Court : Kerala
Decided on : Oct-26-1984
Reported in : AIR1985Ker134
M.P. Menon, J. 1. A.S. No. 17/78 wan appeal from a decree in a suit. The respondent in the appeal passed away on 12-12-1981 and as his legal representatives were not impleaded in time the appeal abated. The appellant thereafter filed C.M.P. Nos. 6533/82 and 6534/82 for impleading legal representatives and for setting aside abatement, but these were dismissed by a learned single judge. C.M.A. 185/84 is an appeal against that dismissal, and the question is whether an appeal would lie to a Bench of two judges of this Court, from an order of a single judge refusing to set aside the abatement of a First Appeal. According to counsel, such an appeal would lie either under Order 43 Rule 1(k) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 104 thereof, or under Section 5(ii) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. 2. Section 104(1) of the Code conceives of appeals against certain classes of orders, and one such order, under Order 43 Rule 1(k) is 'an order under Rule 9 of Order 22 refusing to set a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Aug-02-1984
Reported in : AIR1984Ker229
M.P. Menon, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State under Section 60 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961. The award under Section 11 was passed on 26-2-1973 and notice thereof was given to the claimant on 20-2-1973. On 2-3-1973 the claimant addressed the following communication to the Special Tahsildar : --'Petition submitted by C. R. Viran, Sitaram Nivas, Vyttila, requesting for immediate action.Your Award in L.A.C. No. 90/72 (dated nil) in respect of:0.0861 hectares of land situate in the village of Poonithura of Kanayannur Taluk and the bungalow etc. of which I am the owner was acquired by Government for the Cochin bye pass to N. H. 47. The award was communicated to me on 26-2-1973. I find from the award that a compensation of RS. 1,36,979.18 is awarded as compensation due to the compulsory acquisition. The award admits that I am the registered holder occupying the land and entitled to the compensation so awarded.I have claimed a compensation totally Rs. 2.33.450/- as per the prov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jun-19-1984
Reported in : AIR1984Ker208
ORDERK.S. Paripoornan, J.1. These two original petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the same petitioner against the same respondent. In O. P. No. 3368 of 1984, the Principal Munsiff, Cochin, is also impleaded asthe 2nd respondent. But that is not necessary and has also no relevance in the light of the subsequent events and the nature of the final disposal of the case. The legality of the proceedings in execution of R.C.P. No. 148 of 1982 is in issue. The petitioner in the O. Ps. is the landlord of a building (No. VI/789 --New number Vl/807, New Road, Cochin-2.) He initiated proceedings for eviction under Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The tenant in R.C.P. No. 148 of 1982 is the respondent. The Rent Control Court, Cochin, passed an order of eviction against the tenant dated 7-9-1983. The litigation had a chequered career. Only the minimum facts necessary for these proceedings are mentioned herein. Suffice it to say, that on 15-2-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Apr-02-1984
Reported in : (1984)IILLJ247Ker
K. Sukumaran, J.1. Malayalam Plantations (India) Ltd., true to its name, owns many estates in the State of Kerala. Kaliyar Estate, Thodupuzha, in Idukki district is one among them. That estate has an extensive area under rubber, and a number of trade unions - respondents 1 to 8. Understandably therefore, there were labour struggles, and settlements thereof, from time to time-including agitations described as 'piston struggle' and 'loan struggle' of 1975 and 1978. A comprehensive settlement of the issues appears to have been reached between the management and the labour in the year 1980.2. By about the middle of 1982, activities of the various Unions were intensified. According to the Unions represented by respondents 1 to 6, the Unions represented by respondents 7 and 8 'belong to Naxalite Groups'. These two Unions presented a charter of demands Ext.P-1 on 20th September, 1982. The Management gave a prompt reply on the same day, stressing in particular the vague and general character o...
Tag this Judgment!