Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1974Ker82
..... themselves constitute a tavazhi. a gift beauest or acquisition in the name or names of the wife alone, or of the wife and one or more of the children alone to the exclusion of the others, would not give ..... provision in itself. prior to the marumakkathayam act, the position under the customary marumukkathayam law was, the (that) a presumption of the tavazhi nature of the gift or beauest or acquisition would be raised only if the same was in favour, or in the name/names, of the wife and all the children, or of all the children alone, who by ..... court (pandrang row and king jj.) in krishnan v. thala (air 1941 mad 605) that the section did not have any retrospective operation and that in the case of an acquisition prior to the date of the act, the mode of division was per capita and not per stirpes the acqui-sition there was in the year 1881, by the husband .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1979)IILLJ248Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. These O.Ps. were referred to a Division Bench by our learned brother Chandrasekara Menon, J., in an elaborated order of reference running nearly to ten typed pages, as the learned Judge felt that the questions raised are not only of interest in an academic sense but also of great importance. The question itself as stated shortly by the learned Judge is whether the legal representatives of the deceased employer would fall within the definition of the term 'employer' in Section 2(c) of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act and of the term 'defaulter' in Section 2(e) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, read with Section 68 of the said Act. We shall notice the facts first in O.P. No. 4816 of 1976 in which the main arguments were advanced. Counsel in the other writ petition practically associated himself with the said arguments.O.P. No. 4816 of 19762. The four writ petitioners are the daughters of one Krishnan Padmanabhan, an abkari contractor who die...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2000Ker131
..... that required area is the minimum needed for the purpose; and (iv) whether the state government or the other authority undertakes to provide at its cost for the acquisition of land of equivalent area and afforestation thereof. 41. we have assiduously seen the provisions contained in the act and rules and two things that strongly draw our ..... has to be struck between the two interests and this exercise must be left to the persons who are familiar and specialized in the field. (goa foundation v. konkan railway corporation. air 1992 bom 471'.]33. julius stone said:'while the use of either ideas or social conditions as the constant involves abstraction from the concrete chronology of ..... professor anders victorin had somewhat a different thought:'we are no longer only the inheritors of the earth, we are also earth's children, fellow travellers pn a ship in space. and a growing number of people are prepared to act on this new view of the world. this is jp a sense a copernican counter-revolution .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2007)2CompLJ143(Ker); [2007]76SCL185(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. These appeals are filed questioning the correctness of the order of the Company Law Board dated 5.6.2006 under Sections 397, 398, read with Sections 402 and 403 and Schedule XI of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') [since reported as V.S. Krishnan and Ors. v. Westfort Hi-tech Hospital Ltd. and Ors. (2006) 8 Comp LJ 118 (CLB)]. Both sides relied on various decisions in support of their arguments. Whether and how the ratio of those decisions will be applicable in this case, can be considered only after considering the facts of this case. The apex court in Uttaranchal Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Mansaram Nainwal : (2006)IIILLJ505SC observed as follows at paragraph 13:A decision is a precedent on its own facts. Each case presents its own features. It is not everything said by a Judge while giving judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing a Judge's decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008CriLJ4221; 2008(2)KLJ417; 2008(3)KLT346
ORDERV.K. Mohanan, J.1. The above three Crl.M.Cs are filed by different accused in C.C. No. 675/2007, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. Crl.M.C. No. 4159/2003 is preferred by the 1st accused in the above case and Crl.M.C. No. 5631/2003 is preferred by the 3rd accused whereas Crl.M.C. No. 755/2004 is filed by the 2nd accused in the same case. Since these Crl.M.Cs are arising out of the same case, all the petitioners are accused in the very same case and factual background and arguments are more or less same, these Crl.M.Cs are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.2. As stated earlier, the petitioners herein are accused in C.C. No. 675/2007 which is a case instituted upon a private complaint for the offence punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The above private complaint is preferred by one G. Kamalamma who is the 1st respondent in these Crl.M.Cs. The allegation in the complaint can be summarized as fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
..... of income for self acquisition of any property and therefore the gift made by madhavan to his wife and children must enure to the benefit of tavazhi of lakshmi amma and lineal descendants. it is ..... ext.a10 was atleast in part a gift, section 41 must apply and it will constitute a tarwad property in so far it is a gift. it is found that acquisition was under the name lakshmi amma who was the eldest female member and karanavathy of the tarwad and there is no evidence to show that she has any other source ..... pillai (1963 klt 630) wherein a bench of this court held that the expression 'santhathi' which corresponds to 'santhanam' means not children or issue only but imports succession or heir ship. we also notice that learned single judge has considered the social ethos and the intention of the parties. we are of the view that the view taken by the learned .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS MONDAY, THE14H DAY OF SEPTEMBER201523RD BHADRA, 1937 WA.NO. 2516 OF2009( ) ------------------------ AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED1308.2009 IN W.P(C) NO.30854 OF2007OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------ CHIRAYINKEEZHU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK BANK LTD.NO.1155, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. K.SANTHOSH RAILWAY STATION, CHIRAYINKEEZHU.2. LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM. R2 BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS R. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL JACOB (P) R. BY ADV. SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL R. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEDEV R. BY ADV. SRI.RONY JOSE R. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. GIRIJA GOPAL THIS WR...
Tag this Judgment!