Kerala Court February 1995 Judgments
George Kokkattumundayil Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ker26
ORDER1. These are three petitions practically dealing with identical contentions. Although the first petition (O.P.1019/1995) is by the petitioner farmer and the other two petitions (O.P. Nos. 1174 and 2463 of 1995) are by the dealers in agricultural machineries, apart from other technical contentions and questions raised and involved, the main issue is whether the circular-dated March 30, 1989 by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Trivandrum and similar consequential directions issued by the concerned departments of Co-operative Societies of other concerned Districts is an infringement of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India or in the nature of a reasonable restriction justifiable under Article 19(6) thereof.2. Illustratively the petitioner in O.P. No. 1174/1995 is a dealer at Kasaragod in agricultural machineries such as pump sets, sprayers etc. The petitioner deals in ISI marked articles. He is the president of the Kerala Agro Ma...
Tag this Judgment!N. Yovas and anr. Vs. Immanueal Jose and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ker1
Thomas, J.1. Is it proper for one party in a suit to summon the counsel of his opposite party as a witness? No doubt, any person can be cited as a witness if he has the testimonial competence envisaged in Section 118 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But should not the Court be greatly circumspect, when the counsel engaged by the opposite side is sought to be summoned as a witness? That question needs consideration now.2. This appeal arises from one of the two suits sprouted from a shunted matrimonial proposal. The proposal for the marriage registered fast progress initially and reached up to publication of 'banns' in the church, but then it went away as one of the parties backed out from it. The bride's party filed a suit in the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara for damages alleging fraud and deception. The other side (bridegroom's party) also filed a suit at Kuzhithura (in Tamil Nadu) for damages alleging breach of promise. Further details of the rival claims are unnecessary for this appeal and henc...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Travancore, Trivandrum Vs. Velayudhan Pillai Bhaskaran N ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ker32
Ramakrishnan, J.1. State Bank of Travancore, the sole plaintiff in O.S.No.88 of 1982, Sub Court, Kottayam is the appellant in this appeal. Defendants 5 and 6 are respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal and they alone are contesting the appeal. First defendant is the third respondent in the appeal. The other respondents are defendants 2, 4 and the legal representatives of the third defendant who died pending appeal.2. The main question to be considered in the appeal is whether the first defendant has created a valid equitable mortgage in favour of the Bank by depositing Ext. A6 duplicate of the partition deed dated 30-10-1971 whereby she was allotted the plaint schedule 5 items of immovable properties in 'C' schedule attached to it?3. Brief facts necessary for deciding the above question are thus : First defendant had availed a loan from the Bank in 1976. According to the plaintiff-Bank on 28-4-1976 as a collateral security, the first defendant deposited Ext. A6 document as title deed of her ...
Tag this Judgment!Ammini E.J. and Etc. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Ker252
Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The constitutional validity of Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short 'the Act') which regulated divorce among Christians in India for a century and a quarter is directly under challenge in the two Original Petitions at the instance of two Christian women on the ground that the provisions in Section 10 are violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to them and other similarly situated Christian women under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. Mary Sonia Zachariah, petitioner in O. P. No. 5805 of 1988 is a Syrian Christian governed by the Act. At the time of filing the O, P. she was aged 36 and was working as an Asst. Warden at Corpus Christi School, Kottayam. She was married to one P,C. Zachariah on 6-1-1972 at Emmanual Mar-thoma Church, Pazhanni, Thrissur according to the customary rites and ceremonies of the church. A daughter, Elizabeth Zachariah alias Kittu was born out of the said wedlock on 16-9-1974. On the basis of Exts....
Tag this Judgment!Mary Sonia Zachariah Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1995
Reported in: II(1995)DMC27
T.V. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The constitutional validity of Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short 'the Act') which regulated divorce among Christians in India for a century and a quarter is directly under challenge in the two Original Petitions at the instance of two Christian women on the ground that the provisions in Section 10 are violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to them and other similarly situated Christian women under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.2. Mary Sonia Zachariah, petitioner in O.P. No. 5805 of 1988 is a Syrian Christian governed by the Act. At the time of filing the O.P. she was aged 36 and was working as an Asst. Warden at Corpus Christi School, Kottayam. She was married to one P.C. Zachariah on 6.1.1972 at Emmanual Marthoma Church, Pazhanni, Thrissur according to the customary rites and ceremonies of the Church. A daughter, Elizabeth Zachariah @ Kittu was born out of the said wedlock on 16.9.1974. On the basis of Exts. P. ...
Tag this Judgment!Girija Kumari Vs. Vijayanandan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Ker159; I(1995)DMC559
Dhinakar, J.1. The two questions which are inter-linked, on the facts of the case (1) whether this appeal is maintainable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and (2) whether the decree for divorce passed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act is correct can be disposed of together.2. The appellant, and her husband, the respondent in the above M. F. A., have filed a petition before the Family Court for a decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. After expiry of the period of six months on the motion of the husband (the respondent herein), the Family Court took up the matter and examined him as P. W. 1. The appellant was absent. Nor did she withdraw the petition, After examining the respondent, the Family Court held that as the appellant did not turn up to withdraw the petition filed under Section 13-B of the. Hindu Marriage Act the appellant is a consenting party to the divorce and accordingly passed a decree for divorce.3. The respondent in this ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. India Sea Foods
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1995
Reported in: [1996]218ITR629(Ker)
M.M. Pareed Pillay, C.J.1. The reference is at the instance of the Revenue, the assessment year being 1967-68. The assessee filed a return of its income on April 10, 1968, disclosing income of Rs. 2,75,000, but stating that its accounts were pending finalisation and that the return was only provisional. It was stated that the return would be amended on finalisation of the accounts. The managing partner of the assessee, who was also the managing partner of two other sister firms, sought settlement of the matters relating to income-tax by filing a petition before the Commissioner of Income-tax. In the petition he disclosed the wealth position of the partners and of the firms as on December 31, 1958, and December 31, 1967. Following discussions and correspondence between the parties, the assessee furnished a revised return on December 18, 1968, disclosing income of Rs. 3,07,428.04. Eventually an agreement was entered into on August 27, 1969. The settlement related to tax liabilities of al...
Tag this Judgment!Kadeeja Vs. Aboobacker
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1995
Reported in: II(1995)DMC233
M.M. Pareed Pillay, C.J.1. Revision petitioners who are the minor children of the respondent filed E.P. 204 of 1993 in O.S. 335 of 1991 before the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi for arrest and detention of their father (respondent) as he failed to pay the maintenance amount decreed in their favour. Revision petitioners 1 to 4 (children of the 5th revision petitioner and the respondent) filed the execution petition for realisation of arrears of maintenance and future maintenance on the allegation that respondent had agreed to pay Rs. 200/- each to them. Respondent remained ex parte and the suit was decreed. In execution he pleaded no means. The executing Court accepted the said plea and dismissed the execution petition.2. Main contention of the revision petitioners is that the personal law of the parties does not make any distinction between a person having means or not in the matter of maintenance to the children and the Executing Court obviously overlooked that aspect of the matter. 3....
Tag this Judgment!Mathew Joseph and ors. Vs. Johny Sunny and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-20-1995
Reported in: 1995ACJ1183; [1995(71)FLR422]; (1995)IILLJ1122Ker
Dhinakar, J. 1. Baby Mathew, who was under the employment of the respondents died on March 29, 1989 on account of an attack made against him when he was about to leave the premises wherein he was working as a salesman in the arrack shop at Anakkara. His legal heirs filed a petition for compensation before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and on being denied an award by the Commissioner have preferred this M.F.A.2. The Commissioner refused to order compensation on the ground that Baby Mathew was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 ( for short 'the Act'). It was also held by the Commissioner that the arrack shop where in Baby Mathew was working is an establishment covered under Section 2(15) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1960. Both sides have agreed that the above said finding that the arrack shop is an establishment covered under Section 2(15)is not relevant for deciding the question in this M.F.A....
Tag this Judgment!D. Venu and ors. Vs. Senen Fernandez and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-20-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ1078; (1995)IILLJ1113Ker
N. Dhinakar, J.1. The only contention that was raised in the M.F.A. before us is whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was right in accepting exhibit A-3, medical certificate, issued by the doctor wherein he certified that the disability suffered by the first respondent is 40 per cent. on account of an injury sustained by him, without examining the doctor who issued that certificate.2. The first respondent was employed in the saw mill of the appellants and on October 4, 1989, at about 4 p.m. while the first respondent was doing his work, an accident occurred on account of which the left hand of the first respondent was caught under the saw machine which completely severed his left forearm. The respondent then was treated in the Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha, and the doctor who treated him has issued the medical certificate, exhibit A-3, which certified 40 per cent. disability on account of total ankylosis of wrist and finger joints and that there was total anaesthes...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »