical College, Calicut for treatment, where he succumbed to the injuries on 23-101981. The claim was, therefore, filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tellicherry, under Section 110- A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ('the Act' in brief by the wife of the deceased for compensation in the...
Velayudhan Nair Vs. Kerala Kshemam Yunik Kuries Pvt. Ltd., Trichur
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker223
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. The suit is for money due under a chitty security bond. Defendant contested the suit by filing written statement But before settlement of issues he withdrew all his contentions and admitted the plaint' claim. The court passed a preliminary decree for sale under Order 34 Rule 4 of the Civil P.C in the following terms. (1) There will be a preliminary decree for sale in case the entire amount is not paid within six months. (2) If the entire amount is paid within six months and the defendant applies for full satisfaction of the decree within the said period without necessitating further investigation in a final decree proceedings plaintiff will be entitled to refund of one half court fee. In such a contingency costs will not include one half court-fee which will be refunded to plaintiff. Otherwise there will be no refund and plaintiff will get full costs. (3) Plaintiff will be at liberty to apply for a final decree for sale in case defendant fails to pay the amoun...
CochIn Refineries Ltd. Vs. C.S. Company, Engineering Contractors, Kott ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Ker72
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J. 1. Petitioner (Cochin Refineries Ltd.) in Arbitration O.P. No. 114 of 1985 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam is the revision petitioner. Revision is directed against the order dismissing a petition filed under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act. 2. Petitioner (for short 'the Company') invited tenders for an item of earth filling work. First respondent (for short 'the Contractor') was the second lowest tenderer. Lowest tenderer to whom work was awarded did not complete the same and hence balance work was awarded to the Contractor. After completion of work as per final measurement, amounts were received by the Contractor in full and final settlement of all the claims early in 1982 admitting that no further claims are due. After the liability period was over, at the instance of the Contractor, security and retention amounts were also released and received on 5-4-1983. Two years thereafter on 5-5-1985 the Contractor raised a claim makin...
M. Swaminathan Vs. C.K. Jayalakshmi Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-1987
Reported in: II(1987)ACC299; [1989]66CompCas503(Ker)
Balakrishnan, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment passed in MAC Nos. 41 of 1981 and 42 of 1981. The appellant herein was respondent No. 13 in MAC No. 42 of 1981 and respondent No. 12 in MAC No. 41 of 1981.2. The second petitioner in MAC No. 41 of 1981 is the injured minor child and the first petitioner therein is her mother. The 2nd petitioner was studying in a tutorial college and was preparing for the SSLC examination. On the date of the incident, she was returning to her house in bus No. KLR-4980. The petitioner in MAC No. 42 of 3981 was also a passenger in the bus. According to the claimants, the bus was overcrowded and it was being driven at a very high speed. As the bus passed a culvert, a lorry bearing registration No. BD6556 came from the opposite direction and there was collision between the two vehicles. The incident happened at a place called Kokked. According to the petitioners, both the vehicles were driven negligently.3. As a result of the accident, the ...
K.S.E.B. Thozhilali Union Vs. K.S.E.B. Thozhilali Union (i.N.T.U.C.)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-1987
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ461Ker
ORDERRadhakrishna Menon J.1. The petitioner is a trade union registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926, for short 'The Act'. The Registrar of Trade Unions cancelled the registration granted under Section 8 of the Act by the order which was under challenge before the district Court, Trivandrum, in the appeal, the petitioner has filed under Section 11 of the Act.2. The first respondent claiming itself to be a different trade union presented I.A. 6/84 under Order 1, Rule 10(2) C.P.C for getting itself impleaded as a party to the appeal. This petition was opposed by the petitioner. The petitioner inter alia contended that the first respondent has no connection whatsoever with the petitioner and hence its prayer to get itself impleaded as a party respondent to the appeal cannot be taken cognizance of.3. Entering the finding that the first respondent has locus stand/to present the petition to get itself impleaded as a party respondent to the appeal, I.A. 6/84 was allowed. The said order is ...
Y. Janardhana Rao Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-1987
Reported in: [1988]71STC312(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner herein is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (in short, 'the Act'). He is a hotelier. We are concerned with the assessment year 1978-79. The controversy is relating to the taxable turnover of Rs. 76,840. The assessee had a recalcitrant tenant, one Vaidyanatha Iyer, who was a dealer in automobile parts.In order to purchase peace, the entire stock-in-trade in automobile parts was purchased by the assessee for Rs. 97,573.53, on 1st June, 1978. That enabled the petitioner-assessee to get possession of the premises. The assessee returned a turnover of Rs. 36,000. He sold the entire goods to M/s. Surendra Automobiles. This aspect was verified by the appellate authority and it is agreed that the entire goods obtained from Vaidyanatha Iyer was sold to Surendra Automobiles. The goods sold were out-modelled. The assessee pleaded that he is not a dealer in automobile spare parts and so he should not be assessed on the turnover of Rs. 36,000 fo...
Bhaskar Traders, Alavil Vs. Minikkipacha Kunhiraman
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-22-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker227
ORDERM.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Revision petitioner is the judgment-debtor in E.P. 100 of 1983 in O.S. 390 of 1982 of the Munsiff Court, Cannanore, Revision petitioner filed E.A. 174 of 1984 in E.P. 100 of 1983 alleging that he is an agriculturist entitled to exemption under Section 60(1)(c) of the Civil P. C. That contention was rejected by the executing Court mainly on the ground that such on objection was raised only when the property was proclaimed for sale and after it was adjourned on several occasions on his application. The Court also held that the attempt is to procrastinate the execution proceedings.2. Learned counsel for the cessionpetitioner submitted that even though thepetitioner did not contend that he is entitledto exemption under Section 60(1)(c)when he received the notice of attachmenthe still can very well urge it when the propertyis brought for sale.3. The point that arises for considerationis whether the judgment-debtor can advance his contentions piece-meal and at d...
Kumaran Potty Vs. Venad Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-22-1987
Reported in: [1989]65CompCas246(Ker)
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. Venad Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd. is a company jointly promoted and formed in 1980 by the Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation along with Padmakumar and associates. Among the associates, P.G.K. Pillai, father of Padmakumar, was the Vice-chairman. Padmakumar was the managing director. The chairman was a person from Bombay. P. W. 2, K.L. Menon, was a director. The petitioner is an employee of the company. The petition is under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956, for rectification of the share register of the company by inclusion of the name of the petitioner also as a shareholder. The prayer was strongly opposed by the respondent company.2. Due to mismanagement by the board of directors, the company was taken over by the Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation by purchasing shares and it got impleaded as additional second respondent. The second respondent also disputed the claim.3. There were 41 employees in the company including the pet...
Sreenivasan Vs. Subbarama Sastrikal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker112
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. The short question for consideration is whether the subject-matter of the suit is a promissory note payable on demand or otherwise than on demand. If it is payable on demand the stamp affixed is sufficient, otherwise it is unsufficiently stamped. The Subordinate Judge found that it is payable otherwise than on demand and hence insufficiently stamped and therefore inadmissible in evidence. Plaintiff seeks to revise that order.2. There is no dispute that taken alone by itself the promissory note is one payable on demand and hence sufficiently stamped. Section 2(22) of the Indian Stamp Act accepts the definition of promissory note in the Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act defines promissory note as an instrument in writing (not being a bank note or a currency note) containing an unconditional undertaking, signed by the maker to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain person, or to the bearer of the instrum...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »