Kerala Court January 1994 Judgments
Narayanan Anandan Vs. R. Rakesh and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Ker205
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. First defendant is the appellant. Second defendant is the father of the first plaintiff and husband of the second plaintiff. First plaintiff being a minor is represented by his mother the second plaintiff. The suit is filed to set aside two sale deeds, Exts. A2 and A3, executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant. The property comprised in Exts, A2 and A3 has an extent of 10 1/2 cents which forms part of 30 cents obtained by the 2nd defendant under Ext. A1 will dated 8-11-1952. Ext. Al will was executed by Kesavan Kunjukrishnan in favour of the second defendant who is the testator's brother's son. Plaintiffs' case is that second defendant was given only a life Interest as per Ext. AI and so he was not competent to alienate the property and that the alienations in favour of the first defendant arc invalid. First defendant's contention is that second defendant has got absolute right as per Ext. Al will and the condition regarding restraint of...
Tag this Judgment!Vattakam Purath Parambil Ananda Bhai and anr. Vs. Kanaka Bhai and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Ker208
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. The suit for partition was dismissed by the trial Court and it has been confirmed by the lower appellate Court. Plaintiff's case is that the suit property belonged to his father and after his death it devolved on his mother, himself and the defendant, that his mother died on 17-4-1968 and that he is entitled to 1/5th share. Defendants 1 and 4 filed joint written statement admitting plaintiff's entitlement to a share in the property but also propounding Ext. B1 Will dated 14-5-1979 in favour of the 4th defendant executed by their mother. Defendants 2 and 3 filed written statement supporting the plaintiff and paid Court-fee for separate allotment.2. Trial Court on evaluation of evidence held that Ext. B-1 Will is not genuine and all the children are entitled to the property left by mother. This finding has been confirmed by the appellate Court.3. Main contention of the appellant is that the courts below ought to have given due importance to Ext. B1 it being a reg...
Tag this Judgment!High Court of Kerala Vs. FazulludIn and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)ALT(Cri)587; 1994CriLJ2982
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. (Giving the first judgment at the invitation of Jagannadha Rao, CJ):- Indeed Contempt of Court has been described as 'the proteus of the legal world, assuming an almost infinite variety of forms'. The history of this case exemplifies the above statement. A peon of this Court was entrusted with the task of serving notice in a habeas corpus petition. The first respondent herein was one of the respondents on whom the notice was to be served. The peon went to the house of the first respondent in the company of another person who offered to identify the person. The first respondent is a tea-shop owner. As he was away in the teashop he was sent for. Second respondent, who is also one of the contemnors, was present in the house of the first respondent. The habeas corpus petition was filed in respect of one Beena, who was the wife's sister of the 2nd respondent. Beena was also present in the house of the first respondent. First respondent immediately came to his house a...
Tag this Judgment!Vally Estate Vs. Addl. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and Another.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-1994
Reported in: [1994]208ITR224(Ker)
T. L. VISWANATHA IYER J. - The order of assessment to tax under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 ('the 1950 Act'), made on the petitioner for the assessment year 1980-81, was taken up in suo motu revision under section 34 of the Act by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax. Thiruvananthapuram ('the Commissioner', for brevity). After hearing the assessee-petitioner, the Commissioner passed an order dated March 30, 1991, a copy of which is exhibit P-10, revising the order of assessment. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner applied for reference to this court for its opinion of certain questions of law stated to arise therefrom under section 60 of the 1950 Act. A copy of the application is exhibit P-11 dated August 9, 1991. By that time, the 1950 Act had been repealed and replaced by the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 ('the 1991 Act'), which came into force on April 1, 1991. Section 76 of the 1991 Act corresponds to section 34 of the 1950 Act and confers ...
Tag this Judgment!Palasseri Velayudhan and anr. Vs. Palasseri Ithayi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Ker267
K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J.1. Second appeal arises from a suit for partition. Defendants 11 and 12 are the appellants.2. The suit O. S. 181/78 before Munsiffs Court, Manjeri was filed by the first respondent for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share over the plaint schedule properties. The properties were acquired in the joint names of Velu and Raman in the year 1929. Jenm rights were also purchased by them in the year 1950. Velu died 22 years before suit without male issues. Plaint alleges that the rights of Velu devolved on plaintiff and her two sisters. Even during the lifetime of Velu, plaintiff and one of her sisters were given in marriage. The third sister Cheronna was unmarried. Plaint alleges that she is the sole heir entitled to succeed Velu. Thereafter Cheronna and Raman are alleged to have possessed the properties jointly and Raman died about 18 years before suit. Defendants 1 to 3 and one Chillu are his legal representatives. Plaintiffs sister Nani died in 1958. ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. M.M. Hassan Vs. T.C. Mohammed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Ker278
K. Narayana Kurup, J.1. Can it be said that a doctor who is running nursing home is carrying on 'business' within the meaning of the expression 'trade or business' occurring in the Second Proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, is the quetion that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition.2. This is the 16th year and the 13th round of a chequered rent control litigation in which a doctor figures as tenant claiming protection under the Second Proviso to Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Act 2 of 1965) (for short 'the Act') which provides that the Rent Control Court shall not give any direction to a tenant to put the landlord in possession, if such tenant is depending for his livilhood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business.3. The part...
Tag this Judgment!Savani Transport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Savani Transport Employees Association ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-1994
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ269Ker
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P1 award passed by the second respondent, Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey in I.D. No. 36 of 1982. The petitioner is a transporting company called 'Savani Transport Private Limited'. In the year 1978 the first respondent Trade Union raised a charter of demands. When conciliation proceedings in respect of those demands were pending, in November 1979 employees of six branches went on strike. Those branches are at Ernakulam, Cochin, Willingdon Island, Trichur, Calicut and Palghat. There were in all eleven employees in the above branches. According to the petitioner the workers withheld the documents relating to day-to-day business transactions. They were not effecting delivery of articles received from other branches. No accounts were maintained. This state of affairs prevalent in the branches led to a huge loss. Claims of damages were raised by the customers. In that situation the Management decided to effect the closur...
Tag this Judgment!T. Rajan Vs. State and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-1994
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ236Ker
G.H. Guttal, J. 1. J. Rajan, a discharged employee of the Kerala State Science & Technological Museum, Trivandrum, the respondent No. 2 herein, has instituted this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction compelling the District Labour Officer, the respondent No. 3 herein, to initiate conciliation proceedings under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act in regard to the termination of his services, a direction quashing the order of termination made by the respondent No. 2 on November 5, 1986 (Ext. P3), the order of the Government of Kerala, the respondent No. 1, dated July 29, 1989 rejecting his application for reinstatement (Ext P6) and the order of the respondent No. 3 dated September 20, 1989(Ext.P7) rejecting the prayer for initiation of proceedings for reconciliation under the Industrial Disputes Act.2. On the arguments advanced by counsel, two points arise for consideration:(i) Whether the Kerala ...
Tag this Judgment!Neyyattinkara Ravi Vs. N. Muhammed Ismail and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-1994
Reported in: [1994]81CompCas907(Ker)
B.M. Thulasidas, J. 1. The accused in C. C. No. 63 of 1990 of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nedumangad, is the petitioner. The case arose on a complaint filed by the first respondent, who alleged that the petitioner borrowed Rs. 50,000 from him on November 22, 1989, and issued two cheques for Rs. 25,000 each in his favour towards settlement of the liability. They were drawn on the Statue Branch of the State Bank of Travancore, where the petitioner had an account and were dishonoured by the bank when presented for encashment with the endorsement 'refer to drawer'. Pursuant to the dishonour he caused a notice to be sent on January 29, 1990, which was returned unserved with the endorsement, 'addressee unknown'. Allegedly the petitioner committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and, accordingly, annexure I complaint, was filed under Section 142 of the said Act. The Magistrate took cognisance of the complaint and issued summons to the petitioner,...
Tag this Judgment!Mani Varghese Vs. Regional Controller (T.T.) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Ker274
ORDERK.J. Joseph, J.1. Petitioner is a director of M/s. Synthite Industrial Chemicals Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The company was having its office and manufacturing unit at Kadayirippu, a place about 3 kms, off Kolencherry. They have obtained the telex from the Department of Telecommunications. The said application was submitted in accordance with the provisions contained in part 9 of the Indian Telegrpah Rules, 1959. They made the necessary deposits and executed an agreement with the department. The telex facility was installed in the petitioner's office at Kadayirippu on 24-12-1985 after depositing necessary deposit and the rental for the sum calculated under Rule 519 of the Indian Telegraph Rules. It is the case of the petitioner that there were certain complaints regarding the defect in the facility provided and as a result of the defeacts, he could not make use of the facilities provided by the Department in its full extent. Thereafter, as per Ext....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »