Kerala Court December 1990 Judgments
S.R. Varadaraja Reddiar Vs. Francis Xavier Joseph Periaria
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ker288
P.K. Shamsuddin, J.1. Plaintiff in O. S. No. 142 of 1981 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Quilon is the appellant. Suit is for specific performance of contract for sale of immovable property.2. Plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement Ext. A1 dated 29th September, 1976 whereby plaintiff agreed to purchase and defendant agreed to sell the plaint schedule property for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/-. Defendant had obtained a preliminary decree in O. S. 111 of 1972 on the file of Sub Court, Quilon, for partition and recovery of possession, which declared that plaintiff got 171/210 shares in the plaint schedule property, which had an extent of 15 cents. Defendant made the plaintiff to believe that defendant was taking steps before the execution court for recovery of possession. It is this property that was agreed to be sold and the defendant received Rs. 1001/- towards advance from the plaintiff. The agreement also provided that the defendant on recovery of possession of th...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Sumangala T. Pai Vs. S. Sundaresa Pai and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ker259
Bhat, J. 1. Plaintiff in a suit for partition is the appellant herein. 2. First defendant is the husband, plaintiff and fifth defendant are the daughters and defendants 2 to 4 are the sons of Indira Bai who died on 13-11-1981. First defendant died when the suit was pending in the trial court. Plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the moveable and immoveable properties belonging to Indira Bai and separation of her 1 / 6th share therein on the ground that Indira Bai died intestate. The suit was resisted by registered notice Ext. A demanding share. In the reply notice defendants set up a contention that Indira Bai had executed Ext. B1 unregistered will dated 26-8-1981. According to the plaint, will is not true and genuine and had been forged and fabricated with the sole object of defeating the claims of the plaintiff. After the death of the first defendant plaint was amended to state that plaintiff is entitled to fractional share in the share of the first defendant. Defendants 1 and 5...
Tag this Judgment!A. Gourisankar Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ker225
ORDERK. Sukumaran, J. 1. Those who ordinarily appear in Court for others, are themselves in Court now. They complain against an illegality on the part of the Government; on the part of the Law Department of the Government. A legal question is involved concerning a Central enactment. Viewed from another aspect, a larger one of constitutional perspective is also involved in view of a somewhat strange stand taken by the Government in its counter-affidavit. The petitioners, as hinted earlier, are legal practitioners, Advocates, practising in different Courts, from one end of the State to the other. They had been appointed by the Government, as Notary Public. Most of them have been appointed under the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), a comprehensive legislation adopted by the Parliament in the early years of the Republic. The appointment is for a term but is renewable. The statutory requirements for the renewal were complied with by all of them. T...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Koyammu and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ429
K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J.1. The insurer is the appellant. Appeal is against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in M.A.C. No. 142 of 1981. The accident happened on 26.9.1980. First respondent was a passenger in bus KLD 7914 owned by 3rd respondent and driven by 2nd respondent. He sustained injuries when the bus met with the accident as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by second respondent. An amount of Rs. 25,000/- was claimed as compensation from respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the appellant, who is the insurer. The petition was resisted by the owner, driver and the insurer. Appellant, the insurer, inter alia, contended that its liability is limited as provided in the Motor Vehicles Act. It further contended that its liability has to be fixed at Rs. 5,000/- since the claimant was a passenger. Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 25,000/-as compensation with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition with costs which include the advo...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Guna Shenoy (Huf) (Son of Late A.L. Sreedhara Shenoy) Vs. Commiss ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-1990
Reported in: [1991]191ITR63(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. The petitioner states that he is the 'karta' of an undivided family of five members. In this case, we are concerned with certain aspects with regard to the income-tax assessment on the petitioner for the assessment year 1972-73. During the previous year, about 2 acres and 3 1/5 cents of land belonging to the Hindu undivided family was acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of the Cochin Shipyard. The short question that was mooted by the petitioner before the authorities below was that the lands acquired are agricultural lands and any capital gains arising therefrom could not be brought to tax. The petitioner largely relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court, reported in Manubhai A. Sheth v. N. D. Nirgudkar : [1981]128ITR87(Bom) in support of his plea.2. We heard counsel for the petitioner, Mr. C. M. Devan, as also counsel for the respondent-Revenue. At the time of hearing it was agreed that a Bench of this court in CIT...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of India Vs. Dr. Mrs. Mary George and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Ker125; [1992]75CompCas759(Ker)
Bhat, J.1. Appellant-plaintiff is a banking institution. Admittedly defendants-respondents owed money to the Bank on account of money advanced to them under a demand loan facility evidenced by an agree-ment dated 17-12-1979 and secured by demand promissory note and equitable mortgage of immoveable property belonging to the first defendant as also revival letter dated 26-11-1982 acknowledging all liabilities. The plaint claims Rs. 1,73,599.45 made up of Rs. 1,67,927.90 being the amount due as per the accounts as on 23-4-1985 and Rs. 5,671.55 being the interest at 16% per annum on the above amount from 23-4-1985 till the date of the plaint, namely 13-6-1985. Admittedly the amount shown as due on 23-4-1985 has been arrived at reckoning interest at 16% per annum which is the contract rate. Defendants filed written statement styled as 'consent statement' admitting the transaction and admitting that a sum of Rs. 1,67,927.90 as 'also Rs. 3,585/- being the interest at the rate of 16% per annum...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Mathew Vs. Leelamma Mathew
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ker121; I(1991)DMC567
Malimath, C.J.1. This is the petition for divorce by the husband, under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, on the ground that the petitioner's wife, Leelamma has committed adultery. The learned District Judge has made a decree nisi for dissolution of the marriage under Section 16 of the Indian Divorce Act, subject to confirmation by the High Court. Section 17 of the Act provides that every decree made by the District Court shall be subject to the confirmation by the High Court. During the pendency of these proceedings for confirmation, the respondent died. When the matter came on the last occasion, as there is none to represent the deceased wife, we requested Mr. M.V.S. Namboodiri, to assist us as amicus curriae. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties, on the effect of the death of the respondent-wife during the pendency of the proceedings for confirmation of the decree nisi for dissolution of marriage made by the District Court.2. It was contended that the decree made by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Chacko Vs. Sreeja
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC591
Padmanabhan, J.1. In O.P. No. 61 of 1975, District Judge, Thalasserry appointed Kamalakshy Nettyar (for short, Nettyar) as guardian of her minor daughter, Sreeja. First defendant, Balakrishnan Nair, is the husband of Nettyar and father of Sreeja and as such, her natural guardian. Fearing that Balakrishnan Nair, said to be a spend-thrift and drunkard, may compel her to sell all her assets and deprive the minor of the future benefits of the properties, Nettyar gifted the four plaint schedule items, which belonged to her, to Sreeja under Ext. A1. Thereafter, acting as natural guardian of the minor, Balakrishnan Nair sold all the plaint items. Item No. 4 was sold to Vellan, predecessor of defendants 3 to 6, under Ext. B7 and Item Nos. 1 to 3 to the second defendant under Ext. B1. It Was thereafter that Nettyar got her appointed as guardian and filed the suit for cancellation of Exts. B1 and 7 and recover the properties, the grounds being that the sale deeds are in violation of Section 8(2)...
Tag this Judgment!Superintendent of Central Excise Vs. Ancher Treads Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-1990
Reported in: 1991LC180(Kerala); 1993(65)ELT480(Ker)
ORDERV.S. Malimath, C.J. 1. The principal question that arises for consideration in these six appeals is as to whether masticated rubber is liable to excise duty under Entry 40.01 of the Schedule of Chaper 40 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The learned single Judge has taken the view that no excise duty is leviable in respect of masticated rubber, firstly on the ground that natural rubber does not change its character and become a different substance by the process of mastication. The second reason assigned is that it is exempt, it being natural rubber under Notification No. 189/83, as amended by Notifications dated 10-2-1986 and 7-4-1986.2. After hearing learned counsel on both sides, we are inclined to agree with the ultimate conclusion of the learned single Judge that masticated rubber does not attract excise duty, but not on the grounds stated by the learned single Judge but on a different ground to be adverted to presently. The second respondent in each of these appeals is...
Tag this Judgment!Rosamma Joseph Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-12-1990
Reported in: II(1991)ACC659; 1991ACJ524
U.L. Bhat, J.1. Plaintiff, owner of a lorry, filed a suit claiming Rs. 2,79,500/- from the insurer as compensation for damage caused to the lorry in an accident on 19.1.1984. Insurer raised various contentions seeking to absolve itself from the liability and also contended that the suit is not maintainable in law inasmuch as plaintiff had not obtained an award preceding the filing of the suit. The trial court upheld this contention and dismissed the suit as not maintainable. Hence this appeal.2. Exh. B-1 is the insurance policy. Condition No. 8 of the policy states, inter alia, as follows:If any difference shall arise as to the quantum to be paid under this policy being otherwise admitted such difference shall independently of other questions be referred to the decision of an arbitrator, to be appointed in writing by the parties in difference, or if they cannot agree upon a single arbitrator, to the decision of two disinterested persons as arbitrators....(Emphasis added)The condition f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »