Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1991Ker209; [1992]75CompCas619(Ker)
Sukumaran, J. 1. Vijaya Bank Ltd., had its branch and activities in Cochin, among other places. Consequent on the enactment of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance 1980, later replaced by Act 40 of 1980, the assets and rights became vested in the Vijaya Bank, the plaintiff in the case. 2. Messrs. Joshi Trading Company was one of the constitutents of the Bank. That firm had extensive dealings in rubber. It can be conveniently referred to as the firm. The firm had availed of various facilities from the Bank, including the pledging of goods and borrowing on the security of the goods pledged. 3. The 1st defendant had a variety ofbusiness activities. The partners of the firm were partners of D.B. Khona & Sons, well entrenched in business as shipping and clearing agents. In the light of the business transactions the Bank had with the firm, it entered into an arrangement with the 1st defendant for the storage of the goods, evidenced by Ext. A3 letter date...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2000Ker69
Balasubramanyan, J. 1. The revision petitioner is the judgment debtor. The respondent, a land mortgage Bank purchased the property in enforcement of the right to recover the amounts due to the Bank. Section 18 of the Co-operative Land Mortgage Banks Act. 1960 enables the Bank itself to purchase the property by such a sale. The sale was held on 14-3-1984. The sale was confirmed on 22-8-1985. A certificate in terms of Section 16 of the Co-operative Land Mortgage Banks Act was issued to the respondent on 21-2-1986 (it is shown as 25-10-1985 in the order). Under Section 17 of the Co-operative Land Mortgage Banks Act, 1960 the person to whom a certificate has been issued Under Section 16 of the Act has to apply for delivery Under Section 17 of the Act to the Court. Before the respondent Bank could apply for delivery in terms of Section 17 of the Act, the judgment debtor filed a suit O.S. 73 of 1986 before the Munsiffs Court Devicolam. That suit was filed on 19-3-198G.The same day, an interi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(1)KLT205
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner is a graduate in Commerce. As per resolution dated 12-8-2005 he was promoted as General Manager of the third respondent Co-operative Bank and is due to retire on 31-7-2009.2. Petitioner filed W.P.(C).No. 17020 of 2004 before this Court challenging the validity of the amendments made to Rules 185 and 186 as amended by Act 5 of 1996. That Writ Petition is admitted and pending with no interlocutory orders in favour of the petitioner.3. By Ext.P3, the Public Service Commission issued notification on 15-6-2004 for recruitment to the post of General Manager in the District Co-operative Banks, including in the Wayanad District Co-operative Bank, the third respondent herein, the employer of the writ petitioner. The qualifications prescribed under Category No. 83/04 in Ext.PS for the post of General Manager, is the statutory qualification as per Rules 185 and 186 as amended by Act 5 of 1996.4. Having noticed that the third respondent Bank had not res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(2)KLT943
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J. 1. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff before the Court below and he is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Munsiff on an application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17. The suit as instituted initially was one for injunction simpliciter. On the allegation that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants perpetrated trespass and therefore the proposed amendments were necessitated and the application for amendments was filed. The contention of the respondents/defendants was based on the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 introduced by the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 2002 under which the amendments will not be allowed after the commencement of the trial unless 'the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial'. The learned Munsiff had accepted this contention since he did not find any averment in the affidavit in support of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1999]240ITR313(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J.1. These four sets of T.R.Cs. raise a very important and interesting question for consideration whether the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (briefly, 'the Act'), can be. availed of by tenants-in-common.2. Sub-section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act, which was inserted by Act 19 of 1994 with effect from April 1, 1994, is as under :'(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if,--(i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under Sub-section (1)'.3. After insertion of Sub-section (9B), tenants-in-common, undoubtedly, can avail of the benefit of compounding under Section 13(1). But, we are concerned in the instant TRCs with the consec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2003]115CompCas127(Ker); [2004]50SCL19(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Important question of law to be decided in this case is whether need for occupation of a registered Private Company in which the landlord is a Director, is the bona fide need of the landlord for his 'own occupation'. Revision petitioners are tenants of the respondent. They occupied line rooms in the same building owned by the respondent. Respondent filed eviction petition to evict these revision petitioners. The common ground urged is one under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'). Other grounds were also urged. Rent Control Court dismissed the application in all respects. The matter came in appeal. Appellate Court held that the claim is maintainable under Section 11(3) of the Act and dismissal of the case on that ground was not correct Jnd the matter was remanded. Section 11(3) of the Act reads as follows:'(3) A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1999]97CompCas216(Ker)
K.V. Sankaranarayanan, J.1. These appeals are against the common judgment and decrees passed by the First Additional Sub-Judge, Erna-kulam, in O. S. Nos. 723 of 1992, 41 of 1993, 897 of 1992 and 901 of 1992. O. S. No. 723 of 1992 has been treated as the main suit and evidence recorded therein. The reference hereinafter to the ranks of the parties is according to their ranks in O. S. No. 723 of 1992 except otherwise indicated.2. The City Hospital Private Limited, the first defendant in O. S. No. 723 of 1992 is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act as per exhibit-A1 memorandum and articles of association and registered on July 12, 1971. The total share capital was originally Rs. 5 lakhs divided into 500 equity shares of Rs. 1,000 each later enhanced to Rs. 10 lakhs consisting of 1,000 equity shares. The number of members of the company is limited to 50. The articles of association provides for a board of directors consisting of not less than three and not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. This writ petition is at the instance of the petitioners who are mentally retarded children, represented by their guardians. The subject matter of dispute is the alleged denial of admission for them for the academic year 2011-2012 in the Shilpa Special School, Palluruthy, of which the seventh respondent is the Principal. 2. Elaborate arguments have been heard on both sides. The resolution of the dispute requires consideration of the facts in some detail and therefore initially I shall refer to the factual aspects. 3. According to the petitioners, the classes for the academic year 2011-2012 started on 15.6.2011. The school is managed by a Society called "Shilpa Society for the Mentally Handicapped" represented by the sixth respondent Secretary. They are getting grant from the Central Government. Even though it is alleged in the writ petition that they have been receiving grant from the State Government and the Cochin Corporation, the same was found not corr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2002]121TAXMAN332(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.These appeals are filed by the revenue against the common order passed by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in IT Appeal Nos. 246 to 249 (Coch) of 1996. The assessment years are 1987-88 to 1990-91. The question of law raised in these cases is 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction in respect of the payments made to the Co-operative Society Ltd., Bombay, on account of water charges, security charges, society management expenses, etc., under section 24(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?' The facts of the case are as follows:2. The assessee was having one-third ownership in a flat in Anand Kamal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Bombay. While filing the return of income, the assessee claimed Rs. 25,560 as co-operative society's dues for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 and Rs. 92,052 for the other two assessment years in computing income from house property. These dues were towards the municipal tax...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1999Ker169
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. The defendant Company challenges a decree for prohibitory injunction restraining it from using or continuing to the use the name 'Indian Coffee House' to its catering establishments. The suit was filed by the respondent Co-operative Society. According to the Co-operative Society the Society was formed of the erstwhile employees of the Indian Coffee Board and according to them with the help of the Coffee Board they formed themselves into a Cooperative Society and were running coffee houses which are in reality hotels naming the establishments 'Indian Coffee House' as distinct from the establishments which were being run by the coffee Board in the name of 'India Coffee House'. The Managing Director of the defendant Company was originally a member of the plaintiff Society and was also its Secretary for a number of years. The plaintiff Society was registered in its original name in the year 1958 and the Indian Coffee Houses were started. After the Managing Direct...
Tag this Judgment!