Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: kerala Year: 1968 Page 1 of about 16 results (0.014 seconds)

Mar 04 1968 (HC)

E.A. Thomman and anr. Vs. Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam and an ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Mar-04-1968

Reported in : AIR1969Ker130

..... that would fall within the purview of article 301. the argument that all taxes should be governed by article 301 whether or not their impact on trade is immediate or mediate, direct or remote, adopts, in our opinion, an extreme approach which cannot be upheld. if the said argument is accepted it would mean, for instance, that even a legislative enactment .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 20 1968 (HC)

Velliyottummel Sooppi and ors. Vs. Nadukandy Moossa and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : May-20-1968

Reported in : AIR1969Ker222

raghavan, j.1. the second appeal has been placed before a division bench by madhavan nair j. as our learned brother felt that the case involved a question of adverse possession fresh for this court and as such, the expression of opinion by a division bench on the question was essential.2. we shall state the essential facts to bring out the question. the nine hems of properties involved in this litigation belonged to a mahomedan by name pakkrammar. he died in 1916 leaving his widow and children (defendants 1 to 4--the appellants being defendants 2 to 4, the children) and his father sooppi and mother kunhoma, the parents together were entitled to a third of his estate and his wife and children were entitled to the rest. but, the wife and children took possession of all the properties. kunhoma died; and sooppi also died in 1920 leaving two sons, pokker and mammad, and four daughters, avissa, beeyumma, the fifth defendant and the sixth defendant the plaintiffs, who sued for partition and separate possession of their 12th share in the suit items as the heirs of sooppi and kunhoma, are the widow and children os pokker; defendants 7 to 12 are the widow and children of mammad; defendants 13 14, 20 and 21 are the children of ayissa; defendants 15 to 19 are the children of beeyumma; and defendants 22 to 25 are the children of the fifth defendant the 26th defendant is a person claiming a share through ayissa's husband. some of the defendants died and their legal representatives have .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 29 1968 (HC)

K. Kuttappan Nair Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Oct-29-1968

Reported in : [1969]72ITR426(Ker)

narayana pillai, j.1. this is a reference under section 27(3) of the wealth-tax act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the act, arising out of the wealth-tax assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1962-63 for which the corresponding valuation date is august 16, 1961. 2. the dispute involved in the reference relates to whether an amount of rs. 19,438 being the value of a property standing in the name of the assessee's wife is includible in the net wealth of the assessee. 3. the facts can be summarised in this way : the property was purchased by the assessee's wife on june 12, 1951, for rs. 17,750. it was the assessee who paid the whole consideration for the sale. he included the value of the property in his previous wealth-tax returns and the income from the property in income-tax returns. in his return for the relevant assessment year he showed the value of the property as rs. 19,438 but claimed exemption under section 4(4) of the act. according to him it was on account of a mistake that he happened to include the value of the property and the income from it in his previous returns. 4. the wealth-tax officer rejected the assessee's claim. that decision was upheld by the appellate assistant commissioner of wealth-tax in the appeal filed before him by the assessee. in his order the appellate assistant commissioner found that the sale deed for the property was one taken by the assessee in his wife's name benami for himself. from that order the assessee unsuccessfully .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 15 1968 (HC)

K.P. Noordeen Mohammed Vs. A.K. Gopalan and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jan-15-1968

Reported in : 1968CriLJ1424

raman nayar, j.1. what may be called the ruling political parties of this state, headed by the left communist party, called what they called a kerala bandh for the 11th of september last in pursuance of a policy of mass agitation against the central government. all normal business, whether public or private, was to be suspended throughout the state -- the state government declared that day a public holiday. the bandh was opposed by the political parties not in office, principally by the congress and the jan sangh; and, in the midst of all this, one apprehends that the common man (of common sense and common sensibility), whose name was, of course, freely invoked by both sides, only wished to be left alone to go about his lawful business. the result was that there were clashes in various parts of the state between those who, whether by force or how of force or mere sweet reasonableness, wished to ensure observance of the bandh and those who, in like or unlike measure, resisted their 'persuasion'. in the course of such a clash on the morning of the 11th in the village of kuttoor, near cannanore, two left communist workers karunakaran and kunhikahannan by name, suffered stab injuries to which the former succumbed that night at the government hospital, cannanore. the first information regarding this was recorded at the hospital the same night by a head constable of the cannanore town police station from one kunhikannan -- probably not the injured kunhikannan, but that is not clear .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 1968 (HC)

State of Kerala Vs. Kundumkara Govindan and anr.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Apr-05-1968

Reported in : 1969CriLJ818

t.c. raghavan, j.1. these appeals arise out of two sessions cases disposed of by the additional assistant sessions judge, kasargod. the assistant sessions judge acquitted the respondents, each of whom was the accuaed person in each of the sessions cases. the charge against them was that they committed rape on pw. i (narayani) aged fourteen on 25th june 1966 at about 5,80 p. m. one after the other at the house of the respondent in the second of these appeals (kunhikannan alias kannan nair). the case was that pw. 1, a dhobi girl, took washed clothes to the house of kannan nair, while the respondent in the first of these appeals (govindan alias govindan hair) was also present; that they took the girl foroibly inside the house of kannan nair and laid her on a gunny spread on the ground; and that they committed rape on her one after the other. pw. 1 returned home weeping; but did not disclose the incident to her mother, pw. 2. she became unwell; and her mother bulleting something wrong with the daughter, persistently questioned her. the girl ultimately disclosed the incident to her mother on 27th june; and the mother took the girl to the police station and the latter gave a com. plaint to the police (ex. p-1) on 23th june.2. the respondents denied the offence; and govindan nair said further that he gave rs. 2/- to pw. 1 for purchasing rice and she promised to give him sugar for the amount; that she failed to return the money or to give sugar; that he questioned her at the market .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1968 (HC)

The State of Kerala and ors. Vs. Annam and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Apr-01-1968

Reported in : AIR1969Ker38

madhavan nair, j.1. writ appeal no. 30 of 1968 is by the state against the judgment' dated february 8, 1968, of gopalan nambiyar, j., in o. p. no. 4134 of 1967, wherein the kerala rice and paddy (procurement by levy) order, 1966, and clause 4 of the kerala paddy and rice (declaration and requisitioning of stocks) order, 1966, have been held violative of constitutional provisions. the two orders will be referred to here-inbelpw as 'the levy order' and 'the declaration order' adopting the short-names used by the learned judge.2. the petitioners in the above-said o. p. (a mother and son) are admittedly cultivators of paddy in 30.49 acres of land -- according to the state they cultivate 34.91 acres -- who challenged the levy order which compels them to sell paddy to government on a graduated scale according to acreage against payment of price not exceeding the maximum price fixed by the government, and the declaration order under which they might be compelled to declare the paddy in their possession or control and to sell it to the government, as unconstitutional. by consent of parties, this o. p. was heard by the learned judge, along with 720 others that challenged the above-said orders as also the kerala paddy (maximum prices) order, 1965, and the kerala rice (maximum prices) order, 1965 -- hereinafter 'the maximum prices orders' -- on 'the question of the constitutional validity of the orders' as a 'preliminary point' and by a judgment common for ail the 721 o. ps. the learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 26 1968 (HC)

K.C. Pazhanimala and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jul-26-1968

Reported in : AIR1969Ker154

order new delhi, the 24th july, 1967. g. s. r. 1111. -- in exercise of the powers conferred by section 5 of the essential commodities act, 1955 (10 of 1955), and in supersession of the order of the government of india in the ministry of food, agriculture, community development and co-operation (department of food) no. g. s. r. 906, dated the 9th june, 1966 (as subsequently amended), the central government hereby directs that the powers conferred on it by sub-section (1) of section 5 of the said act to make orders to provide for the matters specified in clauses (a), (b), (c). (d), (c), (f), (h), (i), (ii), and (i) of sub-section (2) thereof shall, in relation to foodstuffs be exercisable also by a state government subject to the conditions- (1) that such powers shall be exercised by a state government subject to such directions, if any, as may be issued by the central government in this behalf; (2) that before making an order relating to any matter specified in the said clauses (a), (c) or (f), or in regard to distribution or disposal of foodstuffs to places outside the state or in regard to regulation of transport of any foodstuff, under the said clause (d), the state gov-ernment shall also obtain the prior concurrence of the central government; and (3) that in making an order relating to any of the matters specified in the said clause (1), the state government shall authorise only an officer of government.' the kerala paddy (restriction on milling) order, 1967 was issued by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 20 1968 (HC)

Kanakku Karthiayani Pillai Narayani Pillai and ors. Vs. Neelacanta Pil ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Aug-20-1968

Reported in : AIR1969Ker280

m. madhavan nair, j. 1. appeal by the 1st defendant, continued by her legal representative.2. the facts are thus: s. no. 529/5 and 11 of nedumpana village belonged to the 1st defendant. it was sold for arrears of land revenue on 21st karkatakam 1116 (1941) and purchased by the 2nd defendant who was also put in possession by the revenue authority. ext. p2 is the relative sale certificate, and ext. p3 the delivery report dated 3rd kanni 1119 (1943). on 19th kanni 1119 (1943) the 2nd defendant sold the western half ofthe property to the plaintiff as per ext. p1 and the eastern half to one cheriyan by another deed. in 1121 (1946) the 1st defendant applied to the collector to set aside the revenue sale. though the collector dismissed it, the board of revenue in revision allowed it and set aside the sale in 1950. the 2nd defendant and cheriyan were alone made parties to the proceedings: the plaintiff was not made a party to the proceedings either before the collector or before the board of revenue and was not therefore heard in the matter. the 2nd defendant took the matter in further appeal before the government, also without making the plaintiff a party, but it was dismissed.thereupon the 1st defendant moved the collector to put her in possession of the property. getting scent of it the plaintiff issued a notice under section 80 c. p. c. to the chief secretary to the government on july 30, 1957 and instituted this suit the very next day. the 1st defendant resisted the suit on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 28 1968 (HC)

Kunjamma Cicily Vs. Kasim Beevi Sulaikha Beevi

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jun-28-1968

Reported in : AIR1969Ker293

balakrishna ebadi, j. 1. the 1stdefendant in o. s. 709 of 1959 on the file of the munsiff's court. trivandrum is the appellant before us.2. the plaintiff-respondent brought the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of her alleged 1/3 share in the plaint schedule property after redemption of a usufructuary mortgage dated 13-9-1918 evidenced by ext. p-4 on payment of the proportionate mortgage amount to the 1st defendant. the courts below have upheld the plaintiff's right to 5/32 shares in the plaint schedule property and passed a preliminary decree for partition and redemption entitling the plaintiff to recover possession of her aforesaid share on deposit of the proportionate mortgage amount and value of improvements. in this second appeal the only contention raised before us on behalf of the appellant is that the plaintiff's right to recover possession of her share of the suit property had become extinguished by adverse possession and limitation and that the suit ought to have been dismissed as barred under article 144 of the limitation act, 1908.3. the plaint schedule property belonged to one vappu kochika who died leaving four sons vava kunju, moideen kunju, adima and sayed mohammed. vava kunju died in 1075 and his widow released her rights in the property in favour of adima in 1079. adima died in 1083 leaving the plaintiff and her mother as his heirs. the plaintiff's mother died in 1110. moideen kunju died in 1084 leaving two sons asanaru and abdul kader. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 20 1968 (HC)

Geevarghese George Vs. K.P. Abraham

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Oct-20-1968

Reported in : AIR1979Ker237

orderkumari p. janaki amma, j.1. the petitioner is the judgment-debtor in a suit for realisation of money. the decree debt is above rupees 10,000/-. when execution was sought, he filed e. a. 4 of 1978 requesting the court to make a reference under order xlvi rule 1 of the c. p. c. the petitioner stated that his annual income is less than rs. 1,000/- and that the debt stood extinguished under section 3 of ordinance 1 of 1977. he contended that the subsequent enactment of kerala debt relief act 17 of 1977 could not revive a debt which stood extinguished and also that section 2 (4) (i) of act 17 of 1977 violated article 14 of the constitution inasmuch as it differentiated between debtors like him whose debt exceeded rs. 3000/- and other debtors. he also contended that the above provision is violative of his fundamental right under articles 19(1)(g), 20 and 31 of the constitution. the executing court held without any discussion that the petition was not maintainable and dismissed the same. the revision petition is filed against the said order.2. there is no doubt that the court below should have passed a speaking order. the order that is now challenged does not show that the court has applied its mind on the points involved. in such cases the proper thing would have been to remand the petition to the court below with a direction to write a proper order. but since the revision petition has to fail on the merits, no purpose will be served if i follow the above procedure. that may .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //