Kerala Court February 1998 Judgments
Saramma George and anr. Vs. Ammini Mammen Alias Mariamma Mammen of Nel ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker265
ORDERS. Marimuthu, J.1. The additional defendants 3 and 6 are the appellants. The legal representatives of the original plaintiff, additional defendants 4 to 6 and 7 to 11 are the respondents.2. The deceased plaintiff Aliyamma Thomas filed a suit O.S. No. 54 of 1971 for recovery of item Nos. 1 and 2 after the removal of the shed and the lean -- to in item Nos. 1 and 2 and also for injunction restraining the defendants from putting up any construction. The plaint was amended thereafter for future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. Plaint item No. 1 is a piece of land measuring 47 ft. x 42 ft. with a workshop. Plaint item No. 2 is 30 ft. x 25 ft. with a lean--to the shed located in item No. 1. Item No. 3 is a vacant site measuring 30 ft. x 30 ft. lying infront of item Nos. 1 and 2 for the use of ingress and egress. No relief is sought for item No. 3. The plaintiff with the above averments further added in the plaint as follows :On 1-1-1963 in the plaint item No. 1 the defen...
Tag this Judgment!M.J. Thomas and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker285
1. This appeal is directed against the common order of the Forests Tribunal, Palghat in O.A. Nos. 45, 46, 47, 48 and 50 of 1990 dated 31st March, 1990. The above applications were filed by the appellants herein under Section 8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, (Act 26 of 1971). This case has a chequered history. It is unfortunate that the dispute before the Tribunal, which started in the year 1975, has not seen an end even now. The matter was remitted by a Division Bench of this Court to the Tribunal on 27th August, 1979 to consider what were the lands obtained under Exts. P-1 and P-4. In determining the extent of land that would vest the Tribunal was directed to determine the total extent of land taking into account the claim in respect of Panduranga estate also. Therefore, the Tribunal was directed first to determine whether Ext. P-4 is a valid document of title or not and then to determine the total extent of land held by each one of the claimants. It is th...
Tag this Judgment!Raju Mathew Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker213
K. Narayana Kurup, J.1. Heard counsel on both sides.2. The State cannot act arbitrarily even in contractual matters is a principle by now well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court and various High Courts. Even though the scope of interference by this court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited, in the realm of contract, once it is found that the action of the Government or its instrumentality is vitiated by arbitrariness which is writ large, this court will certainly interfere in the interest of justice. On the facts disclosed, the present one is one such case where interference by this Court is called for.3. The petitioner's offer for constructing Elanji Distributory Ch. 0 to 3415 meters including C. D. works having been accepted and recommended after due deliberation by the High Level Tender Committee consisting of the Secretary, Irrigation Department as the Chairman, the Secretary, Finance Department and Secretar...
Tag this Judgment!Carbon and Chemicals I.E. Association Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-1998
Reported in: [1998(79)FLR20]; (1998)IILLJ71Ker
T.V. Ramakrishnan, J. 1. Appellant is the petitioner in O.P. 1762 of 1997. It is a registered trade union of employees working in the fifth respondent Company namely, Carbon and Chemicals India Ltd. (for short 'the Company').2. Appellant challenged the constitutional validity of Ext.P-1 notification dated December 23, 1996 amending the Employees' State Insurance Rules, 1950 (for short 'the Rules') making the Employees' State Insurance Scheme (for short 'the Scheme') applicable to employees drawing a salary of Rs.6,500/- per month and other consequential changes in the Scheme. Appellant submitted that the employees employed by the Company are receiving a salary of more than Rs.3,000/- per month. Appellant-union and the other unions of employees and the Company had, after negotiation, entered into an agreement to provide better facilities than those provided under the Scheme and the employees are thus getting better benefits under such settlements at present. If the amended provisions of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kurian Abraham
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Ker)382
OM PRAKASH, C.J.At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court relevant to the asst. yr. 1980-81:' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction of investment allowance, if the other conditions specified in s. 32A of the Act are fulfilled?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the activity of the type engaged by the assessee partook the nature of manufacture or production?'2. The only question for consideration is whether the assessee a firm is engaged in the business of manufacture or production.3. The Tribunal relying on the case of CIT vs . Kanam Latex Industries (P) Ltd. : [1996]221ITR1(Ker) , held that the assessee-firm was engaged in the business of manufacture and production of rubber and, therefore, was entitled to investment allowance.4. The standing counsel submits before us that in the statement of the case, the Tribunal wrongly stated th...
Tag this Judgment!Kalarikkal Thressiamma and anr. Vs. Kallidukkananikkal Joseph and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-06-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker160
ORDERP. Shanmugam, J. 1. Fifth and sixth defendants in the suit are the revision petitioners herein. Originally the 1st respondent herein filed a petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, to grant Letters of Administration of the Will. As the matter was contested as per Section 295 of the Act, the Original Petition was converted into a regular suit. Thereafter, a preliminary question was raised by the petitioner contending that in the light of the amendment to sub-section (2) to Section 213 holding that sub-section (1) to Section 213 shall not apply to Christians, the proceedings are unnecessary and the proper course is to file a regular suit. By invoking the summary procedure, the petitioners are deprived of their regular contest in the matter. In that context, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision in Hajira Khatoon v. Mustafa Husain, AIR 1941 Oudh 474. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent submitted that there is no bar under S...
Tag this Judgment!Noorudeen and ors. Vs. Umairathu Beevi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-06-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker171
S. Marimuthu, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment delivered by the District Judge, Kollam in A.S. No. 123 of 1989 dated 22-11-1991. The appellants are the legal representatives of the second defendant who were brought on record as defendants 6 to 8 on the; demise of the second defendant. The original plaintiff Mytheen Kunju Abdul Rehman Kunju died pending the first appeal. Therefore his legal representatives have been brought on record as plaintiffs 2 to 5 who are the respondents along with other defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5. 2. The deceased plaintiff filed O.S. No. 622/ 83 before the Munsiff Court, Quilon for declaration of title and possession of the plaint schedule property, to set aside Ext. B2 sale deed and Ext. B3 hypothecation deed and for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from committing trespass into the suit property and from interfering with the enjoyment of the plaintiff. The plaint schedule property is 30 cents. The case of the plaintiff for cons...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.i. Pavunny
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-06-1998
Reported in: [1998]232ITR837(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following questions at the instance of the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly, 'the Act') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 40,37,351 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Section 69A of the Income-tax Act was not attracted to the facts of this case ? 3. Whether there was any material before the Tribunal to hold that the gold bars were with the assessee in the year 1972 ? 4. Whether the finding entered by the Tribunal to reach the conclusion that Section 69A of the Act was not attracted to the case is supported by any material or evidence on record ?' 2. The brief facts as culled out from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal are that for the assessment year 1981-82 with which we are concerned, the assessee, the proprietor ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala and anr. Vs. N.E. Abraham
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-05-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker314
Usha, J.1. Challenge at the instance of State of Kerala and another in this appeal is against the judgment in O.P. (Arb.) No. 17/85 before the Sub Court, Parur. The petition was filed under Sections 14 and 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act by the respondent herein praying for a decree in terms of the award passed by the Chief Engineer (Arbitration) in the matter of a dispute between the respondent herein and the appellants. The respondent was the contractor to whom was awarded the work, P.V.I.P. constructing high level canal from chainage 17015 M to 17670 M. The dispute related to the above mentioned work. The appellants filed objection challenging the award and prayed for setting aside the same. The Court below accepted the award passed by the arbitrator and passed a decree in terms of the same. Interest at the rate of 12% p.a. was also awarded from the date of the decree till realisation of the amount. Aggrieved by the above, the State has come up in appeal. 2. The admitted case of bo...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Bank Staff Union and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)ILLJ859Ker
Ar. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ashok B. Shenoy for petitioners and Ms. Rahana Karthikeyan for the respondent. The first petitioner is a registered trade union of the workmen employed in the second respondent bank. Second petitioner is a work-man employed as Clerk of the second respondent. The Original Petition has been filed to quash Exts. P1, P3 and P6 orders and also for a mandamus directing the first respondent to refer the industrial dispute raised by the first petitioner vide Ext.P5 for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, and for a further direction commanding the second respondent to grant the second petitioner the sick leave applied by him and declined by the second respondent in pursuance of Exts.P1 and P3 orders and for other reliefs. Under Ext. P1 the petitioner was informed that medical leave applications not accompanied by medical certificates from the panel of doctors will not be considered. On receipt of Ext.P1, the second petitioner made a representation to the sec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »