Kerala Court May 1997 Judgments
Maniyamkandi Kunhiraman and ors. Vs. Machil Parambath Vanaja and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-30-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Ker24
Balasubramanyan, J.1. These appeals at the instance of the contesting defendants in O.S. Nos. 14 of 1986 and 4 5 of 1986 have been referred to the Division Bench in view of the importance of the question arising for decision. The appeal from O.S. 15 of 1986 was initially filed as A.S. 253 of 1987 before the District Court of Calicut but was subsequently withdrawn to this Court by order dt. 9-10-1992 for being heard with A.S. 323 of 1987. The appeal withdrawn from the District Court was subsequently numbered as A.S. 657 of 1992.2. In a partition dt. 4-10-1962 between one Kumaran and his brother Kunhikannan, the properties involved in these suits were set apart to the share of Kunhikannan. Kunhikannan, a Hindu, died in the year 1967. On 4-5-1978 defendant No. 7 in the suit, the widow of Kunhikannan, the mother of the plaintiffs and defendants 8 to 10 sold for herself and as guardian of the minors the plaint B schedule property in O.S. No. 14of 1986 to defendants 1 to 5 in the suit and on...
Tag this Judgment!M. Madhavan Nair, Retired Judge of High Court of Kerala Vs. Union of I ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-30-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Ker20; (1997)IILLJ1150Ker
ORDERC.S. Rajan, J. 1. The petitioner, an octogenerian who adorned the exalted office in this temple of justice has approached this Court for the redressal of his grievances regarding payment of pension. The petitioner who was appointed as a judge of this Court in 1960 retired on superannuation in 1970. The conditions of service of High Court Judges including payment of pensionary benefits are governed by the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the High Court Judges Rules 1956. Section 14 of the Act statesthat every Judge shall, on his retirement, be paid a pension in accordance with the scale and provisions in Part I of the First Schedule to the Act. Rule 2 of the High Court Judges Rules 1956 provides that conditions of service of a Judge of a High Court for which no express provision has been made in the Act shall be determined by the Rules applicable to a member of the Indian Administrative Service holding the rank of the Sec...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Govindan Vs. Abdul Kari Subaida Beevi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-23-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Ker50
Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The short question arising for consideration in this revision is thus: Whether the general principle of constructive res judicata or Section 15 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') would preclude a landlord from claiming eviction on any one of the grounds mentioned in Section 11 of the Act after an adverse finding in an earlier petition for eviction filed on some other grounds under that Section, if such omitted ground was available to him at the time of filing the earlier petition and the adverse decision thereon? 2. The brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the revision are thus; Respondent-landlady filed RCP 53 of 1989 claiming eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the petition schedule building under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. It was alleged in the petition that the landlady assisted by her husband wanted to open a new stationery business and a showroom and depot in the petition schedule bui...
Tag this Judgment!R. Sreekumar Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-23-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Ker77
ORDERP. Shanmugam, J. 1. Petitioner is an Administrative Officer at Kerela State Electronics Development Corporation. He has filed the above Original Petition for a direction to grant the benefit of reservation to his daughter which is granted to the Socially and Educationally Backward Community. As per the rules of reservation, if the annual income of the family of the petitioner is more than Rs. 42,000/-, he is not eligible for reservation. The Village Officer has certified that his income is Rs. 45,200/- and consequently his daughter is not likely to be treated as belonging to the Backward Community. Hence he has filed the above writ petition for a direction to grant the benefit and to quash the income certificate Ext. P3issued by the Village Officer.2. From the facts, it is seen that the petitioner who is working as an Administrative Officer is drawing a total salary of Rs. 8,857/50 (Basic Pay Rs. 3.425A, Personal Pay Rs. 300/-, D.A. Rs. 4760/- and H.R.A. Rs. 372.50) in the scale o...
Tag this Judgment!Excel Embroideries and ors. Vs. Trend Designs Limited and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-22-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Ker329; [1998]91CompCas373(Ker)
P.V. Narayanan Nambiar, J.1. These are petitions filed under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the creditors with a prayer to wind up M/s. Trend Designs Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'), a Company incorporated under the Act. 2. In C. P. No. 9 of 1996, it is alleged that the Company is indebted to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 2,68,466,70 in respect of invoices raised against them for executing computerized embroidery work. The petitioner in C. P. No. 10 of 1996 alleges that the company is indebted to them for a sum of Rs. 10,14,628.20 in respect of invoices raised against them for executing computerised embroidery work. It is further alleged in both the Company Petitions that as per the work order, the Company placed orders with the petitioners for executing the embroidery work as per the designs furnished by them for which bills have been raised after affecting delivery of the goods to them. 50% of the ch...
Tag this Judgment!V.P. Padmanabhan Nair and ors. Vs. Grasim Industries, Mavoor and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-22-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Ker356
ORDERP.V. Narayanana Nambiar, J.1. In a suit for injunction. O.S. No. 892 of 1987 of the Munsiffs Court, Kozhikode 'filed by the revision petitioners, an application for issue of a commission was filed by them which was allowed and Shri E. N. Gopalakrishnan. an advocate practising at Kozhikode, was appointed as Commissioner. He inspected the properties involved in the suit and filed a report. Thereafter, at the instance of the contesting, defendants, the report was remitted to the same Commissioner with a direction to file a further report.2. Defendants 3 to 6 filed LA. No. 4310 of 1990 with a prayer to set aside the Commissioner's report and to appoint another Commissioner. The application was allowed. Appointment of a fresh Commissioner was sought for as the former Commissioner, Shri E. A. Gopalakrishnan ceased to practice at Kozhikode.3. Parties went to trial. Advocate Shri E. N. Gopalakrishnan who was the first Commissioner was summoned by the plaintiffs to be examined as a witness...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. King Fisheries (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-22-1997
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Ker)351
ORDERMRS. K.K. USHA, J:The question raised in IT Ref. Nos. 123 & 169 of 1986 is whether the assesseecompany, which is engaged in the business of catching, purchasing, processing and exporting fish, is entitled to claim deduction under s. 80J of the IT Act. In IT Ref. Nos. 3 & 4 of 1987, the issue is whether the assessee, which is carrying on the business of same nature, is entitled to claim deduction under s. 80HH of the IT Act.2. Following the principle laid down in CIT vs . Marwell Sea Foods : [1987]166ITR624(Ker) , this Court had taken the view that assessees carrying on similar activity as in the present cases, are entitled to deduction under s. 80J vide CIT vs . PoAlakkada Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. : [1992]197ITR85(Ker) and CIT vs . Poyflakkada Fisheries (P) Ltd. : [1992]197ITR93(Ker) . On the very same principle, it was held in : [1987]166ITR624(Ker) (supra) that assessee carrying on similar activities, is entitled to deduction under s. 80HH. If these decisions are to be followed, the ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Mahadevan Pillai Vs. the Managing Director, the Kerala Financial Co ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-21-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Ker12
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. This original petition was filed on 28-12-1992 challenging Ext. P6 and seeking a direction 'to give sufficient publicity before the sale is conducted'. Exhibit P6 is a sale notice issued under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act notifying the sale of the property of the petitioner. One among the main contentions of the petitioner is that 'there has been no publication of the sale notice as envisaged in Section 49 of the Revenue Recovery Act'. The petitioner sought for an order of stay of the sale proceedings. This Court granted a stay on condition that the petitioner shall remit a substantial portion of the amount in default. The petitioner could not comply with the condition. Therefore, the sale was conducted pursuant to Ext. P6. Subsequently, the petitioner sought amendment of the original petition incorporating challenge against Ext. P10, a statutory declaration of lawful succession of purchase of immovable property by the 3rd respondent, in fav...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. B. Shareefa Ummer Vs. Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India and o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-02-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ185
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This original petition is filed by Shareefa Ummer, wife of Urntner Ibrahim for a writ of habeas corpus to produce the body of the husband of the petitioner (hereinafter called 'the detenu'), who is detained in the Central Prison, Trivandrum, as per the order of detention under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called 'the COFEPOSA Act'). According to the petitioner, both the petitioner and the detenu have got their permanent residence in Calicut District in the State of Kerala. The order of detention dated 17th May, 1993 was passed on the basis of the following allegations: On 20-11-1992 the Enforcement Officers, Bombay intercepted the detenu at Bombay, Sahar International Airport when the detenu was about to leave for Dubai and seized from him 1,17,000 Saudi Riyals, 74,500 UAE Dirhams and 12,500 Qatar Riyals from the slippers worn by the detenu, under the provisions of the Foreign E...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›