Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1971)IILLJ261Ker
P. Naryana Pillai, J.1. For inquiring into the truth of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour against the petitioner who is a member of the Indian Police Service, borne on the Kerala cadre, the State Government, which is the disciplinary authority and the first respondent in this petition, appointed under Rule 8(2) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 first, Shri R. Gopala Shenoy and later Shri P.A. Quadir Meeran, the second respondent, as the inquiring authority. The presenting officer appointed by the first respondent to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge represented before Shri. R. Gopala Shenoy that it would not be possible to secure the attendance of all witnesses unless coercive steps were issued to them. As the All India Services Rules did not provide for taking coercive steps against unwilling witnesses to secure their attendance before the inquiring authority Shri R. Gopala Shenoy wrote to the Secretary in charge of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1972Ker27
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. One Makku Rowther died at the grand old age of 91 leaving behind properties and disputes, the one the inevitable sequel to the other, for, property often alienate brothers and sisters into plaintiffs and defendants. The death of Makku Rowther was the signal for a scramble for his properties, the plaintiff, one of his daughters, claiming a share and the sons, defendants 1 to 3, together with the only other daughter, the 4th defendant, resisting it setting up gifts to each one of them of some property or the other. If the story of the gifts were true, the plaintiff's suit has to fail and so the primary question that falls for decision before me--and was considered by the courts below--is the truth and validity of the gifts put forward in the written statements.2. The defendants have a straight case of oral gift, but a second line of defence also has been taken up by them in that they have urged that the oral gift failing, they have a deed, Ext. B1, which operates ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1972Ker145
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J.1. The revision petitioner is the tenant who was sought to be evicted by the landlord in R. C. P. 175/62 filed in November. 1962 in the court of the Rent Controller. Ernakulam, The ground relied on for eviction, was default in payment of rent. The petition was contested by the tenant stating that the landlord had agreed to convey the property to him for Rs. 6,000/- and it was in pursuance of that agreement that he did not Pay the rent; he has effected various Improvements in the building and also in the property and the value of such improvements would exceed the arrears of rent due to the landlord. There was, therefore, no arrears, in fact. He also contended that in case any arrears were found due from him he should be given 6 months' time to discharge it. On 12-8-1963 orders were passed by the Rent Controller for eviction of this petitioner. On 6-2-1964 the petitioner filed I. A. 406/64 for reviewing the order of eviction on the ground that the petitioner was a g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1972Ker80
P. Subramonian Poti, J. 1. I have given anxious consideration to the facts of the case in spite of the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below. The question is one of paternity of a child. It is claimed by the plaintiff in the suit that he is not the father of the child though the courts below have found so. The attack against the decision of the courts below requires examination because, according to him, the courts below were acting merely on the uncorroborated testimony of the mother and what has been considered as corroboration does not really amount to it. Now I will state a few facts necessary for the decision of the Second Appeal. 2. First defendant was married to one Kumaran Nair in the year 1946. According to the first defendant, about seven months after the marriage Kumaran Nair left for Colombo and was staying there. He is said to have come back after one year and stayed with the first defendant for 18 days. He again left for Colombo and did not return until the firs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1972Ker103
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Had there been an Indian Ombudsman, the technical defence raised by the Railway in this suit might well have come under his censorious attention. The plea put forward by the defendant, the Union of India represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway. Madras, in answer to a suit for damages on account of the damaged condition of certain bags of lime carried by the Railway, was, inter alia, that the suit was bad for want of valid notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code. If I may anticipate my conclusion at this stage, the contention is not merely untenablebut unjust and is calculated only to protract the litigation and to postpone the facing of a trial on the merits and, perhaps, to tire out the private Party, the plaintiff, whose resources are certainly very limited. in the present case, a notice had been sent purporting to be under Section 80, Civil P. C,, before the action was instituted. The advocate, who issued the notice for the plaintiff, descr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1972Ker206
Gopalan Nambiyar, J. 1. These writ petitions challenge the validity of the action of the Kerala State Electricity Board in revising tariffs fur the supply of electricity to the prejudice of the petitioner and contrary to certain agreements made with them. Arguments were advanced in O. P. No. 2827 of 1970 which, was treated as the main writ petition; and Counsel in the other writ petitions associated themselves with the arguments thus advanced. Such supplemental arguments as were advanced by them, did not add materially to the contentions urged in O. P. No. 2827 of 1970. We shall therefore turn to the facts in O. P. No. 2827 of 1970. O. P. No. 2827/1970, 2. The petitioner in this writ petition is the Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., having its registered office in Calcutta, in 1940 it commenced part of its business in the then State of Travancore. It is alleged that the then State of Travancore was keen in getting industries established in the State and therefore afforded the petitioner vario...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1972Ker218
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J.1. The petitioner is one of the defeated candidates at the recent election to Parliament from Badagara constituency. He contested the election, as an independent candidate. There were three other candidates and they are respondents 1 to 3. Respondents 1 and 2 were sponsored by the Indian National Congress led by Mr. Jagiivan Ram (shortly stated Congress (J) 1 and the 3rd respondent by the Indian Socialist Party. The election was held on 6-3-1971. The votes polled by the candidates were as follows:--(i) Sri K. P. Unnikrish-nan (Rl) ... 1,98.939(ii) ' A. V. Raghavan(petitioner) ... 1,41.135(iii) Smt. Leela Damo-dara Menon (R2) ... 2,236(iv) Sri A. Sreedharan(R3) ... 33,393The results were announced on 12-3-1971, the 1st respondent Sri. K. P. Unnikrishnan having secured a majority, was on that day declared elected.2. The election is Challenged by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the 2nd respondent was weeded out from the scene of contest by the Congress High C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1973]87ITR175(Ker)
1. These are cases referred under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee. The question referred is :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922?'This is a common question. The assessee, Shri Shaila Industrial & Spiritual Colony Charities, a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, for the six assessment years 1952-53, 1953-54, 1954-55, 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58 claimed exemption of its income from tax under Section 4(3)(i) of the Act. That section, omitting the proviso is in these terms:'4. (3)(i) Subject to the provisions of Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16, any income derived from property held under trust or otherlegal obligation wholly for religious or charitable purposes, in so far as such income is applied or accumulated for application to such religio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1972Ker135
P. Subramonian Poti, J. 1. Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was amended by the Civil P. C. (Amendment) Act 1956 With effect from 1-1-1957 by incorporating the words 'and a purchaser at a sale in execution of the decree' in the Explanation to that section and thereafter the Explanation read thus: 'For the purpose of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed, a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed and a purchaser at a sale in execution of the decree are parties to the suit'.2. The question whether a decree-holder purchaser, who for realisation of the decree amount brings the property of the judgment-debtor for sale and purchases it himself, has. besides the right to seek delivery by an application in execution, the right of suit also is a question on which the view taken by the High Courts in India has not been uniform. But so far as this court is concerned the latest pronouncement of a Division Bench of this Court in Lakshmanan Pillai v. Subhashini, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1972Ker259
Raghavan, C.J. 1. This is an appeal against a second appeal; and the appeal is directed against the decision in Bhagwandas Krishnadas v. P. S. Soma Iyer, AIR 1969 Ker 263. 2. For the arrears of revenue due from the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants (the appellants are his legal representatives), his property was sold under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act and purchased by the respondents. The sale was on 15th May 1954 and the confirmation of sale on 30th November 1954: and thereafter, the appellants continued to live in some of the buildings in the property, which they surrendered on 21st October 1955. The suit was for mesne profits from the date of sale to the date of confirmation of sale (from 15th May 1954 to 30th November 1954) and for damages for use and occupation of the buildings from the date of confirmation to the date of surrender of the buildings (from 30th November 1954 to 21st October 1955). (Regarding the amount there is no dispute now.) The trial Court dismissed t...
Tag this Judgment!